Anti Semitism

rlogue · 06-09-2006 12:36am

Hezbollah, Iran and Syria would say: "Because the Zionist Entity is there"

Blue37 · 06-09-2006 1:32am

Akrasia wrote:

An israeli would say 'the last one'

Indeed they would

They'd be wrong though

Frederico · 06-09-2006 11:20am

Deleted User wrote:

I think the exact opposite, the media in Ireland is almost an official mouthpiece for the Palestinian cause. Any time Israel do anything wrong, we get distressing photos of Palestinian children cowering in rubble. I can't think of the last time I saw photos of victims of rocket attacks in Haifa. The ultimate was the interview RTE did with children, the 'neutral' reporter showed Palestinian children crying for peace, whereas the only interview of Jewish children broadcast had them saying they wanted the war to go on. It was disgraceful.

When 60 school children are killed by a bomb in Sri Lanka do we hear about it? no, when 1 person is killed by a suicide bomb in Tel Aviv we do.

Let me put it this way, every week Palestinians are killed and we rarely hear about it, any Jewish person who is killed makes it into the "unbiased media".

What would you do if the IRA killed an English soldier and then the British army came in and demolished your house, and then it went down the road to where 18 families lived and demolished that entire building, then went further down the road to a huge complex housing dentists, vets, etc and demolished that, then randomly arrested alot of people, then keep the civilian populace awake all night with sonic booms from military jets, etc, etc.. its called state terrorism and we see or hear very little about it on the news.

06-09-2006 11:35am

Frederico wrote:

When 60 school children are killed by a bomb in Sri Lanka do we hear about it? no, when 1 person is killed by a suicide bomb in Tel Aviv we do.

4 million died in the Second Congo War between 98 and 2003. It is said that up to recently one thousand people a day still die there as a result of the problems from the conflict. Barely a flicker of news.

A few hundred Lebanese die (in an admittedly outargeous war) and we run out of ways in which to condemn Israel in the media and here. Why should we register one as more newsworthy than another? My guess is that we couldn't blame the Jews and America for the Congo...

Frederico · 06-09-2006 11:56am

Deleted User wrote:

4 million died in the Second Congo War between 98 and 2003. It is said that up to recently one thousand people a day still die there as a result of the problems from the conflict. Barely a flicker of news.

A few hundred Lebanese die (in an admittedly outargeous war) and we run out of ways in which to condemn Israel in the media and here. Why should we register one as more newsworthy than another? My guess is that we couldn't blame the Jews and America for the Congo...

I am saying that America/Israel/Britain hold a much higher news agenda than anywhere else. If you are a reporter and you want a story you could walk around Tel Aviv and film people out enjoying the sun, or you could go and film the misery, overcrowding and suffering in Palestine. Its much more newsworthy. To combat this Israel (during this war) pumped out its own unique America(tm) brand of propaganda, complete with spokesmen, soundbites, indoctrination, buzz words, etc. People just didn't buy it, simply because it just wasn't the truth. It was spin. The Israelis were punishing the Lebanese people as hard as they could and disguising it as a supremely noble hunt for terror with the civilian's best interest at heart.

Ironically the Palestinian side of things were completely forgotten once the war got into full swing. It was only when the dust starting rising that some people started to realise how much the Israeli's had punished the Palestinians when the world's attention was on something else. Quite disgusting really.

bonkey · 06-09-2006 12:06pm

Deleted User wrote:

Were the fundamentalist terrorists using a plane as a flying bomb really the underdogs against all those bankers and cleaning staff and secretaries in the Twin Towers? Never saw it like that myself.

By this logic, when its civilians-on-a-bus-or-in-a-restaurant vs guy-with-chest-pack-of-C4, then the underdog must also be the civilians.

But you wonder if Ireland has a "support the underdog" psyche which is why we are against Israel.

There would seem to be a logical failure there.

Either the definition of who the underdog is and how we determine them shifts about, or clearly it can't be a "support the underdog" that causes us to so-often side against Israel.

If your 911 underdog understanding is correct, then we'd be supporting the common man - the cilvians on both sides who are the underdog in each specific attack.

Alternately, if we should be looking at the larger picture - force vs. force - then America was not the underdog on 911 and the fact that we sided with the greatest military power when it was attacked by a relative gnat shows that we don't just blindly support the underdog.

In either case, it would seem that we're not just supporting the underdog.

Take your point about the 'balanced' 'fair' distinction. I believe RTE and the Irish media are both unbalanced and unfair in their portrayal of Israel as the agressor always and airbrushing the sins of the Palestinians/Hamas/Hezbollah etc.

Can you show an article that is both unfair and unbalanced, and explain how it should have been reported in a fair and balanced way? Ideally, it should also be representative of typicaly Irish reporting, so not something from a typically-one-sided opinion-piece writer.

I'd like to see whether or not there's broad agreement on what you consider to be "fair" and "balanced", rather than risking a repeat of the confusion we've already established arises from your understanding of the term "underdog" and how you appear to apply it.

jc

bomb_thrower · 06-09-2006 12:52pm

I think its fairly obvious why most Irish sympathise with the Palestinians.....we were victims of imperialism for centuries before independence, the Palestinians have been victims of Israeli imperialism now for 60 odd years, ever since 100s of thousands were ethnically cleansed in '48. The Palest. have also been abandoned to a large extent by the puppet Arab regimes, keen to sell their souls to US weapons manufacturers. Even Syria and Iran don't seem to have done much for them dspite professing to be on their side. Why has Iran not given the Palest. some of that high tech gear they gave to Hzbollah for example.

