Following the senseless slaughter of four Israeli soldiers, The Economist attempted to describe the history behind the term intifada The word is associated with Palestinian-Arab terrorist attacks that not only slaughtered thousands of Jews, but also resulted in senseless infighting amongst Palestinian-Arab populations. It also resulted in various Israeli operations that created the security barrier and the current security apparatus around Judea and Samaria.
In describing the history of intifadas, The Economist wrote the following squib of alternative facts:
Violence is a hallmark of an intifada. During the first (1987-93, pictured), beatings by Israeli soldiers injured thousands of Palestinian children, some as young as ten. During the second (2000-05), Palestinian militants blew up Israeli buses and nightclubs. The body count has also been high recently: 40 Israelis and more than 200 Palestinians have been killed since September 2015. But bloodshed is not the only distinguishing feature of an intifada. A second measure of an intifada is its level of organisational support. The first intifada was overseen by an umbrella of popular committees. The second saw militant groups fight pitched battles against Israeli troops. Both intifadas also had specific causes. The first started after an Israeli army truck hit a group of Palestinians in Gaza, killing four. The second was sparked by Ariel Sharon’s visit to holy sites in Jerusalem.
From the start, The Economist insinuates that the First Intifada started with “beatings by Israeli soldiers injuring thousands of Palestinian children.” This is not true. While many state that the intifada started when an Israeli truck ran over Palestinian-Arab refugees in Gaza, Palestinian-Arab terrorist attacks happened prior to the aforementioned incident and created tensions between Israelis and the Palestinian-Arabs. Furthermore, that sentence insinuates that the violence during the First Intifada was predominately on the Israelis’ part. That is also false. Approximately 200 Israelis were killed by Palestinian-Arab terrorism during the intifada. If The Economist wanted to be honest about the event, then it would have addressed the genocidal character of Palestinian-Arab terrorists.
The main falsehood that The Economist promulgates is how the Second Intifada started. According to their alternative facts, Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount sparked the intifada. In fact, Palestine Liberation Organization leader and career terrorist Yassar Arafat planned the intifada long before Sharon’s visit, provided arms to the genocidal terrorist group Hamas, and sparked the intifada not long after the Camp David talks collapsed under President Bill Clinton’s presidency. In short, the Palestinian-Arab leadership saw Sharon’s visit as an opportunity to start a bloody wave of terrorism that subsequently led to the current security situation in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.
Approximately 200 Israelis were killed by Palestinian-Arab terrorism during the intifada.
If The Economist wants to deal in alternative facts, then it should not be surprised if it joins CNN on the list of fake news propagators.
Follow Elliott on Twitter.