What the Media Gets Wrong About Israel

[shira]

...I’ll begin with a simple illustration. The above photograph is of a student rally held last November at Al-Quds University, a mainstream Palestinian institution in East Jerusalem. The rally, in support of the armed fundamentalist group Islamic Jihad, featured actors playing dead Israeli soldiers and a row of masked men whose stiff-armed salute was returned by some of the hundreds of students in attendance. Similar rallies have been held periodically at the school. I am not using this photograph to make the case that Palestinians are Nazis. Palestinians are not Nazis. They are, like Israelis, human beings dealing with a difficult present and past in ways that are occasionally ugly. I cite it now for a different reason.

Such an event at an institution like Al-Quds University, headed at the time by a well-known moderate professor, and with ties to sister institutions in America, indicates something about the winds now blowing in Palestinian society and across the Arab world. The rally is interesting for the visual connection it makes between radical Islam here and elsewhere in the region; a picture like this could help explain why many perfectly rational Israelis fear withdrawing their military from East Jerusalem or the West Bank, even if they loathe the occupation and wish to live in peace with their Palestinian neighbors. The images from the demonstration were, as photo editors like to say, “strong.” The rally had, in other words, all the necessary elements of a powerful news story.

The event took place a short drive from the homes and offices of the hundreds of international journalists who are based in Jerusalem. Journalists were aware of it: The sizable Jerusalem bureau of the Associated Press, for example, which can produce several stories on an average day, was in possession of photos of the event, including the one above, a day later. (The photographs were taken by someone I know who was on campus that day, and I sent them to the bureau myself.) Jerusalem editors decided that the images, and the rally, were not newsworthy, and the demonstration was only mentioned by the AP weeks later when the organization’s Boston bureau reported that Brandeis University had cut ties with Al-Quds over the incident. On the day that the AP decided to ignore the rally, November 6, 2013, the same bureau published a report about a pledge from the U.S. State Department to provide a minor funding increase for the Palestinian Authority; that was newsworthy. This is standard. To offer another illustration, the construction of 100 apartments in a Jewish settlement is always news; the smuggling of 100 rockets into Gaza by Hamas is, with rare exceptions, not news at all.

I mention these instances to demonstrate the kind of decisions made regularly in the bureaus of the foreign press covering Israel and the Palestinian territories, and to show the way in which the pipeline of information from this place is not just rusty and leaking, which is the usual state of affairs in the media, but intentionally plugged....



much more:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/how-the-media-makes-the-israel-story/383262/?single_page=true

[oberliner]

1. Interesting piece

What do you think of it?

[shira]

2. I think it's dead-on. Jackson Diehl of WAPO fully agrees with it too.

A dissection of the culture of “distaste for Israel” among Western press and NGO’s. All too true, in my experience http://t.co/kYhCOfmVjP
— Jackson Diehl (@JacksonDiehl) November 30, 2014

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

3. "Israelis fear withdrawing their military from East Jerusalem or the West Bank..."

Why not just remove all the illegal settlers, shira?

The statement "Israelis fear withdrawing their military from East Jerusalem or the West Bank..." is laughable with all the damage that the illegal Israeli squatters have caused to the Palestinians...not to mention the IDF that enforces apartheid there.

The Israelis have a lot to fear from that alone as their reputation shows them more as victimizers than victims.

[shira]

4. Yep, withdrawing from Gaza and Lebanon resulted in wars...

With the W.Bank, it's even more dangerous as the W.Bank borders Israel's major population centers.

Having Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and friends within short walking distance of Israel's population centers is scary.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. And yet again, you trip over the basic premis of the argument yet fail to see what tripped you.

You are stunning in your lack of comprehension.

[shira]

6. Your question is silly. There's no reason the W.Bank needs to be....

....completely and 100% free of Jews. In any genuine peace deal, the PA would allow for Jews to live in their ancestral lands as Palestinian citizens.

Of course I realize anti-Zio BDS'ers support a future Apartheid Palestine free of Jews...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

7. And now you do the settler sidestep. I mentioned illegal Israeli settlers. Illegal mind you.

You can conflate Jews with Israelis and vice versa until the second coming if you like, but illegal is illegal.


