How does the media report the Israeli Palestinian Conflict?

Question

When we criticise the Chinese occupation of Tibet, nobody criticises us of being anti-Chinese.



HISTORY and ORIGIN
Understanding the conflict requires the knowledge of two important aspects; the history and origin of the conflict.
In 1948 when Israel was established on 78% of historical Palestine, large numbers of Palestinians were made refugees. Some 500 villages were erased.
In 1967 Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza.

When the media reports the conflict, it rarely mentions the history and origin of the conflict.

A study by Glasgow University Media Group which monitored TV news between Sept 28th and October 16th 2000 had found that out of 3500 lines of text in total, only 17 lines referred to the History of the conflict. (As detailed in the Glasgow Media Group Book “Bad News from Israel” 2004).
It is worth noting that when facts are known people tend to change their views and some switch support.

PERSPECTIVES:
Israeli perspective:
1948 for Israelis was a war of independence “melhemet Haatzma’ut” but this resulted in the uprooting of more than 700,000 Palestinians who became refugees.

The Palestinian perspective:
1948 for Palestinians was “The Nakba” The Catastrophe.

Another Study by the Library of International Affairs (30th Oct 07) which
Compared media articles over a period of months and reached some conclusions:

From primarily Israeli perspective: Palestinians are terrorists
From an Arab perspective: they are freedom fighters and the Israelis are illegal occupiers.

From an Israeli perspective and indeed from the perspective of Israeli supporters: Ariel Sharon is a hero in the eyes of the Israelis. One New York Times columnist described him once as the feisty warrior, a kind of brave jolly stout fellow.
But in Arab eyes he is a war criminal. Many Europeans and Arabs still consider Ariel Sharon as a devious and cunning politician and a murderer.

Conclusion of this section:
Different interpretations make it difficult to get the real picture. The interpretation is based on prejudices, experiences and interests of both sides.

The Power of Headlines:

The Glasgow University Media Group provided dozens of examples of misleading and inaccurate headline; however I mention below 2 or 3 examples:

“Avenging their death, Israel hit back”. ITV March 3rd 02

“Israel had been dragged into a war on terror”. BBC December 6th 01

Here we can see that the emphasis is on portraying the Palestinian action and the Israeli retaliation.

Palestinians are depicted as the trouble makers, the terrorists and Israel responds to teach them a lesson.

The Illegal Settlers:
In some Western and Israeli press the settlers are pioneers and defenders of biblical Israel.
In 2003 B’tasleem an Israeli human rights group said: “the press often reports attacks by Palestinians but the facts are different. B’tasleem listed many examples of settlers setting up road blocks, shooting Palestinians at random burning of crops and cars etc etc.
In Hebron 500 settlers make the life of 125000 Palestinians a misery, a hell
On earth.

1994: Professor Israel Shahak described how “religious youths from Kiryat Arba were throwing stones on Palestinians. (Israel Shahak is known for his outspoken views about Jewish Religious Extremists).

Collective punishment
Curfews are imposed on Palestinians never on settlers.

Ariel Sharon’s provocation:
Violence sparked off 29th sept 2000 following a visit by Sharon to Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem.
He was reported as saying “I came here with a message of peace”.

To Arabs the visit was a provocation.
President Bush described Sharon in 2002 as a man of peace
But the rest of the world did not believe him.

Samples from the BBC:
BBC October 3rd 2000
“Ariel Sharon right wing enemy of the peace process”

BBC November 1st 01 “Sharon used every opportunity he could to attack the Arabs as terrorists”.

Guardian Newspaper UK October 3rd 2000
Amira Haas wrote “when the Intifida began 7 years after Oslo Accord all Palestinians feel betrayed”.

Us duplicity:
Two examples of US obvious bias:
Bush uttered the following words in 2002: Sharon a man of peace. We learned later that the White House phone lines were jammed by Evangelical supporters of Israel demanding that President Bush says something nice about Ariel Sharon.

President Bush and his Secretary of State Colin Powell: “Arafat must end terrorism.” This was despite the fact that both Bush and Powell knew that Arafat was under siege at the time.

Global Issues Organization was more frank when it stated on July 30th 06
“Sharon a right wing and against peace who committed massacres”.

Anti-Semitism and the stifling of debate:
Jimmy Carter, former president and author of the book “Palestine, Peace not Apartheid” was attacked and accused of being Anti-Jewish and Anti-Semitic for writing about the pernicious impact of the Apartheid Wall.

Professors Norman G Finkelstein and Mehrene Laurdee were denied tenure at De Paul University in Chicago for daring to criticise Israel.

Professors John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Professor Stephen Watt, a Harvard Professor, were both criticised , slandered and boycotted for exposing the role of AIPAC and Jewish lobbies in Their book “The Israeli Lobby and the US foreign policy”.

