Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
How the Media Smears Israel
The fact that Palestinian violence is aimed at Israeli liberals sitting in Tel-Aviv cafes (rather than, say, at Israeli settlers or soldiers) is seen by Israelis as proof that all this is not about the Israeli occupation, but about the existence of Israel. The Palestinians were already offered a state but they want the Right of Return, which means Israel's right not to exist as a Jewish state.
Here are some of the techniques that CNN, BBC and SKY News use:
1) The body count. Comparing the numbers of casualties on both sides suggests an overwhelming imbalance in Israel's favor. Many people are led to interpret this as evidence of Palestinian superior morality and their just cause. A closer look reveals that many Palestinian casualties are terrorists and armed gunmen, dying on their way to a terrorist attack or in battle, while many Israeli casualties are innocent civilians on their way to work. Adjusting for that would lead to a more balanced balance. Western Media rarely make this point.
2) The unbalanced coverage of the human side of the conflict. Western Media covers with great length the plight of, say, a Palestinian pregnant woman who was prevented from reaching the hospital and consequently had to deliver in her bedroom. Old women are shown crying, and a family fridge is shown to be empty of food. This is troubling indeed. But rarely do you see items that follow the agonized family of an Israeli victim of a suicide bomber. The most disturbing item I saw was one trying to "understand" the suicide bombers, talking to their families and in this way making them human. While this could be an interesting academic issue, it leaves the wrong message with ordinary TV viewers.
3) The moral basis. While western media are efficient in reporting innocent Palestinian casualties, they rarely report Palestinian polls that show that 80% of Palestinians support the suicide bombings (even before the latest Israeli military operation). To many Israelis this fact that they want to indiscriminately kill each and every one of us wherever they can greatly erodes our sensitivity to the Palestinians' plight. Israeli support for intentionally killing innocent Palestinians is still negligible. The Arabs often argue that the suicide bombings are the Palestinian response to Israel's use of F-16s. However, that argument is troubling. In what way are Palestinian bombings of Israeli coastal cities' night club districts different than Saddam's Scud missile attacks on Israel a decade ago? He too was arguing that he was doing it for the sake of freeing the Palestinians from Israeli occupation. And one should recall that suicide bombers (though much fewer in number) were sent against innocent Israelis even at the best of the Oslo process' times (1994-1995), when no F-16 was in sight.
Another part of the battle over morality involves the reports on Palestinian ambulances being fired at. Rarely do western reporters try to investigate, or just mention the Israeli claim that the Palestinians often use these ambulances as disguised troop carriers, and load them with explosives and arms. They definitely never tell their audience that many Palestinians are treated in Israeli hospitals and sometimes by Israeli military paramedics.
The same goes for the Church of Nativity: It was the armed Palestinians who either forced the monks to give them shelter (which suggests that the monks are hostages), or the church who willingly let them in (which means it sided with the Palestinians in this war). Israel never wanted the violence to reach that church. The Palestinians use the church to fire at Israelis, which are morally prevented from firing back. And what about the poor children that get hurt? Indeed it is terrible. But rarely do western journalists take care to report how the Palestinians themselves are careless with their children, firing at IDF soldiers from within a crowd of kids. That poor Palestinian kid who was shot at the beginning of the Intifada - Mohammad Dura - There's no proof at all that the IDF shot him. A recent German TV show found mixed evidence. Anyway, he was caught in the firing zone, nobody tried to purposely kill him. But like in many libels, the "sorry, we were wrong" part comes in small print and not in the front page.
4) De-legitimization of the IDF. It is very difficult for some western journalists to hide their frustration and anger at restrictions that the IDF imposes on their freedom of movement. They would like to cover the war right were it all happens. So they sometimes disobey the army and get hurt in the war, blaming it on the IDF. They come to resent the IDF and it affects their reporting. At some point I saw a BBC TV reporter saying, "We were prevented from going into that street. Something terrible may be happening there that the IDF does not want us to see." Is TV reporting about facts and their interpretation or about conspiracy theories? I think part of the problem of reporters is that they are prisoners of the "Lebanon 1982" concept. Many of them are conditioned by Sharon's last war, the one in 1982 in Lebanon. So they expect a massacre, and would invent one to fit the story, even if none happens.
5) Confusing the evidence. In a number of cases I saw reporters talk about Palestinian victims while showing pictures of Israeli victims. No matter if you can't get proof of Palestinian claims. You can still prove Israeli aggression with evidence of Israeli victims.
