I have written numerous posts on the blogger formerly still known as Dickie Silverstein, and I think I have succeeded in pointing out he is someone who cannot be trusted as a source on goings on in the Middle East. But in case you are still not convinced, I think some of his latest shenanigans further illustrate this point.
After the recent UN report expressed the likelihood that the 10-month-old son of a BBC employee was killed by a Hamas rocket – and not by Israel as many (like Silverstein himself) claimed – I tweeted the following:
.@richards1052 recently released UN report found he was killed by Hamas rocket: How about issuing a correction?
— Aussie Dave (@israellycool) March 11, 2013
Despite the findings, Silverstein refused to correct his post or issue a correction, instead focusing on the fact that the report mentioned the likelihood of the baby being killed by a Hamas rocket and did not issue an unequivocal statement.
Despite IDF apologists claims, UN rpt “cannot unequivocally state” Palestinian rocket killed baby of BBC reporter nytimes.com/2013/03/12/wor…
— Tikun Olam (@richards1052) March 12, 2013
In other words, Silverstein has chosen to leave unaltered his original post – which unequivocally states the IDF killed the baby – despite the fact the UN report thinks the likelier scenario is Hamas killed the baby.
Now fast forward not even a day,where Silverstein has this to say about a BBC report about the efficacy of the Iron Dome rocket system.
BBC reports on pathetic 5% success rate of Iron Dome system…1 wk after I did. bbc.co.uk/news/world-mid…
— Tikun Olam (@richards1052) March 12, 2013
Here is what the report actually said:
Mr Postol says that while he cannot say what the performance of Iron Dome was in Operation Pillar of Defence, “all the available evidence unambiguously indicates a drastically lower level of performance than the 84% claimed by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).”
His view is that the successful hit rate on incoming warheads could be as low as 5-10%.
In other words, here we have a report quoting someone who mentions the possibility of a 5-10% hit rate and Silverstein translates this as an unequivocal statement of a 5% hit rate.
See the double standard? Where something paints Israel in a not negative light (I won’t even go as far as to say positive), Silverstein is not willing to accept it unless it has been unequivocally found to be the case (and even then, he doesn’t accept it). But where something paints Israel in a negative light, a lower standard of proof suffices.
So there you have it, folks. Yet another in a litany of examples demonstrating that no-one in their right mind should be taking this guy’s rantings seriously.
