Part 7: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

[AndHarry]

Thread 1 - started when 3 Israeli boys were found murdered

Thread 2 - Operation Protective Edge

Thread 3 - Operation Protective Edge, the wider conflict and international involvement

Thread 4 - Operation Protective Edge and the different views in Israel and the wider international community

Thread 5 - in which Operation Protective Edge came to an end and the discussion continued

Thread 6 - themes of the conflict, what happens next and how ordinary people can get involved

Welcome to Thread 7.

Shakshuka, I have long ago given up on this thread but note, as you do, that the few people remaining seem to have a disproportionate interest in the topic, bearing in mind there has been so much else in the news worldwide since the thread was started. You therefore obviously know who you are dealing with here. Good luck!

Yes, I've looked through the rest of the thread and seen the bullying and goading of anyone who doesn't toe the line.

It's a shame because some posters do have valid points to make which, even if I don't agree with them,.make me think and reconsider mine - which really should be the point of the thread.

I don't take it personally. I know I'm not racist or islamophobic (I was also called a.Nazi on a previous thread! ) nor have i written anything to justify such insults and they're just cheap blows from posters who are so convinced of the moral superiority of their extreme positions that any slur is permitted.

Precisely, Shakshuka - as I said earlier, if any of these "racist" and "inflammatory" remarks really did exist, you'd have thought they'd be (quite rightly) reported for removal. Funny that no deletions have happened, isn't it??

As you suggested, sadly the extremists tends to cloud proper discussion of an important issue; personally I just regret their inability to understand their own part in the problems

not agreeing with the bombing of civilians in their beds, hospitals and schools is hardly extremism.

No, it's not. You'd have to be a psycopath to think it's a good thing.

An example of an extreme position in this situation is one where all the blame and culpability is presented as being on one side only, where that side is demonised and its narrative and legitimate claims are derided and ignored.

Of course this is not exclusively a pro-Palestinian stance. On other forums which are more pro-Israeli, i see pretty much the same characteristics vis-a-vis the Palestinians. Funnily enough, on those forums, I've had abuse for expressing the exact same opinions as I do here. Pretty much a mirror image. Here it's an Islamophobic psycopathic racist (who disrespects British war dead and dances with glee at the thought of Palestinian mothers dying) and there it's a self-hating, guilt ridden, arab loving anti-semite.

My own feeling is that when the extremists on both sides are abusing you for the exact same position, then you're probably on the right track, more or less. A bit like the BBC.

Of course the "unprecedented number of complaints" (about anti israel bias - in the guardian this time) is definitely not "part of a campaign". theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/27/readers-editor-guardian-coverage-israel-palestine-issues. Unlike the students paid to put out official propaganda on social media?

Qnboudi

Why is it so hard to accept that complaints of anti-Israel bias are just as genuine and heartfelt as those of anti-Palestinian bias? Why do you assume that it must be orchestrated and part of a campaign?

In my circle of friends and acquaintances, I know many people who think the BBC and especially the Guardian are biased against israel. I don't agree with them but I don't doubt the sincerity of their opinions.

Fair point made in the article that one of the reasons why Gaza has been covered more intensively than other conflicts is because journalists are allowed in to cover the story as opposed to Ukraine, IS and Syria although there have been reports of Hamas threatening journalists who reported a bit too truthfully on their antics.
blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alanjohnson/100283063/hamas-manipulated-and-intimidated-the-media-in-gaza-why-was-that-kept-from-us/

Yes, the Foreign Press Association criticised hamas for 'threats' to, 'pressure' on, and 'harrassment' and 'questioning' of foreign journalists plus a purported attempt to blacklist some (tho' I don't know what control they can have over this?). Agreed, not the kind of action we can condone. What I really find bizarre, however, is the veritable storm of interest this complaint generated. Bizarre, because if you go check out the source (see www.fpa.org.il/?categoryId=73840 ), you'll see almost 2 years' worth of complaints about abuse of journalists in the region, but more than 95% of these 'strongly worded condemnatory statements' are actually complaints about the IDF and Israeli boder/security forces. And the complaints in these cases are not just ' threats' and 'questions' or blacklisting, but 'unprovoked attacks' resulting in physical injuries (ripped clothing, bruising, scratching, punching and damaged/smashed cameras/property. The assaults from the IDF & other israeli bodies include tear gas attacks, use of stun grenades, rubber bullets and live fire. The FPA claims these 'repeated' attacks (and there are 2 more today!) are 'part of a pattern' of 'deliberate violence', which they believe is evidence of an israeli policy to 'obstruct and intimidate' journalists, including going so fas as to deny them access to Gaza. Let's not forget too that the IDF texted international journalists in the summer to 'warn them' that hamas was "going to use them as 'human shields' ".

As ever, the (overwhelmingly israeli/jewish) response to the FPA's statement is totally disproportionate and only goes to support the view of an orchestrated media campaign intended to disseminate misleading information and distract attention from Israeli actions. Sadly, many people don't bother to search out and weigh the evidence or even question what's presented to them, but are happy to calibrate their opinions by reference to where everyone else is positioned. In light of the 'unprecedented' number of complaints about anti Israel media bias, that's no doubt why so many actually do genuinely believe it.

