The word non commercial is the most loaded word in the world for a reporter.
When journalists are asked to choose between the word and a commercial project, the former has the upper hand.
But the word is so loaded, that the journalists can’t even distinguish between the two.
The only thing journalists have to remember is that the word “non-commercial” means nothing but a project and nothing more.
A non-profit is one that does not use money for its purpose.
A commercial project is one for which money is used for commercial purposes.
There is a difference between the latter and the former.
A nonprofit is a nonprofit organization whose purpose is to raise funds for charitable causes.
The same can be said about a commercial venture.
The word “commercial” does not mean “free,” “free” or “free.”
A commercial venture means that something is being done with money and that it is not free.
That is the word that most journalists use to describe projects they want to cover.
But they cannot differentiate between the projects they have covered in the past, or that they plan to cover in the future.
For example, I was once asked by a reporter for the Jerusalem Post to describe the situation in Gaza.
The reporter was not a journalist, and he had never even been to Gaza.
I asked him to describe it.
“The Israelis are bombing the Gaza Strip.
You’re reporting on that?
Why are you asking me?”
The reporter said, “Well, it’s not really my problem.
I’m reporting on the humanitarian crisis.”
It was a very long time ago.
He was referring to the destruction caused by Israel’s war in Gaza and the devastation that ensued after it was over.
He had not even visited Gaza, much less visited Gaza in the months that followed.
I was surprised to hear that the journalist had never been to the Gaza strip, or even to the coastal strip that had been destroyed.
But he knew that the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza was the result of Israel’s illegal war on Gaza, and that the blockade was the cause of that disaster.
I could have told him that the destruction in Gaza had been caused by the war and that his article had been written on the basis of the truth that Israel was killing innocent civilians in Gaza, but I chose not to.
I said to the reporter, “The war was in Gaza,” but the reporter did not understand what I meant.
He said, in response, “But there was no war.
The war is in the Strip.”
That was my response.
I understood that the reporter had never visited Gaza and that he had not been to a part of Gaza that was bombed by Israel, and had not visited the Strip in the weeks that followed when it was bombed.
That did not mean that I could not have written a story based on the truth.
But it did not help my credibility.
The journalist had to decide whether he would be able to tell the truth in his article, or whether he had to choose to lie about what he had read.
I made a choice: Either he would write a story that was based on what he read in the media and on what I had read in my reporting, or he would lie.
And I chose to lie.
I decided to lie, and my words did not convince him.
The Israeli military has been responsible for the destruction of Gaza since it began bombing the Strip, in the summer of 2014.
Its bombing campaign has killed thousands of civilians and displaced millions.
And it has destroyed Gaza’s infrastructure, including power stations, hospitals and schools.
In this war, the Israeli military and its collaborators have destroyed the infrastructure of Gaza and Gaza residents in the West Bank.
As I wrote in the Times of Israel in August 2015, the destruction is a result of an illegal war.
It was not an accident, and it is a crime.
I am not making this statement to defend Israel, which is an occupation and a criminal state.
But I am saying this: I believe that the war was the product of the occupation and the criminal state that Israel has created.
It is not an oversight on my part, but it is my duty to tell truth.
I can only hope that my colleagues in the international press will see that I have told the truth about the war in the last few weeks and in the years that follow.
In the next article, I will discuss how journalists should not rely on the word of someone who has been in Gaza for more than two years, or who has visited the strip.
I will conclude with a question that should concern everyone who wants to make their work a better source of information.
Do you think that your reporting and the news coverage of the war has damaged the reputation of Israel?
If so, I invite you to share with me your view.
The next time a journalist asks me to explain what Israel is doing in Gaza or why Israel is bombing the strip, I want to remind them that they should not be surprised if they are disappointed by my