At this point Psaki reminded the journalists that a ceasefire had been declared and while Israel respected it, rockets continued raining down on Israel.
Then still another journalist jumped in with her version of defending Gaza and criticizing Israel. This one agreed that while Hamas may be at fault, it is the Gazan civilian population that is suffering and that is Israel’s fault, and given that Israel used to brag about how precise their intelligence is, how could Israel not know civilians were on the beach.
Once again it was Arikat’s turn to attack Israeli in a whole new way: “Are you counseling Israel not to bomb hospitals?” He then became more specific: “Are you telling the Israelis not to bomb hospitals like Wafa Hospital and the Shifa Hospital?”
When Psaki did not take the bait, Arikat then launched into his standard talking points, about Gaza’s high unemployment rate and the inability of Gazans to move about freely and wrapping up with asking why can’t a ceasefire include the commitment to open up the entry points between Israel and Gaza.
The questions continued along these lines with some of the same reporters jumping back in and asking about how to achieve movement for the Arabs stuck in Gaza.
Then once again Arikat engages with Psaki, asking her why she says Israel has the right to defend itself but that Hamas does not. Matt Lee jumps back in, advocating for the Hamas conditions for a ceasefire, asking why some of those conditions were not reasonable.
It really is quite extraordinary that at least four different reporters advocate the position of Hamas to the state department spokesperson. In a press briefing that lasted less than an hour, journalists’ concern about Gaza took up more than half of that time.
Reporters should not be advocating for one side or another, but rather should be attempting to determine what are the facts in given situations, or what the position is of the U.S. government. But given that there was raw advocacy taking place at the state department briefings, why is it that there is no reporter who is advocating a position that is at least not antagonistic towards Israel, if not one that is knowledgeable and asserts a position consistent with an Israeli version of reality?