Strange that you would pretend not to understand that, but again your lack of comprehension on things is not what one would expect.

[shira]

8. People aren't illegal and borders are to be negotiated...

Last edited Tue Dec 2, 2014, 09:06 PM - Edit history (1)

When borders are negotiable, that makes the land disputed.

If it were as cut-and-dry as you think, Israel would be obligated to withdraw to the exact 1949 armistice lines. International Law doesn't call for that and never has. Not even the 1947 Partition Plan awarded E.Jerusalem to a future Arab state. At worst, that area is disputed and not exclusive Palestinian land.

Look up the Mandate for Palestine and you'll see it gives Jews the right to settle all land west of the Jordan River. It's still binding today as no legislation has or can overrule it. That's a fact.

Lastly, it's illiberal to call Jews who are indigenous to their ancestral lands "illegals" or foreign invaders.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

9. Now that is a lie cut from whole cloth. The Palestinians would disagree with you.

Israel has borders. The Israeli settlers squatting on Palestinian land are illegal colonies, but thank you so very much for giving me this gift of how you support occupation..and through it apartheid.

"Lastly, it's illiberal to call Jews who are indigenous to their ancestral lands "illegals" or foreign invaders. "

Thank you for the comedy gold. You try to argue for colonization with every word. How beautiful it is that you can show us how immoral and corrupt such a stance can be.

And your post complains about what the media gets wrong about Israel. Apparently they get nothing wrong.

Thanks for the comedy gold.



Bookmarked.

[shira]

10. The Palestine Mandate guaranteeing Jews close settlement....

....west of the Jordan River is International Law that is still in effect until a permanent accord is reached between the sides.

The occupation is legal as well according to UNSCR 242.

Again, calling indigenous people with ancestral ties to the land "colonists" and "illegals" is illiberal. Would you do that to any other indigenous group of people in the world?

As to colonialism and apartheid, you obviously do not know the meaning of the terms so there's no point going there with you.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

12. I hope your UN fantasies keep you insanely happy...but

Res 242 says nothing about Israel moving it's population into the West Bank to colonize it. It was a basis for a settlement of the Israeli / Arab crisis and not a green light for Israeli settlements.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_446

United Nations Security Council resolution 446, adopted on 22 March 1979, concerned the issue of Israeli settlements in the "Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem".[1] This refers to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip as well as the Syrian Golan Heights.

In the Resolution, the Security Council determined: "that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East"

So, shira, the above shows another UN resolution. Do you follow all resolutions or just the ones you make fantasies out of?

[shira]

13. No UN resolution can overturn the Palestine Mandate....

...which guarantees Jews close settlement in the area west of the Jordan River.

The only thing that can change the Palestinian Mandate is for the 2 sides to agree to a permanent accord.

==========

UNSCR 242 calls for secure and recognized borders. They cannot be secure unless they're first recognized. Ergo, negotiations are required to settle the issue of borders.

242 doesn't call for Israel to GTFO of every inch of land beyond the '49 armistice lines.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

16. Now you're just making it up as you go along.

It's a pity, shira, really.

You're actually starting to sound like the Hamas supporters who will just dig in their heels and curse Israel. You deserve each other.


So I was also right, as I usually am, in that you again like to cherrypick the UN resolutions that you observe and disapprove of.

God, you are horrible at this.

[shira]

17. No substance from you in response. All ad-hominem. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

19. It's actually a dead-on analysis, but please sidesep that and all the UN resolutions that you

disagree with.

[shira]

20. Analysis? LOL. Yes, you're a legend in your own mind. n/t

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

21. Legend? No. Hardly. But it is quite easy showing DU readers who the supporters of

expansionism, colonialism and apartheid are.

All you have to do is get them taking and the bad usually flows right out of them.

Good night.

[Shaktimaan]

23. That's funny...

Coming from someone who openly endorses different rules for different religions and nationalities.

The reality is that Shira (by which I think you really mean Israel), picks and chooses which UN resolutions to follow based on its own self interest. (Just as every member state does.) They can because UN resolutions have no legal standing. They're nothing but recommendations, outlining collective expectations.