A Jew I used to know rather amusingly said that if you gave a Palestinian a tank, he'd probably try and put it in a slingshot to chuck at the Izzies. The military feebleness of the Palest. is perhaps the major reason why they garner both sorrow (from us) and contempt (by the Israelis/US/puppets) where as Hizbollah now have huge respect from the Arab street and grudging respect from the Zios.

bonkey · 06-09-2006 1:59pm

bomb_thrower wrote:

I think its fairly obvious why most Irish sympathise with the Palestinians

Well, if your version of events were fair and balanced, there'd be no argument.

Unfortunately, there is no agreemet that its as simple as you make it out to be, so it can't be fairly obvious.

It can be "fairly obvious to anyone who agrees with my position" if you like, but that's entirely different.

the Izzies ... the Zios.

I think its fairly obvious that you are not offering an unbiased opinion. Or is it just coincidence that you have nicknames for the Israelis and not for the Palestinians.

jc

bomb_thrower · 07-09-2006 2:02am

Like I said, it's fairly obvious to most Irish why we support the Palestinians, but you obviously didnt bother reading any further bonkey. Maybe you Swiss arent used to having an opinion cos you're to busy being neutral all the time.

As you can see from my comments, I did poke fun at the Palestinians (or 'Palies' as I should call them since you're so anal about being fair and balanced ) with the tank comment, that one obviously went right over your head. If you deny that huge numbers of Arab Palest. were systematically expelled from their homes and villages by Israeli forces in 48, then I fear you're just another delusional Arab-hater.

Akrasia · 07-09-2006 10:09am

i think we can sort out this question of whether or not the Irish press is biased towards palestine once and for all with one simple, recent and highly relevant example.
The most recent escalation in violence between palestinians and the Israelis is blamed on the 'Kidnapping', by Hamas of 19 year old Cpl. Gilad Shalit in what was unanimously described as an unprovoked cross border raid into israel. Gilad was the first IDF soldier captured by the palestinians since 1994.
If the media was truly balanced or as it is portrayed in Ireland. pro Palestinian, then we would all know about 2 Civilian men Israel Kidnapped from Gaza the day before.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5112846.stm
Information on the two men is sketchy, some reports say they are brothers, other say they are a father and a son, but mostly they are not reported on at all. In fact, the BBC doesn't mention them even once on their website after the initial report of their capture while a simple search for Gilad Shalit by name reveals 12 results. On the RTE website a search for the IDF soldier by name gets 24 results while a search for the captures palestinians by gets zero results. try it yourself. The captured/kidnapped Palestinians names are Mustafa Abu Muamar and Osamma Muamar.

It should be obvious, the media is not pro palestinian, two easily comparable events within hours of each other, and the media ignores the action by israel as if it never happened, and then blames Palestinians for starting the conflict by 'kidnapping'(Capturing) the IDF soldier.

07-09-2006 10:10am

bomb_thrower wrote:

If you deny that huge numbers of Arab Palest. were systematically expelled from their homes and villages by Israeli forces in 48, then I fear you're just another delusional Arab-hater.

In the interests of fairness and balance, Bomb Thrower meant to point out too that hundreds of thousands of Jews were expelled from Arab states into Israel too...

Akrasia · 07-09-2006 11:01am

in fact, in america, people were arrested for broadcasting the al manar network in new york http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3295714,00.html

here's where the station was bombed http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,430905,00.html

oscarBravo · 07-09-2006 11:43am

bomb_thrower wrote:

Maybe you Swiss arent used to having an opinion cos you're to busy being neutral all the time. ... you're so anal about being fair and balanced... I fear you're just another delusional Arab-hater.

Banned for a week.

metrovelvet · 07-09-2006 2:53pm

I can never really understand the point of these media debates. All any of us get are bits and pieces of information refracted through agendas, time slots, print space, etc etc and therefore really cant know what the hell is going on.

I also dont understand this Ireland/Britain Palestine/Isreal paradigm people fall into. Different nations, different histories.

bonkey · 07-09-2006 3:04pm

Maybe you Swiss arent used to having an opinion cos you're to busy being neutral all the time

What with me being Swiss, not often having an opinion and all that....I'm pretty sure you banged that nail on the head.

No...wait...that's an opinion...what I meant to say is that you might have banged that nail on the head, depending on one's perspective.

Yeah.

bonkey · 07-09-2006 3:11pm

metrovelvet wrote:

I also dont understand this Ireland/Britain Palestine/Isreal paradigm people fall into.

Its not unlike why people attack the poster rather than the post, really.

Once you undermine the integrity of the commentator, you no longer have to challenge what they're saying as it is automatically seen as being suspect.

jc

Akrasia · 07-09-2006 3:34pm

bonkey wrote:

Its not unlike why people attack the poster rather than the post, really.

