Israel & the Palestinians

I share your concerns on government encroaches into freedom. Certainly the issue is a hot topic here, where biometric ID cards and detentions without trial are becoming a reality in the UK. I don't think that these measures make ours a totalitarian society by any stretch of the imagination, or that they are necessarily precursors to one. But it is important to speak out against such infringements whilst we do have the capacity to do so. If you are faced with a totalitarian government, it is by then too late to do anything about it....

 

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/4870/ConstitutionalErosion.html

 

Pretty much. The picture went worldwide from Associated Press and was reported in the same way by everyone that picked it up. The guy even ended up suing some French newspaper about it. (I can dig up more info if you want.) It's a good demonstration of one of the deceptive things about the modern reporting system. Things that appear to be corroborated by many sources may in fact have a single point of origin. That story was just one example, I can come up with plenty more.

What if that mistake was the result of a flawed system that is easily manipulated by people with an agenda and no compunction about lying? What if a lot of the local "reporters" and photographers employed by news agencies were Palestinians with a grudge? That might result in a lot of "mistakes".
​

However fair-minded they consider themselves to be, they're only as good as the information that they're fed. Western news outlets depend heavily on agencies like Reuters and AP who employ locals. I can given you several example that demonstrate blatant false reporting from these local sources.

There's an inherent disadvantage for Israel in the media war. Being a mature, open democracy, it can't get away with lying, because it's people would hold it to account. Contrast this with the Palestinian Authority, which is widely acknowledged as corrupt and governs a people to whom democracy is a fairly alien concept anyway. Western media may consider themselves neutral, but they're always looking for big stories and one side is more than happy to oblige. Do you recall that thing in Jenin back in 2002? Tell me, what do you think happened there?

I'm sure you mean well, but parading around that photo from intifada.org like it means something just leads me to conclude you are gullible. It's a classic Pallywood production.

 

Nicely Plagiarized

 

It would be a mistake to conclude I'm gullible, I think I've justified my reasons for including it. Aside from the ironic sentiment, it is also a symbolic act of protest for a cause that I am supportive of - freedom for the Palestinian people. You may disagree with me, but do not belittle my reasoning. I spend most of my days concerned with rational and critical approaches to social and political issues, gullible is one thing I am not.


You're right about the news agencies in terms of the original source, but that's just the beginning. On location reporting follows, and can go into quite some depth. As it happens, ITN's Middle East correspondant was pro-Israeli. Reports on the Lebanon war were surprisingly balanced, and I think proportionately equal time was given to the effects of the war on both sides of the border. Contrast this with FOX News uncritically pro-Israeli stance.

As I said before, scepticism is healthy. But your cynicism on the media relies on too many what ifs. I think you would have to further substantiate your what ifs with evidence for me to accept it. Also, you slip into gullibility on the reverse end of the spectrum by assuming that liberal democracies cannot get away with lying, or covering up the truth. I remember what happened in Jenin, and I remember the reports. The extent of what happened may never be known, and this is partially due to Israel's refusal to allow UN observers in at the time. This, to me, is suspect behaviour. Why refuse the UN when you have nothing to hide? Why not apply your scepticism of the media universally? That would be the more logical position....

 

And to turn the question around, why are you unreservedly pro-Israeli? I've already recognised and denounced acts of terrorism and human rights abuses on the Palestinian side. But do you not recognise that acts of collective punishment and human rights abuses have been committed by the Israeli state? Or are all such incidents media fabrications?

 

All I can say is it does you no credit to propagate such blatant propaganda. That boy is throwing that stone for the benefit of the camera. He's probably the cameraman's son. That's my final word on that picture, at least it's provoked an interesting debate.

The Red Cross Ambulance Incident

All our media reports pretty much the same thing, whereas in the US there is one whole outlet that reports from a different point of view. I fail to see how that makes the situation better over here. I'd call FOX news a breath of fresh air.

It's a hell of a lot more difficult for them.

Actually, the basic events and death tolls acknowledged by both sides (some time after the fact) are pretty close. But I'd like to know what you think happened. It doesn't have to be precise, just tell me off the top of your head what you recall. Don't research it at all because that will defeat the object. I'm trying to get at the perception that the reporting created in you mind. Then we can look at the facts and compare.

The deeper you dig, the more you discover that the vast majority of them are. Which is not to say that no Israeli ever did wrong, but it's not their government's policy to target civilians. I would not describe myself as "unreservedly" pro-Israeli, but I certainly perceive the situation very differently to you.

 

FOX News, to me, is the most mind-numbing mouth piece of American foreign policy and the Murdock empire I've come across. I don't mind intelligent right wing arguments. I like to see all situations from both sides and I enjoy healthy debate. But Fox News is lowest common denominator reporting for lowest common denominator people. I can't see how it is a breath of fresh air. I'll answer your question on Jenin when I get back from lectures - coincidentally on media and politics....

 

OK, Jenin. From what I remember at the time, and the weeks that followed, most of the original reporting described it as a massacre. I don't know what the figures were, and there were few reporters on the ground. I know that the BBC were fired at by Israeli soldiers and forced to leave. This was the beginnings of something seemingly quite suspect. I remember that the Israeli army cut water supplies off to the city. Whilst UN human rights organisations were never allowed in, later reporting did seem to indicate that the scale of what happened in Jenin was much smaller than originally stated. Civillians were killed, and homes were demolished, but it was certainly no massacre. Much of it was quite localised, I remember one picture showing. So Jenin would be a good example of early reports getting it wrong. But it is also a good example of what can happened when the media is not allowed complete access in conflict zones - it leads to conflicting reports. And it is also a good example of the media revising its reporting in light of new evidence. One point did stick in my mind in Jenin though, and it wasn't the massacre. And despite there not being the originally claimed massacre there, Jenin is still a good example of the problems of occupation, and the problem of a Palestinian authority lacking any sovereignty....