6) Double standard. This is a problem Israel has been suffering ever since 1967. We are always held to a standard that no other country is held to. Does anybody know how many innocent civilians died in Afghanistan? Did western media bother to try hard enough to find out? Isn't the concept of "carpet bombing" terrible (indiscriminate killing)? And what about the 800 Muslims who were killed in riots in India recently? Yes, you heard about it, but nobody is suggesting an embargo on India and sending UN forces. The argument that the disaster on September 11 is not like the suicide bombings in Israel is unacceptable to Israelis and infuriates them. We don't see the difference, and often feel that westerners think our blood to be cheaper than theirs. Trying Sharon in Belgium for the 1982 massacre (which he at most is only indirectly responsible to, and already have won a libel suit on this issue), while pardoning everybody else involved in that terrible atrocity. What about Dutch responsibility for a massacre in the Balkans? And so on and so on. This double standard is sheer anti-Semitism.
7) The role of the leaders in this crisis. Some journalists can't hide their anger or dismay at Israelis for electing Sharon. Arafat, on the other hand, is forever the only representative of the Palestinian people. It is amazing how quickly westerners can throw away their passion for democracy when it comes to the Palestinians. Arafat was elected in 1996 by a majority of more than 90% of voters. Does this look like democracy? The west keeps telling Israel that Arafat will forever be the only leader of the Palestinians. Does this look like democracy? Recently the French have been pushing for another round of staged elections to renew the "democratic mandate" of Arafat. I am not going to tell the Palestinians how to run their politics, but how can the west accept Arafat and not Sharon? Israelis kick their PMs out of office when they fail to be good on their promises. Even Sharon's opponents know that he will eventually be replaced. Arafat's eternity on the other hand, is the region's tragedy.
It is not just a matter of fair reporting and justice. The problem (westerners' problem as well as Israelis') is that you end up with the wrong impression about the Middle East, you don't understand Israelis ("what has happened to Israel?" is a common question today among supporters of Israel), and you don't understand your governments (which know better than TV images, but are now often charged with being hostage to Jews). You will never resolve the situation unless you honestly try to understand the situation. Worse, Israelis are growing tired of decades of anti-Israeli western Media. Many Israelis are becoming desperate as a result of the world ganging up on us, and start to question the west's commitment to our existence. I remember Kofi Annan's recent words, that if the whole world is united against Israel, it is proof that Israel is wrong. And I say, on the contrary. When the whole world is united against Israel, this is exactly when the world should pause and reflect. Previous periods when the whole world was united against so many Jews led to events that the world came later to regret. Ganging up on Israel is also counter-productive. Instead of splitting us, it makes us more resolved. It is time for westerners to question the way they are given information and the narrative that this information is filtered to support.
The main point is that while the Palestinians are in a dire situation, it is much their leadership's fault. It was their choice to turn to violence when what Barak offered at Camp David was not enough for them. He went even further in Taba, but they did not stop the violence. This refutes the Palestinian argument that if a political discussion started violence would subside. We tried that. It was their violence that brought Sharon to power. I personally voted for Barak, but many people in Israel thought that since the Palestinians forced a war on Israel, Sharon would be better to handle it. And it is Palestinian violence that prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state (70% of Israelis still support it, as long as it is not an enemy state). Israeli violence towards Palestinians is only a secondary factor in explaining their violence.
The current violence is Arafat's strategic choice. This is why:
1) Arafat bought that shipload of weapons from the Iranians (nothing on that scale and of that strategic importance could have taken place without his permission).
2) Arafat personally and his aids (that look so liberal on CNN) signed checks to the terrorists.
3) Arafat continently preached on Palestinian TV for a million martyrs to march on to Jerusalem.
4) The current violence is termed by Palestinians the Al-Aqsa uprising (a term which suggests both a Palestinian purpose in this violence, and a Palestinian initiative in it).
5) Arafat's men are actively involved in terrorism. All this refutes the argument that it is Israel's destruction of Arafat's security forces that prevents him from controlling the violence.
1) The body count. Comparing the numbers of casualties on both sides suggests an overwhelming imbalance in Israel's favor. Many people are led to interpret this as evidence of Palestinian superior morality and their just cause. A closer look reveals that many Palestinian casualties are terrorists and armed gunmen, dying on their way to a terrorist attack or in battle, while many Israeli casualties are innocent civilians on their way to work. Adjusting for that would lead to a more balanced balance. Western Media rarely make this point.