On the other hand Elaine Mcardle of the Boston Globe wrote recently “I was lobbied by Aipac. She exposed the tactics used by AIPAC to influence the opinion of journalists in Israel’s favour.

Distortions on websites:
Writing in a pro-Israel American internet website; Lorella, an American housewife who lived in Tel Aviv since 2001 wrote;
“We sat in our living room in Tel Aviv and watched an interview with Saab Erekat, a Palestinian terrorist”.
Saeb Erekat the chief Palestinian negotiator, a man who condemned violence and suicide bombers and was accused by Hamas and other extremists of being a friend of Israel because of his rejection of violence is a terrorist according to the Tel Aviv housewife.

Another example on the same website:
Headline:
Terrorists prefer Hillary
And they would rather see Rudy Giuliani dead than president.

It transpired that a Palestinian in the West Bank said to a reporter “it would be good if Hilary follows her husband’s policy of promoting peace between Israelis and Palestinians”.

CNN Paula Zahn Now July 24th 2007 on her TV program holds a book and announces “what does the book of revelation tell us about what is happening in the Middle East”. Was she trying to explain the current Middle East situation with reference to an ancient text? Why and in whose interest? (mediamatters.org)

Anti-Semitism and Anti-Jewish Syndrome:

The China/Tibet analogy: (Counter Punch a US based internet website): when we criticise the Chinese occupation of Tibet, nobody criticises us of being anti-Chinese. When we criticise Kim Jong IL, do we hate the Korean people.

We can safely add by saying:
When we criticise the Burmese military junta, we are not accused of being anti-Burmese or anti Buddhism.

We often criticise Robert Mugabe or Parvis Musharraf but we are not told you are anti the people of Zimbabwe or anti-Muslims of Pakistan.

To criticise the Iranian leadership does not mean you are anti-Shiite or anti Farsi people. When we criticise Hugo Chavez are we being haters of Venezuelan people?

Why is it then, when someone criticises Israel he is accused of being Anti-Semitic and Anti-Jewish.

The reporting of the killing of Mohd Al Durra:

Elliot Resnick Jewish press staff reporter October 10th 2007” wrote “evidence mounts inflammatory image was staged” (The image of young Mohammad al-durra dying in the lap of his father struck down by Israeli bullets on Sept 30th 2000 was fake according to Israeli apologists).

Boston University Professor Richard Landes (a pro-Israeli academic) Concludes that the entire episode was staged, but he did not offer convincing evidence for his conclusion. (theaugeanstables.com)

October 2nd 2007
Natan Sharansky chairman of the Adelson Institute of Strategic Studies at the Shalen Centre in Jerusalem cast doubt on the Al-Durra incident. He blamed a French journalist for inflaming passions against Israel. In the same piece, he denied the Jenin massacre. But failed to explain why journalists and foreign aid workers were barred from entering Jenin for several days. Israel also refused to receive a UN commission of enquiry.

Natan Sharansky was concerned that American students he had met in New York were troubled by the Al-Durra incident. (theaugeanstables.com)

Gideon Levy’s wrote an editorial article in Haaretz at the time “as far as we can remember, there has been no other case in which Palestinian fired at the IDF and hit a Palestinian child.
He was savaged by the cover-up brigade.

POLITICIDE a book by Baruch Kimmerling and George Wise, two distinguished Professors(University of Toronto, and the Hebrew University): “Sharon’s objectives in the 1970s were to kill as many civilians as possible. Emphasise civilians (page 62)

Page 74: “intentional killing of civilians is a war crime”.

Pages 162 and 163: targeted killings to provoke reaction.
Haaretz Aug 30th 2002: Moshe Ya’alon Chief of Staff was quoted as saying: "Palestinians are a cancer and the war against them is chemotherapy".

Page 194 examples of the violations of the 4th Geneva Conventions: “Israel prevented emergency food into Hebron during the curfew”. Preventing medical aids and ambulances reaching Jenin and Ramallah etc.

Page 205: Israeli actions are designed to provoke and irritate Palestinians to make them hate Israel more and more and desire revenge. This can be exploited by Israel in two ways first to show that Palestinians are not real partners for peace and secondly to create more facts on the ground as way of punishment i.e. expanding of settlements and confiscation of land etc.

http://english.wa3ad.org/index.php?show=news&action=article&id=1794

Answer 1

Rupert Murdoch, a jew, owns alot of media and is G.W.Bush' mate, the zionists and neo cons have made the world a dangerous place, just like Hitler did

Answer 2

That was unusual for an American news organization to show a report from inside Palestinian territories. That happens very seldom. It is always broadcast from Israel and showing the Israelis as victims. You are so wrong. For every Israeli killed, 100 Palestinians are killed. It is not a war of equivalent forces. Israel has superior equipment for modern warfare. Hamas, the activist wing of the organization, have old Soviet rockets that seldom land where they are aimed. Add to that the Israeli blockade of Gaza and trapping people in Gaza so they cannot even flee. Yes it is one-sided but on the Israeli side only. Unless you watch RT or al Jazeera you dont see the destruction and death in Gaza. They dont have modern hospitals or supplies or good roads or foreign aid. They have nothing except each other.