Once you undermine the integrity of the commentator, you no longer have to challenge what they're saying as it is automatically seen as being suspect.

jc

no, it's about understanding the content of our media. It's about realising that what we see over here passes through filters that alter the truth of the situation. We are led to believe that this is some kind of battle between Israel and extremists with innocent civilians caught in the middle caught in the middle, but it's really a battle between Israel and the innocent civilians with some extremists occasionally fighting back.

rlogue · 07-09-2006 4:10pm

I completely disagree with that view. Israel as a nation has been under threat from most of its Arab neighbours right through its existence, and now in recent years we also have the situation where many here in Ireland are quite happy to deny it the right to exist too.

Talk of the "Zionist entity" and ethnically cleansing Israel by shifting its Jewish population to Utah, Uganda or Uruguay is happily bandied around while the repressive nature of Iran and Syria, Israel's chief enemies at this time, is happilly glossed over. No doubt many who are determined to deny Israel the right to exist would also like to apply that kind of simplistic thinking to our own issue up North.

I certainly dislike what the Israel Government and armed forces are doing - I would certainly back a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories - but to take that dislike further and deny the state the right to exist is surely not informed debate but plain and simple propagandising.

bonkey · 07-09-2006 4:22pm

Akrasia wrote:

no, it's about understanding the content of our media.

Except that if one wanted to do that objectively, one would explain why no media is unbiased, and encourage the reader to use multiple sources offering multiple points of view, and to come to their own conclusions.

Attacking one specific subgroup of the media for having one particular slant is simply an effort to discredit those offering one particular slant. Th

It's about realising that what we see over here passes through filters that alter the truth of the situation.

Thats true of all media everywhere. Applying it to only one viewpoint is unfair, unless the aim is to discredit the value of specific viewpoints, thus slanting overall perception away from what those viewpoints say.

I was talking about why you hear specific allegations against specfic viewpoints on specific subjects. It is not because the accuser wants us to be aware that all media is only ever offering viewpoints. Its because they want to discredit anything offered by media which has a viewpoint they don't want listened to.

but it's really a battle between Israel and the innocent civilians with some extremists occasionally fighting back.

And your take is, naturally, unbiased, unprejudiced, unslanted, unfiltered and fully informed.

We should just listen to you rather than any of the media and we'd know the truth, I guess, right?

jc

Akrasia · 07-09-2006 5:59pm

rlogue wrote:

I completely disagree with that view. Israel as a nation has been under threat from most of its Arab neighbours right through its existence, and now in recent years we also have the situation where many here in Ireland are quite happy to deny it the right to exist too.

Talk of the "Zionist entity" and ethnically cleansing Israel by shifting its Jewish population to Utah, Uganda or Uruguay is happily bandied around while the repressive nature of Iran and Syria, Israel's chief enemies at this time, is happilly glossed over. No doubt many who are determined to deny Israel the right to exist would also like to apply that kind of simplistic thinking to our own issue up North.

I certainly dislike what the Israel Government and armed forces are doing - I would certainly back a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories - but to take that dislike further and deny the state the right to exist is surely not informed debate but plain and simple propagandising.

I don't deny Israel the right to exist at all. they have their recognised international borders set at where they were in 1967, but they lay claim to all of the West Bank and are actively trying to colonise it at the expense of the people who are already there. Israeli settlements are dotted all around the west bank, where they occupy the best land and the best access to clean water.

Israel have been playing the 'Defence' card for decades to hide their expansionist ambitions, and because the media refuse to challenge them, they get away with it wholesale.

Akrasia · 07-09-2006 6:13pm

bonkey wrote:

And your take is, naturally, unbiased, unprejudiced, unslanted, unfiltered and fully informed.

We should just listen to you rather than any of the media and we'd know the truth, I guess, right?

jc

Nope, you should read the media, and then read the alternative media apply a little critical analysis, and you will be informed.
For your benefit, here is a link to just one of many very good documentaries available on-line that challenge the established narrative of what is happening in the middle east.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14055.htm

Watch it, and then feel free to challenge any of the points it makes based on their own merit

I am not just spouting rhetoric, i am making specific points which you have not addressed. You should give it a go. If the irish media is pro palestine, then how come we all know about the Israeli soldier who was captured by Hamas, but hardly anyone knows about the 2 men captured by the IDF the day before?
If we had an honest media, then Israeli apologists wouldn't be able to go around saying 'we're only defending ourselves against unprovoked attacks" which is basically, their only defence for their dispicable actions over the last few months
I also spend a fair amount of time debating this issue with some entrenched zionists, and i am fully informed about their position, and i am fully informed about the flaws in their arguments.

Frederico · 08-09-2006 9:46am

Here is some more biased info on the Israeli/Palestinian situation..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5326378.stm

Wonder if this will be reported by anyone in the American media..

bonkey · 08-09-2006 10:35am

Akrasia wrote:

Nope, you should read the media, and then read the alternative media apply a little critical analysis, and you will be informed.

So in other words, I should do what I said and consider all media biased, rather than listening exclusively to any one side of the media, or any person who is only criticising any one part of the media?

For your benefit, here is a link to just one of many very good documentaries available on-line that challenge the established narrative of what is happening in the middle east.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14055.htm

Why for my benefit?

When I posted that people should take it that all media offers slanted views, and that they should inform themselves from multiple sources....did you somehow take that to mean that I only read from the sources that I feel offer the viewpoint I want to have?

