According to mainstream Israeli and US media organizations, Palestinians broke the ceasefire only two days after the historic Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire agreement at Sharm El-Sheikh. It is true. Palestinians fired several rounds of mortars and homemade rockets, weapons that have killed people in the past, at illegal Jewish settlements in Gaza on 11 February. Luckily, no one was hurt in the attacks. However, these media are either marginalizing or not reporting at all some very relevant facts, in particular that Israeli troops killed two unarmed Palestinians in separate incidents prior to the attacks, and that the rocket and mortar attacks were carried out explicitly as a response to the killings. On at least three counts, Israel should therefore be held responsible for endangering the calm in the region. It broke the ceasefire with a first attack in Gaza, and a second attack in Ramallah, and it did so with two deadly results. Yet the Israeli and American publics are hardly likely to think so, simply because they do not know. And through their tax money, they are undoubtedly the largest contributors to arms in the region, arms that are being used to break the ceasefire and to cause the vast majority of casualties in this tragic conflict.

The Jerusalem Post goes as far as to congratulate the Israelis for being morally superior in its headline, ‘IDF [‘Israeli Defense Force’] Holds Fire Despite Rocket Barrage’ (Margot Dudkevitch, Jerusalem Post, 11 February). The headline clearly implies that Israelis are sticking to their end of the deal while untrustworthy Palestinians destroy it. The liberal Israeli daily Ha’aretz, otherwise often celebrated for its unbiased approach, points an unambiguous finger of blame at the Palestinian organization that claimed responsibility for the mortar and rocket attacks: ‘Hamas Rockets Deal a Blow to Sharm Optimism’ (Ha’aretz staff, Ha’aretz, 11 February). But the headline ignores crucial facts, mainly because of a clear political agenda.

The follow-ups on the story are perhaps even more alarming. The US newspaper cooperative, Associated Press, reported that ‘Abbas Heads to Gaza to Confront Militants’ on 11 February with a detailed account of the rocket attacks but nothing on the killings that prompted the attacks. The Atlanta-based CNN reported on its website that ‘Abbas Ousts 3 Security Officers after Gaza Attack’ (cnn.com, 10 February, US EST), referring to Palestinian attacks on ‘Israeli communities in Gaza’, but with not one word spilled on the prehistory of those attacks, and no explanation that settlements of imported civilians by a military power in occupied territory is forbidden by international law, preferring instead to use the innocent-sounding ‘communities’.

The media pressures contributed to the search for accountability among Palestinians for the Palestinian attacks. That is good media work. But should accountability not be demanded for the preceding deadly attacks? Not according to the Israeli and US media whose absolute silence on the matters speaks volumes.

Much more objective was the coverage by the much-acclaimed, though controversial Arab news channel, Al Jazeera, which in the past has been blamed by the west, specifically by US officials for spreading anti-western propaganda, for being tasteless in its reporting of Middle Eastern conflicts as well as for being one-sided in its reporting. Strangely enough, then, Al Jazeera was one of the few news organizations to report the breaking of the ceasefire according to actual facts. On 10 February Al Jazeera reported 'Second Palestinian Killed after Summit' (Al Jazeera.net). In its news item, under 3 chronological sub-headers, Al Jazeera gave a comprehensive and balanced account on the killing of the two Palestinians first, and then included according to the order of the actual events that Hamas fired mortars and rockets as a response.

In the information age in which we live, the effect international media has on public opinion cannot and should not be underestimated. In 2001, the then prime minister-elect Ariel Sharon said "winning the struggle is 80-90 percent dependent on the media's effectiveness", leaving 10 to 20 percent of the struggle to the actual conflict that is taking place on the ground. However, one must never forget of what these 10-20 percent substantially consist. To name but a few: house demolitions, killings with impunity, dehumanizing checkpoint routines, evermore expanding illegal settlements and of course the Apartheid Wall.

The front pages and headlines in the international media following the Sharm El-Sheikh truce agreement were not to oversee, filled with wonderful vocabulary, proclaiming a new dawn in the Middle East. Yet these headlines were soon to be followed by misinformation, disinformation, and crucially, of extremely selective memories, of not reporting the truth at all. News agencies, media outlets, journalists and media workers have the ethical and moral obligation to report events according to facts and the truth, rather than eliminative information used to socially condition and to manipulate the masses.