Anti Semitism

Frederico

Frederico wrote:

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.

Fine. Don't believe it. Neither of us are providing any proofs of our beliefs. I could be wrong, and so could you. The media could have more reports on either party, or the content of those reports could skewed for or against either party.

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.

I believe that many people think the worst of Israel regardless of what happens, and justify that belief by placing them on a higher standard. They place Hezbollah or the Palestinian groups on a lower standard, so they can shrug off their actions in an easier manner. After all Israel is a nation in itself, and Palestine? Oh, they're constantly the victims, without any control over their actions.

They look at Lebanon, and say that the Lebanese government is weak and therefore its ok that Hezbollah have continued their war against israel for the last 6 years. Or that they're not a terrorist organisation but a militia and therefore shouldn't have to give up their weapons. Or that Israel is the bad guy in all disputes because they disobey the UN, but Lebanon and Hezbollah are ok in their disobedience of the UN, because its, well, different. Or if some Israeli general talks hardcore about destroying lebanon its awful, but the hundreds of quotes from Arab leaders talking genocide are merely misunderstandings. Or claim that Israel starts every conflict, but are willing to ignore that these paramilitary groups continue those conflicts (although I don't believe that israel starts all the conflicts, beyond its very existance).

Indoctrinated? Quite possibly.

As for the difference in the IDF and Hezbollah, I see only one major difference. Hezbollah acts on its own without the authority or approval of the Lebanese Government. The IDF at least can be controlled by the Israeli Government. Hezbollah are beholden to no-one, and cannot be controlled. Thats very dangerous especially in the current climate of suspicion & anger.

I'm beginning to wonder how close this and the other thread about abusing the media are..

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote:

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.

That's not what i was saying at all. I was referring to the IDF soldier captured by palestinians from the Gaza Border in relation to the two Palestinian men captured from gaza the day before. I wasn't talking about the Hezbollah prisoners at all, that's a seperate incident.

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...

I saw loads of reports that talked about how israeli people had been locked up in their bomb shelters for days at a time. They did try to show their suffering. The fact that ordinary people focused more on the suffering of the lebanese is not due to the Media not reporting the attacks on israel. It might have something to do with the fact that the lebanese people were facing a much worse situation than the Israelis.
Everytime someone was killed by Hezbollah, the media reported. Most days Hezbollah didn't kill any israeli civilians and there are only so many stories you can run that show people hiding in bomb shelters, meanwhile, Israel was killing dozens of people every day in Lebanon.

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.

I wasn't really talking about the Lebanon conflict, but seeing as you mention it, Why not mention the Israeli Assasination of a Hezbollah leader in May, or the Mossad spy ring detected in June which had been responsible for numerous assasinations and bombings. The point I'm making is that both sides have been sniping at each other accross the border for years and the response by israel to the capture of their 2 soldiers was totally out of proportion, and Israel can't deflect criticism by simply saying 'But they started it' (as much as they would like to)

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.

Hezbollah kidnapped 2 soldiers to try and force a prisoner exchange. Israel responded by obliterating the entire country of Lebanon and killing almost 2000 lebanese civilians. In doing this, Israel achieved precisely none of their stated military objectives. If you say hezbollah are responsible for Israels actions because they provoked them, it's like saying that the kids murdered in the Columbine high school shooting deserved to die because they provoked their murderers, or that if I slap you in the face, you are justified in cutting my hand off and murdering half my family.

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.

But Israel will never know what 'could' have happened 2 weeks later because they had absolutely no intention of making a single concession or negotiation. The only tool In israels box is overwhelming force. It's a very blunt weapon and we have seen the consequences.

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...

Capturing 2 soldiers is not a cause for a full scale war. If the IRA captured 2 british soldiers, would the british have been justified in flattening the Irish republic?
Anyway, it seems as if Israel was only looking for an excuse to attack lebanon, just like they were in Gaza. They certainly had no interest in the captured soldiers. (who are still in captivity by the way)

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

So this justifies Israels refusal to provide the locations for these weapons? The people who are killed by landmines are farmers and children, and animals, not hezbollah fighters.

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?

Breaking news is one thing where there might be barriers to knowing the full truth, but thats not what i'm talking about, i'm talking about facts that are ignored or lied about, especially relating to Israeli settlements in the West bank and Gaza, and the treatment of the ordinary palestinian people.

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 can forgive genuine errors. I can not forgive repeated lies and ommission especially after the facts have emerged and been accepted. (examples of that include global warming denials, statements that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and claims that Israel are trying to secure a peaceful and equitable resolution to the middle east crisis.

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?

Of course the media should report when Palestinians attack Israel, just like they should report when Israel attack Palestinians.
Israeli checkpoints in the west bank only exist to service the illegal settlements, and these settlements are occupied by very hard line zionists who are proud to be a part of a 'settlement movement' and who are fully armed and often violent towards the palestinians who surround them. The services supplied to Palestine by israel are legally the very least they should be doing.

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.

you mean a fair media? I'd be all for it.

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.

Regardless of whether or not Hamas want Palestinians to be poor, they would be poor because of the Israeli occupation. Palestinians have no hope of economic success under the conditions opposed on them

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.

You don't need to lie about palestine to gain sympathy for their situation. The truth speaks for itself.
I would like to see much more reporting from inside gaza and the west bank. I would like to see a single mainstream media mention of the Non violent palestinian resistance and how they are treated by the IDF.