2) The unbalanced coverage of the human side of the conflict. Western Media covers with great length the plight of, say, a Palestinian pregnant woman who was prevented from reaching the hospital and consequently had to deliver in her bedroom. Old women are shown crying, and a family fridge is shown to be empty of food. This is troubling indeed. But rarely do you see items that follow the agonized family of an Israeli victim of a suicide bomber. The most disturbing item I saw was one trying to "understand" the suicide bombers, talking to their families and in this way making them human. While this could be an interesting academic issue, it leaves the wrong message with ordinary TV viewers.
3) The moral basis. While western media are efficient in reporting innocent Palestinian casualties, they rarely report Palestinian polls that show that 80% of Palestinians support the suicide bombings (even before the latest Israeli military operation). To many Israelis this fact that they want to indiscriminately kill each and every one of us wherever they can greatly erodes our sensitivity to the Palestinians' plight. Israeli support for intentionally killing innocent Palestinians is still negligible. The Arabs often argue that the suicide bombings are the Palestinian response to Israel's use of F-16s. However, that argument is troubling. In what way are Palestinian bombings of Israeli coastal cities' night club districts different than Saddam's Scud missile attacks on Israel a decade ago? He too was arguing that he was doing it for the sake of freeing the Palestinians from Israeli occupation. And one should recall that suicide bombers (though much fewer in number) were sent against innocent Israelis even at the best of the Oslo process' times (1994-1995), when no F-16 was in sight.
Another part of the battle over morality involves the reports on Palestinian ambulances being fired at. Rarely do western reporters try to investigate, or just mention the Israeli claim that the Palestinians often use these ambulances as disguised troop carriers, and load them with explosives and arms. They definitely never tell their audience that many Palestinians are treated in Israeli hospitals and sometimes by Israeli military paramedics.
The same goes for the Church of Nativity: It was the armed Palestinians who either forced the monks to give them shelter (which suggests that the monks are hostages), or the church who willingly let them in (which means it sided with the Palestinians in this war). Israel never wanted the violence to reach that church. The Palestinians use the church to fire at Israelis, which are morally prevented from firing back. And what about the poor children that get hurt? Indeed it is terrible. But rarely do western journalists take care to report how the Palestinians themselves are careless with their children, firing at IDF soldiers from within a crowd of kids. That poor Palestinian kid who was shot at the beginning of the Intifada - Mohammad Dura - There's no proof at all that the IDF shot him. A recent German TV show found mixed evidence. Anyway, he was caught in the firing zone, nobody tried to purposely kill him. But like in many libels, the "sorry, we were wrong" part comes in small print and not in the front page.
4) De-legitimization of the IDF. It is very difficult for some western journalists to hide their frustration and anger at restrictions that the IDF imposes on their freedom of movement. They would like to cover the war right were it all happens. So they sometimes disobey the army and get hurt in the war, blaming it on the IDF. They come to resent the IDF and it affects their reporting. At some point I saw a BBC TV reporter saying, "We were prevented from going into that street. Something terrible may be happening there that the IDF does not want us to see." Is TV reporting about facts and their interpretation or about conspiracy theories? I think part of the problem of reporters is that they are prisoners of the "Lebanon 1982" concept. Many of them are conditioned by Sharon's last war, the one in 1982 in Lebanon. So they expect a massacre, and would invent one to fit the story, even if none happens.
5) Confusing the evidence. In a number of cases I saw reporters talk about Palestinian victims while showing pictures of Israeli victims. No matter if you can't get proof of Palestinian claims. You can still prove Israeli aggression with evidence of Israeli victims.
6) Double standard. This is a problem Israel has been suffering ever since 1967. We are always held to a standard that no other country is held to. Does anybody know how many innocent civilians died in Afghanistan? Did western media bother to try hard enough to find out? Isn't the concept of "carpet bombing" terrible (indiscriminate killing)? And what about the 800 Muslims who were killed in riots in India recently? Yes, you heard about it, but nobody is suggesting an embargo on India and sending UN forces. The argument that the disaster on September 11 is not like the suicide bombings in Israel is unacceptable to Israelis and infuriates them. We don't see the difference, and often feel that westerners think our blood to be cheaper than theirs. Trying Sharon in Belgium for the 1982 massacre (which he at most is only indirectly responsible to, and already have won a libel suit on this issue), while pardoning everybody else involved in that terrible atrocity. What about Dutch responsibility for a massacre in the Balkans? And so on and so on. This double standard is sheer anti-Semitism.