When I said that people attack individual sources on the grounds that the source is biased, its because they only want to remove particular biases, did you misunderstand this to mean that I think its a good idea to do this and need to be exposed to a broader view?

I am not just spouting rhetoric, i am making specific points which you have not addressed.

The specific point I was addressing when you responded to one of my posts is why people attack the Irish media for having bias by drawing parallels with the historical struggles of this nation.

Any specific points you feel I haven't addressed have nothing to do with this issue, that I can see, unless you're suggesting that this link you've offered me is an entirely unbiased, unslanted viewpoint. Please note - simply being factually accurate doesn't make it unbiased, so whether or not there's anything in there I would challenge on the grounds of being inaccurate doesn't matter.

If the irish media is pro palestine, then how come we all know about the Israeli soldier who was captured by Hamas, but hardly anyone knows about the 2 men captured by the IDF the day before?

Is it perhaps because there wasn't a massive press-blitz about the capture of those men, whereas the Israeli's made sure everyone in the developed world knew about their grievance right from the start? Or was there a huge press conference about these two men that the Irish media snubbed? Was it covered massively anywhere else in the world before the events of the following day and not in Ireland?

My recollection of events was that somtime after the second day, articles started appearing here and there about unconfirmed claims that there was a connection between the kidnapping of the IDF soldier and the events of the previous day. At this point, most people were too busy following the unfolding story to put too much time and effort into reading up the slowly-shiftnig possibilities about what kicked this off.

There was no doubt about why Israel did what it did. It made sure everyone knew. Why Hezbollah did what they did....not so clear. Its hardly surprising that the media concentrated on the proto-war that was evolving, rather than going back and concentrating on something that was, to be hoenst, far from clear-cut.

At the end of the day, I'd also suggest that its because "pro-Palestinian" doesn't mean "utterly one-sided and looks for any and every chance to denigrate the Israeli's".

As a return question , if the Irish media isn't showing a bias, why is it that one side constantly criticises it for being in favour of the other side, but only one side engage in this?

If we had an honest media, then Israeli apologists wouldn't be able to go around saying 'we're only defending ourselves against unprovoked attacks" which is basically, their only defence for their dispicable actions over the last few months

Untrue.

If we had an honest media thats exactly what they would be able to do, and the Palestinian apologists would be able to offer their version of the truth, and the media wouldn't try and give one side more favourable coverage than the other under any circumstances.

It would criticise failings on both sides equally, whilst allowing both sides the freedom to make their public statements. At most, it should point out uncontestable falsehoods in said public statements, or note where points of contention are made out to be non-contentious.

The notion that the media would gag either side because you, I, or anyone else doesn't like or agree with what they say is the absolute antithesis of an honest media.

jc

Akrasia · 08-09-2006 12:14pm

bonkey wrote:

So in other words, I should do what I said and consider all media biased, rather than listening exclusively to any one side of the media, or any person who is only criticising any one part of the media?

All the media might be considered biased, but some media outlets are more than just biased, they are wilfully dishonest and lie routinely to the public. There are some sources of information that i have found to be very trustworthy, and others that i wouldn't believe a single word printed unless i could verify it from other sources. But even the trustworthy sources should be continually subject to critical analysis.

Is it perhaps because there wasn't a massive press-blitz about the capture of those men, whereas the Israeli's made sure everyone in the developed world knew about their grievance right from the start?

Well surely the press are responsible for what is the subject of any particular press blitz. It is not surprising that the capture of the two palestinians recieved very little coverage, because such actions by the israelis have become almost routine and therefore, 'un-newsworthy'. But it is unforgivable that their capture was not brought up in response to Israeli claims about the capture of their own IDF soldier. By any standards of balanced journalism those two men would have been an issue but they were swept under the carpet and i have to assume that it was deliberate.
If the irish media were in fact biased towards the palestinians then there would have been very different front page headlines during the start of Israels most recent assault on the palestinians

My recollection of events was that somtime after the second day, articles started appearing here and there about unconfirmed claims that there was a connection between the kidnapping of the IDF soldier and the events of the previous day. At this point, most people were too busy following the unfolding story to put too much time and effort into reading up the slowly-shiftnig possibilities about what kicked this off.

your recollection may be correct, but RTE, the supposedly pro palestinian media service did not mention the capture of the two palestinian civilians even once in their news coverage, I checked.

There was no doubt about why Israel did what it did. It made sure everyone knew.

You mean their stated reasons right? it made sure everyone knew their propaganda, but the media's job is to report and analyse the news, and not just repeat press releases.

Why Hezbollah did what they did....not so clear.

Actually, Hezbollah's stated position has been very clear. They captured the soldiers in the hope of negotiating a prisoner exchange. This is something they did before and it worked. The media of course don't take Hezbollahs stated position as the uncontested truth, and rightly so.

Its hardly surprising that the media concentrated on the proto-war that was evolving, rather than going back and concentrating on something that was, to be hoenst, far from clear-cut.

they put forward the cause of the proto war as if it was clear-cut. Israel are only going in to rescue their soldiers, the media made it look as if that aim was fully justified and as if Israel was the injured party.

At the end of the day, I'd also suggest that its because "pro-Palestinian" doesn't mean "utterly one-sided and looks for any and every chance to denigrate the Israeli's".

of course, but surely a pro palestinian media would at least report the crimes that are committed against the palestinians in a more appropriate way.