I've been hearing about violence towards journalists, especially from border guards for a long time. It's also reported in the Israeli press as violence is not restricted to foreign journalists. Of course hamas threatening foreign journalists to only show their side would have intense interest given the.crazy pr battles involved with Gaza this summer . It still doesn't mean that complaints of anti Israel bias are part of an organized campaign. They're not .

I also noted in the fpa statement, many complaints of hamas and the pa seeing journalists solely as pr instruments for their own gain. Amira Hass, a fantastic Israeli journalist, had to flee for her life from Gaza as she was critical of the abuses of the hamas govt. yet we don't hear about her.

It shouldn't be a race to the bottom but there's no doubt that freedom of the press is far more respected in Israel although on both the Israeli and Palestinian side there are violations. Just the fact that the fpa sits in tel aviv and is highly critical of Israeli policies is significant, I highly doubt they'd be quite so comfortable in Ramallah.

That said, Israel as a liberal democracy should be allowing more freedom of the press since the fact that journalists have more access than Syria, Islamic state and Ukraine hardly represents a standard.to aspire to!

One thing I think is sad, on a slightly different note is that Israeli journalists are forbidden from entering Gaza. Its probably true that the threat is immense given that even foreign journalists have been kidnapped and someone as sympathetic to the Palestinian cause like amira hass was in fear of her life,but iit's essential for Israeli journalists to report on Palestine from Palestine including Gaza.

israel can be as illiberal and restrictive as it likes, same as any country, what it can't do is be that then keep holding up this myth of being a liberal western country. it can do as it pleases as a nation but without the support and collaboration of europe and the international community at large and without immunity from international law.

it's this myth and cosseting that has to stop. if media coverage has been covering the plight of palestinians and the reality on the ground for civilians in gaza more fully in this round of assaults it's a sign that that cosseting is being withdrawn by some quarters. the bbc has always shown more coverage of palestinians than extreme right wing american news channels but never to a level that could actually be called neutrality and it still doesn't. the bbc also failed to cover the massive marches of british people in support of gaza that passed right outside their building - how that can be seen as anything other than deliberate bias and non reporting of the real state of public opinion in the uk i don't know. i would certainly struggle to find anyway that the bbc is biased towards palestinians or those who are against israel's actions unless they're comparing it to blanket pro israel coverage without any coverage of the reality for palestinians at all - and that is the kind of coverage one could be accustomed to given the state of coverage historically and still now in the US on many media outlets.

i think the curtain is falling. it doesn't mean necessarily that people are anti israel but that they cannot swallow the 'liberal western democracy' spin anymore either. for many that will equate to blimey they're all as crazy and warmongering as each other rather than support for palestinians - racism towards arabs and islamaphobia has a strong foothold here too amongst many. we may not reach a point of massive condemnation of israel's actions but i think we are reaching a point of desire not to be associated with israel and it's actions and not to support those actions as people become more aware of what is actually being done and the kind of rhetoric and ideology driving those actions.

basically it's hard to try and stand up on a high horse when your dirty laundry is out there for everyone to see. whilst it may not lead to mass demands for action against israel it will certainly lead to a desire to stop supporting it in these kinds of actions.

people can't unsee the coverage they've seen on the ground in gaza and they can't unsee the coverage of marches with chants of 'death to all arabs' or parties on hills watching and cheering civilians being blown up. they just can't.

it may not mean they think israel is 'evil' or terrible but they certainly won't be able to see israel as some pure as driven snow poor little victim just trying to defend itself either.

the landscape has changed and israel is going to have to catch up with that - whether it decides to improve it's behaviour to change public opinion or decides not to give a shit about public opinion and carry on is up to them of course. currently it seems to be lagging behind and not accepting the landscape has changed and thinking this is still a PR game that can be won with denial and demonisation of the other side.

Why should the BBC be pro-Israeli all.of a sudden?

Not all American news agencies are on the 'extreme right '. They tend to be more sympathetic to Israel because Americans are more sympathetic to Israel. Their viewpoint is just as valid as yours.

None of my friends or family in Israel would ever chant 'death to Arabs' or sit.on.a hillside watching bombing.

Just like I'm sure none of your friends have ever marched with the edl or taken part in racist attacks.

Most people have the intelligence to.understand that 10 people on a hillside (from a town which has suffered endless bombardment for years - you don't hear about the short range qassam rockets, it's not newsworthy) are.not representative of a country of 7 million.

Any democratically elected government cares about public opinion HoneyBadger.

If I were Israeli, I would not vote for Netanyahu or Likud, and I abhor the huge loss of life over the summer. Then again, I sleep securely in my bed in a safer corner of the world.

But Netanyahu's actions have received considerable support from Israelis who did not want to sleep in a bomb shelter every night and sprint for their lives to a shelter by day, with a 15 second warning, due to Hamas attacks on their cities.

The Israeli government is responsible to their electorate and have responsibility to protect them from enemy fire. Israel's civilians endured prolonged and high volume missile fire, from which their government took great measures to protect them from loss of life (via Iron Dome and simple bomb shelters).