7) The role of the leaders in this crisis. Some journalists can't hide their anger or dismay at Israelis for electing Sharon. Arafat, on the other hand, is forever the only representative of the Palestinian people. It is amazing how quickly westerners can throw away their passion for democracy when it comes to the Palestinians. Arafat was elected in 1996 by a majority of more than 90% of voters. Does this look like democracy? The west keeps telling Israel that Arafat will forever be the only leader of the Palestinians. Does this look like democracy? Recently the French have been pushing for another round of staged elections to renew the "democratic mandate" of Arafat. I am not going to tell the Palestinians how to run their politics, but how can the west accept Arafat and not Sharon? Israelis kick their PMs out of office when they fail to be good on their promises. Even Sharon's opponents know that he will eventually be replaced. Arafat's eternity on the other hand, is the region's tragedy.
It is not just a matter of fair reporting and justice. The problem (westerners' problem as well as Israelis') is that you end up with the wrong impression about the Middle East, you don't understand Israelis ("what has happened to Israel?" is a common question today among supporters of Israel), and you don't understand your governments (which know better than TV images, but are now often charged with being hostage to Jews). You will never resolve the situation unless you honestly try to understand the situation. Worse, Israelis are growing tired of decades of anti-Israeli western Media. Many Israelis are becoming desperate as a result of the world ganging up on us, and start to question the west's commitment to our existence. I remember Kofi Annan's recent words, that if the whole world is united against Israel, it is proof that Israel is wrong. And I say, on the contrary. When the whole world is united against Israel, this is exactly when the world should pause and reflect. Previous periods when the whole world was united against so many Jews led to events that the world came later to regret. Ganging up on Israel is also counter-productive. Instead of splitting us, it makes us more resolved. It is time for westerners to question the way they are given information and the narrative that this information is filtered to support.
The main point is that while the Palestinians are in a dire situation, it is much their leadership's fault. It was their choice to turn to violence when what Barak offered at Camp David was not enough for them. He went even further in Taba, but they did not stop the violence. This refutes the Palestinian argument that if a political discussion started violence would subside. We tried that. It was their violence that brought Sharon to power. I personally voted for Barak, but many people in Israel thought that since the Palestinians forced a war on Israel, Sharon would be better to handle it. And it is Palestinian violence that prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state (70% of Israelis still support it, as long as it is not an enemy state). Israeli violence towards Palestinians is only a secondary factor in explaining their violence.
The current violence is Arafat's strategic choice. This is why:
1) Arafat bought that shipload of weapons from the Iranians (nothing on that scale and of that strategic importance could have taken place without his permission).
2) Arafat personally and his aids (that look so liberal on CNN) signed checks to the terrorists.
3) Arafat continently preached on Palestinian TV for a million martyrs to march on to Jerusalem.
4) The current violence is termed by Palestinians the Al-Aqsa uprising (a term which suggests both a Palestinian purpose in this violence, and a Palestinian initiative in it).
5) Arafat's men are actively involved in terrorism. All this refutes the argument that it is Israel's destruction of Arafat's security forces that prevents him from controlling the violence.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
I don't condone suicide bombings; they are horrible and completely unconscionable and unjustifiable. It is regrettable that the Palestinians have come to support these indiscrimate bombings and have come down to level of Israel. The state of Israel as it now exists, is a state founded on the brutal occupation of a people. The history of Israel is clear: that of an expansionist colonial settler state. There is no getting around these facts, and the current situation in the Middle East is a reflection of the desperation of the Palestinian people. Your arguments sound a lot like those of a white settler from South Africa or a white slaveholder from the antebellum United States: we can't keep down those dirty sand-niggers, and it's their fault that we have to invade their territory and brutalize them. I suppose that the Palestinians didn't lear their lesson.
You really should get outside of Israel. Westerners are fairly well informed and know what's going on!
FACT: Jews have been persecuted -- 6 million died during the Holocaust and were disappropriated and ousted from their homes and the world stood by; FACT Israel is the historic home of Jews, the spiritual center of Judaism and there has always been a Jewish presence there; FACT: No one else has been willing to take the Jews who were made refugees by Hitler the Russians and the Moslem theocracies that drove them out and they need a safe haven.
By the logic you give all Moslems who claimed homes of the 700,000 Jews ousted from the Arab world should be allowed to take up arms to reclaim their homes and the millions of Jewish refugees should be given an unlimited right of return to Europe kicking out the previous occupants.
And as for your argument equating Zionism with Nazism -- you obviously haven't studied very much history. Well I have!