As a return question , if the Irish media isn't showing a bias, why is it that one side constantly criticises it for being in favour of the other side, but only one side engage in this?

for the same reason that the conservatives in America are always accusing the media of having a 'Liberal Bias' when there is anything but a liberal bias in the media over there.

Untrue.

If we had an honest media thats exactly what they would be able to do, and the Palestinian apologists would be able to offer their version of the truth, and the media wouldn't try and give one side more favourable coverage than the other under any circumstances.

the media should give more favourable coverage to the truth and the facts instead of just giving both sides a forum to spout propaganda that often bears no relation to reality.
The media is not just there to publish press releases and government statements.

It would criticise failings on both sides equally, whilst allowing both sides the freedom to make their public statements. At most, it should point out uncontestable falsehoods in said public statements, or note where points of contention are made out to be non-contentious.

I don't agree that it should criticise both sides equally unless both sides are equally at fault. The media should report the news as it happens, if 90% of that activities in the middle east involves oppression of palestinian people, than the news media should reflect that. Instead we have a 'balanced' media, which results in under-reporting of crimes against palestinians, and relative over reporting of crimes against israel. again, 24 mentions of the captured IDF soldier by name in RTE news coverage, zero mentions of the two captured Palestinians either by name, or in reference to their capture.

The notion that the media would gag either side because you, I, or anyone else doesn't like or agree with what they say is the absolute antithesis of an honest media.

jc

The media shouldn't gag either side, it should ask the correct questions. when Israel claim they are responding to unprovoked attacks from fanatical neighbours, any honest reporter should automatically point out that the attacks on israel are not unprovoked. it's really quite simple. Effective PR requires that lies be repeated so often that they become accepted as truth. The media should not allow this to happen.

Frederico · 08-09-2006 12:38pm

Bonkey, what on earth, imagine everytime a Palestinian was killed by the Israeli's it being reported in the mainstream media?

Because any time an Israeli is killed is it firmly in the forefront of any mainstream news.

its almost like complaining that the media isn't covering the side of the Sudanese Army in the Darfur crisis.

08-09-2006 1:55pm

Akrasia wrote:

All the media might be considered biased, but some media outlets are more than just biased, they are wilfully dishonest and lie routinely to the public. There are some sources of information that i have found to be very trustworthy, and others that i wouldn't believe a single word printed unless i could verify it from other sources. But even the trustworthy sources should be continually subject to critical analysis.

So basically all media should be checked, and none should be trusted completely.... They're all in this business to find as much drama as possible, to increase their viewers. And if that means taking first unconfirmed reports and using them as "facts", we've seen them do so, all for a better story.

Akrasia wrote:

Well surely the press are responsible for what is the subject of any particular press blitz. It is not surprising that the capture of the two palestinians recieved very little coverage, because such actions by the israelis have become almost routine and therefore, 'un-newsworthy'. But it is unforgivable that their capture was not brought up in response to Israeli claims about the capture of their own IDF soldier. By any standards of balanced journalism those two men would have been an issue but they were swept under the carpet and i have to assume that it was deliberate.

Probably because there was no relationship between the kidnapping of those people in Gaza and the attack by Hezbollah across the Lebanese border. Gaza is not Lebanese territory. Its not even part of Palestine. Prior to the 1967 war it was territory held by Egypt, and Jordan. Israel siezed that territory from non-palestinian countries.

But even then the fact that it was Hezbollah that started this conflict was almost swept aside from the moment that Israel started causing civilian casualties. There was a huge focus on Israel performing indiscriminate attacks, with little reference to Hezbollah doing the same. From this Hezbollah emerged as a glorious freedom fighting machine, and Israel once more the evil oppressors of another territory.

You mean their stated reasons right? it made sure everyone knew their propaganda, but the media's job is to report and analyse the news, and not just repeat press releases.

Thats what the media was in its infancy. Nowadays the media is there to entertain us.

They seek stories that will capture peoples attention, and try to stop us from switching to another TV station or another news article. Their desires to increase their following, and increase the people watching their stations, cause an immediate bias, and make their very reports subject to inaccuracies. Whether intentional or not, these days news reporters, report to affect peoples emotions, whether that be fear, anger, sympathy, shame etc. So they'll focus on unconfirmed reports of 10 people killed in one area, and barely mention a building where 20 people were just injured.

they put forward the cause of the proto war as if it was clear-cut. Israel are only going in to rescue their soldiers, the media made it look as if that aim was fully justified and as if Israel was the injured party.

And to stop the rockets falling on Israeli cities which received very little attention by western media.

And they mustn't have been very successful in showing Israel to be the injured party when so many people ignore the Hezbollah attack and focus entirely on the Israeli Response. A response was warranted. Just that the manner of the response they made wasn't.

The media shouldn't gag either side, it should ask the correct questions. when Israel claim they are responding to unprovoked attacks from fanatical neighbours, any honest reporter should automatically point out that the attacks on israel are not unprovoked. it's really quite simple. Effective PR requires that lies be repeated so often that they become accepted as truth. The media should not allow this to happen.

You claim you want balanced, and unbiased reporting, and yet this last paragraph denies it all. If Israel claims its being provoked, you're saying reporters should say they're lying, and side with their enemies, automatically.