But it is a lot to ask an electorate to endure an ongoing and terrifying onslaught, with all normal life on hold, when you know exactly where the missiles are coming from and have the firepower to stop it.

So it's the electorate's public opinion versus the world's opinion. The world didn't stop Hamas's missiles against Israeli civilians. The world didn't raise a protest about Hamas's missiles against Israeli civilians. Israel has long taken the view that it cannot rely on anyone else to protect it.

it's not all of a sudden.

i never said ALL american news outlets were extreme right wing.

SM - no i wouldn't vote for them either but as you say they have a lot of support from israelis - obviously really or they wouldn't be in power. It looks like the electorate of israel opinion and international opinion are quite at odds (in terms of notions of proportionality, what constitutes defending oneself, what are legitimate targets for bombing, how to interpret international law etc) so if they go with only caring about the former as you suggest they will do then they are going to get more and more out of synch with the latter i guess.

obviously eventually that's going to cause some problems and consequences with and from the international community.

People care more about themselves and their immediate families. That's human nature and it's not exclusive to Israelis.

Hamas are netanyahu's best supporter. They got him into power in 1995 and they've done their best to make sure he's reelected again. They're doing a pretty good job.

I wonder what Gaza would look like today if hamas had focused on building their future state rather than attacking Israel? Certainly it would have weakened the argument of the Israeli right regarding the reality of a Palestinian state.

You're right that most us news agencies are objective. Sorry, I thought you were saying they're all biased against the Palestinians which is clearly ridiculous!

So when did the bbc turn pro Israeli and why?

It's funny because I remember back in the 80s that people complained of anti Israel bias even then.

If the BBC are so pro-Israel, why did they take out a high court injunction to prevent the exposé of bias in reporting into the conflict?

I thought I'd do a very quick bit of research myself. I went to the BBC's Middle East site, but didn't have to go further than the front page (www.bbc.co.uk/news/special_reports/middle_east_crisis/) where they handily have profiles of both Netanyahu and Abbas. These struck me as being ideally comparable and relatively neutral territory.

I coded each clause according to whether it was positive in tone/connotation (e.g. 'brought the big winners of the election into his coalition', 'spent 5 distinguished years in the army', 'in the early days be became respected for his clean and simple living', or 'viewed as one of the architects of the Oslo peace process'), what I consider to be neutral in tone/connotation (e.g. 'fought in the Middle East war', 'cofounded Fatah'), and negative in tone/connotation (e.g. 'this alienated his supporters on the right', 'Netanyahu survived rather than prospered and lost office in 1999', 'but his term in office has been dogged by the deep schism between Fatah and Hamas', 'his strategy has looked increasingly bankrupt to many Palestinians').

Here are the results. Draw your own conclusions.

Netanyahu: 1202 words, 86 comments, of which 22 are negative (26%), 30 are neutral (35%) and 34 are positive (39%).

Abbas: 981 words, 62 comments, of which 25 are negative (40%), 24 are neutral (38%) and 14 are positive (22%).

Hmm, trying the links again.

Netanyahu: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18008697
Abbas: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20033995

Oh and Netanyahu's summary is in the present tense while Abbas's is in the past tense. Tense is a well used technique for the writer to imply closeness/distance.

see the thing is i think from the pro israeli stance it is so natural and right that it should be positive about israeli leaders and entirely negative about palestinians as a whole that any deviation from that appears to be biased against israel.

if it was genuinely neutral - re: same amount of air time, same chance to speak and justify actions, same chance to talk about what they have suffered at the hands of the other, same chance to air their justifications and reasons for actions etc there would be outrage from the israel lobby - can you imagine? the reality is we NEVER see coverage like that. there is always more air time given to israeli reps and freedom to make their justifications and present their version of reality and promote their version of events in ways we do not see extended anywhere near equally to palestinian speakers and reps.

it's just fiction to imagine the coverage is anti israel given the simple breakdown of time, legitimacy given and freedom to voice ones perspective, justification and version of events.

Israel displayed callous indifference in attacks on family homes in Gaza and flouted the laws of war, says amnesty.

Amnesty documented 8 instances in which israel attacked civillians without warning, killing at least 104 civillians, including 62 children.

This nation claims it has the most moral army in the world. Completely deluded.

Qnboudi

Interesting but not exactly objective.

Your scoring of positive, negative and neutral is totally subjective and you're not objective since you're trying to prove a point.

Also there's no requirement to say exactly the same thing, just to report the truth.

Finally, past and present tense was used in both profiles as far as I can see.

Thb

I was thinking about what you said about people not unseeing things like a few people saying racist chants and forming an image of a whole people.

Actually you might have a point. Many Americans remember the Palestinian celebrations after September 11 and Israelis see Palestinians giving out sweets and dancing in the streets after every terrorist attack. The more Israelis killed, the greater the celebration.

Personally, I find generalizations quite distasteful but if it works for you.. .

m.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-29911702

Bit of a trend going on at the moment of mowing down people waiting for the tram.