What was the catalyst for Herzl to devise the concept of Zionism? Anti-Semitism -- that's right, read your history. The Dreyfuss Affair, where the French Right insidiously framed a Jewish officer of treachery with forgeries and a deliberate Anti-Semitic smear campaign. Herzl became convinced that only when Jews had a place they could call their own and resort to in case things went awry in the diaspora could they truly be safe. Does that make him a racist? NO! Does it make him a realist? Yes. Israel is a pragmatic realist state for the survival of the Jewish people, whom some on this site obviously care very little for.
From the Crusades to the Russian & Polish & Romanian pogroms of the 19th and early 20th Centuries to the Holocaust, Jews have particularly been persecuted and murdered for their distinctive religion and culture as well as for a million stereotypes or percieved slights. They've been persecuted for too communist and too capitalist in their economic and political philosophy. They've been persecuted for being too distinctive and refusing to assimilate and they've been persecuted for assimilating. They've been persecuted for being successful and persecuted for being failures. They've been persecuted because they didn't have a country and now they are being persecuted because they do.
The madness needs to stop and the only way to do that is to give Jews a place that is theirs.
It is intellectually dishonest to claim that Jews have not been persecuted to the point that we need a place to call our own. This is not due to our racism -- this is due to the racism of others who ostracized and persecuted Jews to the point that Jews decided they needed a safe haven!
Just take a look at the wave of anti-Jewish violence that has swept the world in the last weeks. Anti-Jewish pogroms in France and Eastern Europe, a synagogue bombed in Tunisia (16 dead) and one in Saskatoon, hate crimes here in Berkeley including the assault on two Orthodox men and two other assaults in the last year and egging of students in the middle of observance of Yom Kippur as well as a cinderblock through the window and grafitti "F-- the Jews." On the streets of Berlin, the site of Nazi atrocities two middle eastern men asked two women if they were Jewish, because they saw the 21 year old wearing the religious symbol the Star of David. When she said she was, he assaulted both women bruising them badly in the face and ripping off the Star of David, not because they support Israel, but because they were Jews!
This wave of anti-Semitic hate and pogroms proves that Israel is necessary. The answer to the Israeli Palestinian conflict must work for both parties -- namely security for Israel within the parameters of Camp David or Taba agreements and a Palestinian state in the West Bank Gaza and Arab East Jerusalem. Jews are entitled to security and after the Holocaust, it is unconscionable for you to rationalize doing away with Israel.
A Hassidic visitor from NY were asked if he was Jewish and then was beaten by Arab men. So since when is Berlin safe?
And what is your brilliant Plan B for Jews' safety anyway? I'd really like to hear that one.
Since the US and UK created this horrible mess, the solution should come outta their hides. A religious state is obviously horrible and backward, but at least we can avert some apocalyptic nuclear tragedy by owning up to the failure of this idea and correcting it. The Jewish people have been set up for the worst massacre in history.... and unfortunately, they could be the perpetrators as well as the victims.
Israelis are the new South Africans. The infamy of their injustices inflicted may outlive the infamy of the injustices they have received.
where's MY fucking safe haven?
I'm waiting for some one to give me a serious Plan B for Jews if Israel doesn't exist, given the fact that Arabs are attacking JEWS not Israelis around the world. Right now I don't feel safe in the USA much less Europe where Jews are daily getting their synagogues and cemetaries vandalized or destroyed or personally attacked. Shame on you for only caring for one group and not the other.
Local officials estimated the size of the crowd at 100,000, with an estimated 1,200 charter buses carrying out-of-towners to the capital for the rally. The crowd was fired up; a few churls even booed Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, when he observed--accurately--that there are innocent Palestinians among the casualties of the war in the Mideast.
Arab leaders, Palestinian sympathizers, listen up: The American street is enraged, and you'd best ask yourselves: Why do they hate us? If you're honest, you'll acknowledge that we're fed up with your one-sided policies toward the Middle East. And if you're not honest, you risk paying an immense price. America's leaders cannot ignore the anger of the street; if they do, the street may bring down the moderate pro-Arab government currently in the White House. It is long past time for Arab leaders to appease the American street. If they let this crisis fester until Americans get desperate, there's no telling what we might do.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56773-2002Apr15.html
Nice Try... The American Street is turning against Israel, because Israel is everything the US is supposed to stand against. It is an evil corrupt military society, a cancer of messianic colonialism, engaged in the realization of apocalyptic prophecy.
The real enemy is the Illuminati.