Thats not balanced. Thats not unbiased. Thats putting forward a belief that Israel is automatically wrong regardless of the responsibility of the other people/nations involved. In your viewpoint, Israel is always wrong. Its really quite simple. You don't want a fair media.

A fair media would look at the proven facts of the incidents. It should present those facts simply to us, and allow the audience to draw their own conclusions to what happened. They should paint a picture of the political tensions in the region, with a brief outline of the history, without throwing in any personal bias as to who's right & who's wrong. The media is not there to make up our minds for us. Something I think its forgotten.

Frederico wrote:

Bonkey, what on earth, imagine everytime a Palestinian was killed by the Israeli's it being reported in the mainstream media?

Because any time an Israeli is killed is it firmly in the forefront of any mainstream news.

Really? cause I've come across quite a few reports from Israeli press of civilians being beaten, or killed both in Palestine & Israel without them being thrown into international mainstream news.

The bigger incidents are reported. Whether its Palestinian deaths or Israeli deaths, the bigger death tolls are focused on by the worlds media, but there are plenty of reports that don't make it as far as our news stations.. And personally I find that incidents caused by Israel are highlighted faster than attacks made by Palestinian forces.

bonkey · 08-09-2006 2:07pm

Akrasia wrote:

when Israel claim they are responding to unprovoked attacks from fanatical neighbours, any honest reporter should automatically point out that the attacks on israel are not unprovoked.

No. Any honest reporter should automatically supply the position of the other side (Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestine, the Lebanese authority or whoever as relevant) and/or point out any incontrovertible inaccuracies.

If it is open to interpretation as to what constitutes truth (e.g. there is no clearly-delineated definition of what is and is not provocation), then the honest reporter most certainly should not and cannot do as you think they should.

Effective PR requires that lies be repeated so often that they become accepted as truth. The media should not allow this to happen.

They can't prevent it. Its not their job to decide what is and is not suitable for our ears, especially given that they are as fallible as everyone else and whether we like it or not are as susceptible to influence or the claims thereof.

At the end of the day, their job is to make information available to us, not to decide what information it is we should be protected from. It might rankle, but it is not the media's job to decide what we should not be told. It is not their job to protect people from their own stupidity.

If people are dumb enough to give their decisions a weight that is greater than the research they have done merits, then the media cannot ever prevent such people from reaching the wrong conclusions. They can change the wrong conclusions, but they'll still be wrong.

The reality is that the world is terribly complex, but many people want to paint it in simple pictures. Changing which simple picture they paint won't make it any more accurate....just change who the picture is palatable to.

Akrasia · 08-09-2006 2:38pm

Deleted User wrote:

Probably because there was no relationship between the kidnapping of those people in Gaza and the attack by Hezbollah across the Lebanese border. Gaza is not Lebanese territory. Its not even part of Palestine. Prior to the 1967 war it was territory held by Egypt, and Jordan. Israel siezed that territory from non-palestinian countries.

I wasn't talking about the Lebanon conflict, i was talking about the Israeli assault on Gaza after Hamas (or islamic jihad) captured one of their soldiers the day after the IDF capture 2 Palestinians from Gaza

But even then the fact that it was Hezbollah that started this conflict was almost swept aside from the moment that Israel started causing civilian casualties. There was a huge focus on Israel performing indiscriminate attacks, with little reference to Hezbollah doing the same. From this Hezbollah emerged as a glorious freedom fighting machine, and Israel once more the evil oppressors of another territory.

There were many references to Hezbollahs unguided rockets striking Israel. Every time one of those rockets killed or wounded an Israeli, the global media reported it. The same can not be said for Israel's attacks on Lebanon. We don't even know how many people were killed, the current guestimate is around 1300 civilians.
The fact that Hezbollah captured 2 IDF soldiers is seen as the start of this conflict because that is the point in time that Israel and the western media choose as a starting point.
Israel are responsible for their own over reaction. They can claim that Hezbollah started it, but that excuse does not work on the school playground, and it certainly shouldn't work in international relations.
If they had behaved differently, the two captured soldiers would probably have been released by now and there wouldn't have been such a destructive war.
In reality, there have been tensions in the area for years, There are still Lebanese political prisoners in Israeli Jails, regular Israeli incursions into Lebanese territory and Israel still occupies the Shebba Farms which they are legally obliged to vacate under the relevant U.N. resolution, there are still thousands of Israeli landmines scattered around Lebanon which kill regularly, and the IDF refuse to supply the Lebanese government with their locations to help with a decomissioning effort (and now those landmines have been joined by hundreds of thousands of unexploded cluster bomb ordinances)

And to stop the rockets falling on Israeli cities which received very little attention by western media.

Were you not watching the coverage of the war? I would say that about 50% of the news coverage on BBC and Sky news were of the rocket attacks against Israeli cities, the other half was covering the israeli attacks on lebanon. I haven't got any statistics for this, but I watched a lot of coverage, and they usually reported it in side by side segmants, one guy from beiruit, another guy in Haifa each given a similar amount of time to report. The same time was given to each side, but this means that in reality, every rocket by hezbollah was given proportionately far more media time than each rocket fired by Israel. and each death by an Israeli citizen was given far more coverage than each death by a Lebanese civilian.

