The Economist’s reporting on the Middle East has been declining for the past year, but since when is the newspaper in the practice of apologizing for Israel? This came as quite a shock after years of what I considered to be fairly well-balanced and objective coverage — certainly the best coverage out of the Western mainstream media.

Israel has argued that Hamas fighters endangered civilians by basing themselves around schools, mosques and hospitals. The mission had Hamas’s co-operation, but its fact-finders could detect little or no evidence for this—despite plenty of reports in the public domain to support it. The report does criticise Hamas for firing rockets indiscriminately into Israel and for using the conflict as cover to settle scores with its Palestinian rivals. But its seemingly willful blindness to other evidence makes that look like a dash for political cover. (full article…)

Here the author (who I can only suspect has been hired within the past year) criticizes the Goldstone report for overlooking “plenty of reports in the public domain” which attest to Hamas’ alleged practice of hiding in civilian areas. Which reports? The author doesn’t say. I certainly haven’t come across any such reports. In fact, I have read multiple reports stating precisely the opposite — that there is no evidence Hamas deliberately used civilian areas — which the Goldstone report simply confirms. Also, the author accuses the investigators of “willful blindness to other evidence”—evidence the author then conveniently fails to specify.

The author then attempts to minimize Israeli atrocities by suggesting that we should be grateful they didn’t kill more civilians!

As many as 1,400 people died in the fighting. It is a grisly thought, but if Israel really had wanted to make Palestinian civilians suffer, the toll could have been vastly higher. (full article…)

So because Israel decided against dropping a nuclear bomb, The Economist takes this as evidence that Israel did not intentionally target civilians. Did they read the Goldstone report? In fact, did they read their own reporting at the time?

The, just before concluding with some banal remarks about the future of peace talks, the same article contains this gem:

Israel is pursuing 23 criminal investigations so far into the Gaza operations. It must finish the job. Unlike Syria, say, Israel is a democracy that claims to live by the rule of law. It needs to make its case by moral force as well as by force of arms. (full article…)

What? First of all, The Economist knows very well how Israeli investigations are typically conducted. In the rare case that soldiers (and never the commanders) are found guilty of excessive force or downright sadism, they usually receive ridiculously light sentences which are (more often than not) commuted after only a few months.

Secondly, on the issue of Israeli democracy, The Economist must maintain at least the guise of neutrality. So what if Israel calls itself a democracy? Do we accept this at face value now? Many countries use this term without a scrap of justification in their actions. And I’m positive the Syrian government would certainly claim that it lives “by the rule of law” as the author puts it…

This article is far below the standards I have grown accustomed to in The Economist. I must say, this is a disappointing development.