I'm appalled by what passes as news reporting on the warfare in Gaza.
Even one of the best newspapers of Germany uses such entirely inappropriate terms such as 'Israeli soldier abducted' or '3000 Hamas elite fighters'.*
There's warfare. A soldier cannot possibly be abducted by the opposing warring party unless he's off-duty in civilian clothes. Thus no Israeli soldier was 'abducted', he was probably captured. Israel no doubt took hundreds of Gaza inhabitants captive during the last days - were all these men "abducted"? One might discuss whether civilians would be "abducted", but armed men in a war zone can only be captured, not abducted. And this goes both ways. "Abduction" is a criminal activity, and its's not merely misleading, but a lie to use this word on perfectly normal 'working as intended' wartime behaviour.
The '3000 elite fighters' is total bollocks. The "elite" in there seems to serve but one purpose; to imply that to defeat them completely would be a tough, bloody fight. The German language offers much better ways to express this - without lying about the actual relative qualification of those men.
Besides - 3,000? Wouldn't this tiny share of the population in Gaza (0.17%) justify a report on how tiny Hamas' armed wing actually is? A real mobilization of able-bodied men in a population of this age and size would yield about a hundred times as many combatants**, and even more if women were mobilised as well. It's almost as if the armed wing of Hamas wasn't more than an (armed) loudmouth sideshow.
Inaccuracies in reporting on wars and warfare are unavoidable, but this kind of journalistic nonsense is easily avoidable and appalling, because we're not even a warring party. We should be able to expect our journalists to stay rather neutral or at least quite accurate in this conflict.
Obviously, such expectations would have been too high. This is a horrible litmus test result; imagine we'd be a conflict party sometime in the future. How badly are our journalists going to fail then? How could the public form a well-founded opinion on the conflict if it's being fed that kind of crap?
*: See FAZ of today, article "Ein folgenschwerer Angriff".
**: France mobilised about 10% of its population for the military during the First World War. Their share of military age males was no doubt smaller than in the Gaza Strip now. The World Factbook says there were an estimated 335,820 able-bodied males in military age in Gaza Strip in 2010.
//Comment system is on, but I would only let comments pass which focus on the media, not on the regional aspect of the topic.//