Answer 3

The media seems to side with the Palestinians most of the time---rarely mentioning the fact that the PALS constantly fire rockets into Israel. But do place every dead palestinian on the lead news story.

It does not matter whether Israel was created by the UN after WWII. or Whether the Palestinians think the land was theres before that---Because throughout history Countries have been created and destroyed by war. Borders re-drawn on maps and people either subjegated or sent packing from their homelands.

The Israelis have the land now. They can wage war or try to buy peace from their neighbors---but as long as the propaganda exist that question their right to live their--the Israelis will always have to contend with fighting the Arabs that surround them.

At one time --ROME ruled that same area of the world--Should ITALY be able to claim it as theirs because of historical ties.

Answer 4

Firstly, Rupert Murdoch is not Jewish - so the person who just said he is either ignorant or lying.

To the asker: Jews have always lived in the area; for 3000 years continuously. The term 'Palestinian' originally referred to Jews, Christians, and Arabs; to all living there.

In 1948 the British suggested partition; dividing the land between Jews and Arabs. The Jews agreed, the Arab world went beserk and threatened war. The Palestinian Arabs were, understandably, scared. The Arab countries warned them to flee, and they did, as they were promised that when the Arab armies destroyed Israel, they could return.

Then, within 12 hours of Israel officially being created, SEVEN Arab armies attacked. Remember that the Jews had just been devastated by the Holocaust - and now they were being invaded by seven Arab armies, at the same time!

By some miracle, the Israelis managed to defend themselves, and in pushing the Arab armies back, acquired land not originally theirs.

What country in the world gives back land acquired when being invaded??? Name me one, please.

Answer 5

The only way you will hear about the origins of this conflict, are through stories (word of mouth) and college education. I did not know the history of this conflict until college. It is the way of the media anymore, mind manipulation. They want you to think like them and hang on their every word. Therefore, you will do exactly what they say. I refuse to watch news from any station, I stay middle of the road when it comes to politics and these stations are all politically run.

Answer 6

When one misrepresents the facts, due to a religious bias, then one opens oneself up to a charge of bigotry and race hatred. Of course, the misinformation may be due to ignorance instead of bigotry. Sometimes it is hard to tell.

For example, according to your claims, Israel was established in 78 percent of the historic Jewish homeland of Palestine. You think that this means that Jews took 78 percent of the land from Arabs, who later called themselves Palestinians. A non-biased observer would conclude that that means that the Arabs kept 22 percent of the land which didn't belong to them.

You mention that Arabs became homeless when they abandoned what is now Israel. You neglect to mention that they were locked into internment camps by their fellow Arabs and used as political pawns. You also forgot to mention the "palestinian" country of Jordan, or the fact that the number of Jews forced out of what we now consider Arabs countries far exceeded the number of Arabs who left what is now Israel. You also forgot to mention that Jews have occupied Israel for all of recorded history. That the "original" inhabitants of the land, the canaanites became Jewish over 3000 years ago and that the Arabs currently in the area are more recent migrants to the area. You conveniently neglected to mention that most of the Jews in Israel have uninterupted roots in the area going back over 3000 years, and that most of the rest have unterrupted roots in the Middle east going back over 3000 years and that the only country ever known to exist in what is now Israel or Jordan was Jewish/Israelite. For the last 3500 years, there has never been another country there. Not even for a couple of years.

Answer 7

"When we criticise the Chinese occupation of Tibet, nobody criticises us of being anti-Chinese."

Yes, but criticism of the Chinese occupation of Tibet never involves advocating the destruction of China itself and denying the right of Chinese to live in Tibet (or China, for that matter).

And also, criticism of the Chinese occupation of Tibet never involves apologizing for various terrorist groups and/or terrorist activities.

And also, criticism of the Chinese occupation of Tibet has never (to my knowledge) involved labeling the Chinese as crafty, deceitful people who own the US government and the media.

Answer 8

Fortunately, the facts are readily available for anyone who reads English and has reasonably free internet access:
http://www.honestreporting.com

Answer 9

This is about "POWER & CONTROL" ....devide and qonquer: Napoleon; Cezar; George B.; Sharon; Stalin; Mao; Hitler; etc., etc., etc. This is the "History" repeating it's selff; human greed.

Answer 10

Israel won.