There were several thousand kitushya rockets fired by Hezbollah, there were hundreds of thousands of rockets and bombs fired by Israel. there were over a thousand Lebanese civilian casualties, there were less than 40 Israeli civilian casualties. We are far more likely to know the names of the dead Israelis

You claim you want balanced, and unbiased reporting, and yet this last paragraph denies it all. If Israel claims its being provoked, you're saying reporters should say they're lying, and side with their enemies, automatically.

I don't want 'balanced' reporting, I want honest reporting. I think reporters should automatically challenge claims that are simply not true.

Thats not balanced. Thats not unbiased. Thats putting forward a belief that Israel is automatically wrong regardless of the responsibility of the other people/nations involved. In your viewpoint, Israel is always wrong. Its really quite simple. You don't want a fair media.

I do want a fair media that reports the truth. I want a media that reports the fact that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are growing rapidly despite the fact that they are illegal under international law. I want the media to tell us that 12,000 new Israeli settlers moved into the west bank in 2005, despite the claims by the Israeli government that they are 'dismantling' settlements as a gesture that they want to live in peace. Surely this is news? So how come 99% of people don't know about this?
I want a fair media that has proper debates on the real issues and asks the proper questions.
I don't think Israel is always wrong, I think they are not being honest about their long term aims. I think they are trying to push out the Palestinians and take complete control of the West Bank, They do not want peace with the Palestinians, they want to crush them.

A fair media would look at the proven facts of the incidents. It should present those facts simply to us, and allow the audience to draw their own conclusions to what happened. They should paint a picture of the political tensions in the region, with a brief outline of the history, without throwing in any personal bias as to who's right & who's wrong. The media is not there to make up our minds for us. Something I think its forgotten.

I agree with you. and i believe the facts, if presented honestly, will speak for themselves.

The bigger incidents are reported. Whether its Palestinian deaths or Israeli deaths, the bigger death tolls are focused on by the worlds media, but there are plenty of reports that don't make it as far as our news stations.. And personally I find that incidents caused by Israel are highlighted faster than attacks made by Palestinian forces.

the bigger incidents where palestinians are killed are reported, but even one israeli death is a big enough incident for the international media to consider newsworthy. Individual palestinian deaths are usually just ignored as part of the background of middle eastern events.

Frederico · 08-09-2006 3:51pm

Deleted User wrote:

The bigger incidents are reported. Whether its Palestinian deaths or Israeli deaths, the bigger death tolls are focused on by the worlds media, but there are plenty of reports that don't make it as far as our news stations.. And personally I find that incidents caused by Israel are highlighted faster than attacks made by Palestinian forces.

No, I don't believe that, in fact I was shocked to find out how many Palestinians have actually been killed in the past year, whereas almost every single Israeli death is reported by nearly all mainstream Western Media outlets, Palestinian civilian deaths are largely ignored, unless they are in a large number OR the Israeli military is putting through on the wires that its killed X number of "Militants" in a coordinated missile strike.

I believe many people, myself included, are indoctrinated to believe that Israel would never willingly cause civilian deaths. I believe the simple fact of the matter is that they just don't care. They will shoot children, demolish houses, shoot journalists, drop vast amounts of cluster bombs, etc. I don't see any difference between the IDF and Hizbollah.

08-09-2006 5:21pm

Akrasia wrote:

I wasn't talking about the Lebanon conflict, i was talking about the Israeli assault on Gaza after Hamas (or islamic jihad) captured one of their soldiers the day after the IDF capture 2 Palestinians from Gaza

Then why do you feel the media should have reported the kidnapping in Gaza in relation to the kidapping by Hezbollah? Why should the media highlight an incident that has no relation to Hezbollah's attack, or the lebanese/Israeli conflict at all? Cause thats what I got from your post.

There were many references to Hezbollahs unguided rockets striking Israel. Every time one of those rockets killed or wounded an Israeli, the global media reported it. The same can not be said for Israel's attacks on Lebanon. We don't even know how many people were killed, the current guestimate is around 1300 civilians.

Reported, but not dwelled upon in any real manner. The BBC repeatedly showed constant reminders of the attacks made by Israeli forces, regardless of whether there were casualties or not. They emphasised the damage done to Lebanon, and to the civilians of Lebanon, while barely mentioning the danger that Israeli's were in., or the reasons why there were less Israeli casualties...

Its a bit like posts to forums. Posters will often make a single statement that they don't approve of Hezbollah, and then go on to write two-three paragraphs about why Israel is in the wrong.

The fact that Hezbollah captured 2 IDF soldiers is seen as the start of this conflict because that is the point in time that Israel and the western media choose as a starting point.

Sure it is. Or you could take the UN intervention in 2000, the failure of Hezbollah to disarm, any of the Israeli incursions across the border, or the previous attempts by Hezbollah to kidnap soldiers earlier in the year. The reason the media focuses on the kidnapping as the start is because it was the first real incident within a few weeks between Hezbollah and Israel.

Israel are responsible for their own over reaction. They can claim that Hezbollah started it, but that excuse does not work on the school playground, and it certainly shouldn't work in international relations.

Indeed they are responsible for their over reaction, and they'll pay for it with the deaths of their people. Just as Hezbollah are responsible for choosing to kidnap those soldiers and create this current conflict. Hezbollah set the scene by making that action, regardless of Israel's reaction. However many people seem to believe that this doesn't matter.