Regarding your tired accusations that everyone who disagrees with you endorses colonialism, apartheid and racism, you severely miss the point. The vast majority of zionists support the two state solution and would much prefer to negotiate borders and end the occupation. However without an accepted treaty withdrawal would likely lead to war, as we saw following the unilateral withdrawal from gaza, (despite the accepted negotiations.)

Unless you have a plan for withdrawal that would keep the West Bank from becoming gaza while preserving israel's security, then demanding an immediate end to the occupation is unrealistic and reckless.

[Shaktimaan]

24. Actually she's right.

The UN can't overturn existing mandates, it's in the charter. And the British Mandate and the Balfour Declaration are the last legally binding articles wrt settling Palestine. (Aside from the Oslo accords which didn't restrict settlements.)

I can't say whether or not you're "usually" right, but regarding the border thing, you're not.

You support the right of return for Palestinians, don't you? Why is it you consider israeli Jews living in hebron (where Jews have lived for around 3,000 years up until 1929), to be colonialism, but the right of return is not?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

26. There was no "Israel" during the writing of the non-binding Balfour Declaration of 1917.

There was no treaty, and the British never consulted the people existing in the area of Palestine what they thought of it all.

Not only that but the British didn't even control the region militarily until after the Armistice of Mudros.


God, you too are completely awful.



It's surprising that you just can't comprehend that Israel is a state and that it is actively colonizing a land that the international community, of which the UK is a part of, sees them as illegal.



But please continue.

[Shaktimaan]

27. Never consulted? No treaty?

What about the Faisal Weizmann Agreement when the ruling leader of Arab Syria (including Palestine at the time), put his support behind the Balfour declaration?

What about the king crane commission which was the first Arab public opinion investigation ever created? It was American, but the results were presented to the British.

So, seeing as how both Jews and Arabs are indigenous to Palestine, how is it that a nation can be "colonizing" it's own homeland? Had 1967 gone differently, would you consider Palestinians who moved into west Jerusalem to be illegally colonizing someone else's land as well?

[Shaktimaan]

11. Really?

So Israel has a border with Palestine now? It's no longer a disputed issue to be settled through the peace negotiations? Fascinating.

So where is this mythical border located? And how/when exactly did it come into existence?

I'm sure if what you say is true then you'll have no trouble finding a credible link likely split.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

14. Just as the Irgun terrorists that you humanized in another thread fought their way to create Israel

so too will other groups pressure Israel to realize it cannot negotiate Palestine into an Bantustan and expect the Palestinians to just accept it.

But please keep up your dance step about disputed territory; which is just a convenient phrase for land theft and apartheid.

[Shaktimaan]

15. That's funny.

I'd love to see where I humanized Irgun terrorists. I pointed out that just as Israel elected former terrorist Shamir as PM, so did the Palestinians with Arafat.

This is especially hypocritical coming from you because just yesterday you argued against labelling the perpetrators of the recent attacks in Jerusalem "terrorists" as they were simply "fighting back" against israeli oppression.

But please keep up your dance step about disputed territory; which is just a convenient phrase for land theft and apartheid.

Actually it's just relaying the facts of the issue. Attempting to link recognition of reality with theft and apartheid is a strategy resorted to by someone who can't argue to the facts. If you could, you'd simply link to Wikipedia or something, where Israels border and when it was declared would be neatly laid out. Unfortunately you can't, because there is no legally recognized border right now.

Again you're left arguing that the acceptance of reality is immoral, as it doesn't conform to your expectations.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

18. What's even more funny is watching supporters of Israeli apartheid doing backflips to justify it.

But please proceed, shak.

[Shaktimaan]

22. Yeeeaaahh...

Accusing me of defending apartheid/colonialism/racism/occupation/etc isn't actually a reasonable argument. Especially considering how baseless it is.

Here's the difference between us. I'm pointing out facts, (actually, factual mistakes you've made), while you're just repeatedly engaging in baseless name calling.

Ultimately this weakens your position. If you're unable to make your point without resorting to ad hominems and absurd hyperbole then it implies your position was never very compelling to begin with.

[King_David]

25. Actually I think he demolished your "argument "

Quite nicely and all you came back with was "backflips".

LOL

[shira]

28. Someone who defends the Jerusalem synagogue attacks....

...as merely fighting back has no moral authority to accuse Israel of any wrongdoing.