On February 3rd, 2016 there was a terrorist attack at the Old City’s Damascus Gate by three Arabs which resulted in the assassination of Hadar Cohen and injured a female border patrol officer. The men were equipped with weapons, knives, and explosives and were prepared for a large attack which was prevented by the brave border patrol. UN Director-General Ban Ki-Moon commented about the incident as a “natural response” to the occupation occurring in Palestine which called the attention of the Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon to Ban through a letter. He addressed Ban Ki-Moon ordering him to revoke his statement which advocates for terrorism to occur in Israel. He then continued to honor the nineteen year old victim that blocked a larger catastrophe from occurring by risking her own life. Ban’s statements have not only interfered with his popularity within Israel but also within Jews living in the diaspora. He was expected to give a speech at Park East Synagogue in New York City for International Holocaust Remembrance Day but was booed by the audience over his stand on the terrorist attack
.
The writer Shimon Cohen had mostly factual data but failed to give background information about the incident which provides the reader an understanding of why the event occurred. It is a fact that Hadar Cohen was a victim of the three Arab terrorist attack and so was another officer that was present during the scene. The two officers approached the skeptical trio that then attacked the officers with weapons not only shooting but also stabbing the victims. When reading the article for the first time I was confused as to why the Arabs were directly attacking the female border patrols. When reading CNN’s version of the incident I learned that they were not attacking them specifically but intending to do greater harm. In Cohen’s article only the shooting was mentioned but not the stabbing during the attack. Ban’s statement was also only referred in fragments excluding the reason why the provocative statements were said. The article made it clear that Ban was justifying terror and made it clear where he stood when referring to the war occurring in Palestine. Ban’s opinion was constructed as very objective and understanding of why violence toward Israel is taking place. It never mentioned that Ban is supportive of a two-state solution in order to remove the hate and extremism. He claims it is a human reaction that all the terrorism is occurring due to provocative acts. Many claim that the UN ambassador should have remained neutral on such a sensitive issue.
The author, Shimon Cohen is sympathetic to the Israeli victims by only quoting UN Director-General Ban Ki-Moon small portion of this speech. He is against Ban’s opinion and supportive of the UN Danny Danon action of rejecting Ban’s subjective speech. By only using part of Ban’s speech the author was generating a false interpretation of what the ambassador was trying to convey. He only quotes the part that frenzies the audience which speaks about Ban’s vindication on terrorism toward Israel. The author states that Ban quotes it was a “natural response” as a justification for the attack. He continues on to repeat all the fragments of Ban’s speech which most people disagree with. Cohen never fully provides a complete section of the speech which thoroughly provides Ban’s section of his speech. He also did not give any background information leading toward the event of the crime explaining why the Arab men decided to take this action leading toward Hadar Cohen’s murder. The writer did not state Ban’s opinion on creating Israel into a two-state solution which would explain (not justify) why he would make such a comment toward the violence occurring in Palestine. The author is very subjective in composing an article that is targeted in effectively getting the reader to dissent Ban Ki-Moon by his scandalous attitude toward terrorism.
No comments:
Post a Comment