If they had behaved differently, the two captured soldiers would probably have been released by now and there wouldn't have been such a destructive war.

So they could have obeyed hezbollah and released per the original demands. Yup. They could have done this. And two weeks later another soldier is kidnapped, and it starts again. Israel was looking for an end to the trouble on the border.... and failed completely.

Perhaps you should consider that if Hezbollah didn't attack, Israel wouldn't have had any cause to attack Lebanon. Or if Hezbollah persued peaceful means to end their problems with Israel, these civilian deaths wouldn't have occured...

In reality, there have been tensions in the area for years, There are still Lebanese political prisoners in Israeli Jails, regular Israeli incursions into Lebanese territory and Israel still occupies the Shebba Farms which they are legally obliged to vacate under the relevant U.N. resolution, there are still thousands of Israeli landmines scattered around Lebanon which kill regularly, and the IDF refuse to supply the Lebanese government with their locations to help with a decomissioning effort (and now those landmines have been joined by hundreds of thousands of unexploded cluster bomb ordinances)

Wrong. Israel is under no obligation to leave the Sheba Farms area. Its designated Syrian territory by the UN, and by Israel. Even Syrian maps show it as being Syrian territory (along with all of Lebanon). The UN resolutions show that Israel left Lebanese territory and certifys them as doing so. I'm getting a bit tired of repeating this, but many posters seem unwilling to face the truth. Lebanon has no rights to that territory, since they failed for over two decades to settle their dispute with Syria prior to the 1967 war.

Landmines, agreed. However the Lebanese government continues in its failure to enforce the border and preventing Hezbollah from crossing it.

Political Prisoners. Yup. Agreed. However the person they're requesting at the moment is a crinimal of a brutal murder, and not what i would consider a political prisoner...

Were you not watching the coverage of the war? I would say that about 50% of the news coverage on BBC and Sky news were of the rocket attacks against Israeli cities, the other half was covering the israeli attacks on lebanon. I haven't got any statistics for this, but I watched a lot of coverage, and they usually reported it in side by side segmants, one guy from beiruit, another guy in Haifa each given a similar amount of time to report. The same time was given to each side, but this means that in reality, every rocket by hezbollah was given proportionately far more media time than each rocket fired by Israel. and each death by an Israeli citizen was given far more coverage than each death by a Lebanese civilian.

Yup I was, and I found the sympathies of the media fell against Israel. Don't get me wrong. Israel placed itself in this situation by its Air campaign and the level of casualties, pulling the media to focus on the deaths caused. The media didn't report the war. They interpretated the war as they saw it.

I don't want 'balanced' reporting, I want honest reporting. I think reporters should automatically challenge claims that are simply not true.

But how do they know they're not true? A plane is apparently shot down, reported by Hezbollah. Do they wait until its confirmed or report it straightaway? A bomb apparently kills 50 people, a massacre of killing, an intentional attack, should they report it as fact without getting it confirmed? A medical convoy is deliberatly attacked, and they report without confirming the truth of it?

Should the media not confirm reports before reporting, because they have the ability to affect milions of opinions, simply by placing their opinion of "fact" behind claims? And thats the "honest" reporting you want. Thats not even asking for a bit of "balance" in their reporting, by looking at the news from all parties involved.

I do want a fair media that reports the truth. I want a media that reports the fact that Israeli settlements in the West Bank are growing rapidly despite the fact that they are illegal under international law. I want the media to tell us that 12,000 new Israeli settlers moved into the west bank in 2005, despite the claims by the Israeli government that they are 'dismantling' settlements as a gesture that they want to live in peace. Surely this is news? So how come 99% of people don't know about this?

And thats fair enough. But do you also want a media that highlights that militant attacks against Israel don't stop despite assurances? Or that the PA authority came into being despite failing to achieve what it promised? or that Israeli checkpoints are in many cases positioned because of attacks by Hamas or other paramilitary groups? or report the services and help that Israel supplies to Palestine>? How come 99% of people don't know or care about these?

I wonder if you'd be willing to have a media that would report Israel's flaws, but at the same time would highlight the Palestinian peoples flaws. That would be fair media coverage, but there's very little of it going on these days.

I want a fair media that has proper debates on the real issues and asks the proper questions.
I don't think Israel is always wrong, I think they are not being honest about their long term aims. I think they are trying to push out the Palestinians and take complete control of the West Bank, They do not want peace with the Palestinians, they want to crush them.

And I think it suits the paramilitary groups like Hamas to keep the Palestinian people on the verge of poverty/starvation, since peace would destroy their powerbase in Palestine, and so they seek to continue their violence regardless of the chance(s) for peace.

But I don't expect the media to reflect my belief. I want a media that reports whats happening without placing emphasis per their own agendas/beliefs. They'll put forward confirmed information without rushing out speculation. But I suppose thats too much to hope for.

I agree with you. and i believe the facts, if presented honestly, will speak for themselves.

Lies or unconfirmed reports, speak for themselves also, when presented as "facts", and are mostly taken as honest reporting. I've been a victim (my own gullibility) of this in the past from a pro-Israeli aspect, and I've seen a fair number of people taken in, from the pro-Palestinian/Pro-lebanese aspect.

Anti Semitism

Comments