Doc's Talk: Journalism, propaganda and moral confusion (part two)

Monday, October 31, 2011

Journalism, propaganda and moral confusion (part two)

Melanie Phillips

As I noted earlier today in an update on my previous post, the BBC News website finally reported yesterday’s attacks on Israel at 04:10 this morning. Anyone going to the BBC website a little later, however, will have seen this item, last updated at 08:38 GMT:

‘Ten killed in Israel-Gaza attacks

An Israeli man has been killed by a rocket attack from Gaza after nine Palestinian militants were killed by Israeli air strikes on the south of the Gaza Strip. ‘ This was of course quite wrong. The Israeli was murdered in Ashkelon by rocket fire from Gaza following a sequence of events which started last Wednesday with a Grad rocket attack from Gaza on Ashdod. That was followed by an Israeli strike on Gaza targeted at the Islamic Jihad cell which Israel said had carried out Wednesday’s attack and which, it said, was preparing to fire more long-range rockets. That strike in turn was used as the excuse for the barrage of rockets from Gaza yesterday which killed the Israeli in Ashkelon.

So anyone clicking on the BBC News home page and just scanning the headlines there would have received the entirely false impression that the Israeli had been killed because the Palestinians were retaliating to aggressive Israeli attacks. Curiously, however, the full story accessed through this particular 04:10 link on the home page appeared to have been corrected at some previous stage, reading instead:

‘Israel-Gaza exchange rocket and air strikes killing 10

'An Israeli man has been killed by rockets fired from the Gaza Strip. Palestinian militants had vowed to retaliate after five militants were killed by an Israeli air strike on the south of the Gaza Strip. Another four Palestinians were killed in further Israeli air raids after the rocket attacks.’

Even so, only further down this story did the BBC report the Palestinian attack that had provoked the first Israeli strike:

‘The [Israeli] spokesman said that the first attack, about midday local time, specifically targeted a cell responsible for a long-range rocket attack on Wednesday, that exploded deep inside Israel. That attack had caused no casualties.’

At 0905 GMT, the website story was updated again to this:

‘Gaza-Israel ceasefire hopes after 10 killed.

‘There are hopes for a ceasefire between Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip and Israel after violence on Saturday. Egypt tried to broker an end to a day of retaliatory rocket and air attacks which killed nine Palestinian militants and an Israeli civilian in Ashkelon.’

In this version, Wednesday’s initial Grad attack is way down the story. Despite all the serial alternations, the overall and misleading impression from this coverage over the past 24 hours is therefore, at best, of ‘tit-for-tat’ violence and, at worst, of Israeli aggression. Either way, the truth of what actually happened has been obscured – and hostility and hatred towards Israel for seeking to defend itself against rocket attacks aimed at killing Israeli innocents will be ratcheted up yet further.

If ordinary people complain to the BBC about its Middle East coverage they seem to get nowhere. The doughty defender of Israel and the west, Dr Denis MacEoin, was horrified by an article published on the BBC website following the release of the kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in exchange for more than 1400 Palestinian terrorists in Israeli jails. The article, matched against one by the father of an Israeli girl murdered in a Palestinian terrorist attack, called the released Palestinian terrorists ‘heroes’. This provoked Dr MacEoin to write a complaint to the BBC. Here’s part of it:

‘I was aghast to read a viewpoint piece by Palestinian Nasser Ziad, ‘Released Palestinian prisoners are heroes’. Even in a free society, there must be limits to the kind of opinion presented, especially on an established website such as yours. The author argues that the Palestinian prisoners released as part of a deal for the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit are heroes because of their struggle for the Palestinian cause. This is truly disgusting.

‘The prisoners included women like Wafa Biss and Ahlam Tamimi. Tamimi planned a suicide attack on the Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem in 2001. 15 people including 8 children died in the bombing. When told she had killed 8, not 6 children, she smiled. Avraham Yitzhak Schijveschuurder was 4, his sister Hemda was 2. Since her release, Tamimi has spoken about waging jihad as before. She is not a heroine by any measure. Biss had been treated for severe burns in an Israeli hospital in January 2005 and returned in June using her out-patient pass to try to go to the same department that had saved her life, wearing an explosive belt, with instructions to kill as many children as possible. Since her release, she has spoken to Palestinian children, calling on them to grow up to become martyrs. She is utterly despicable by all civilized standards, and as far from being a heroine as I can imagine. Muhammad Wael Daghlas was sentenced to 15 life terms for co-planning the Sbarro massacre. He is thought too dangerous to return to the West Bank. A hero? By what warped standards can such a man be a hero to anyone?

‘These are only a few of the terrorists released by Israel. Ziad’s article describes the Israeli soldier Shalit as 'a legitimate target’. By what military standards may a soldier be kidnapped across his own border and subjected to over five years of solitary confinement, denied access by his family or the Red Cross.

‘You have published an article that turns all civilized standards on its head. Will you now publish a piece claiming that the London 7/7 bombers were heroes? That the Taliban who kill British soldiers and cause so much grief here are heroes? That murderers in the UK are heroes who deserve to be released? That kidnapping people is right? That those who executed the Omagh bombing in 1998 were fighting for a just cause, that we should build a memorial to them and give them medals?

‘You have gone too far this time. I can see no possible vindication for the publication of such a one-sided piece, which reads like a transcript from a Palestinian newspaper or a pro-terrorist opinion piece from The Guardian, which never plays by the rules. Fair argument about Palestinian aggression or Israeli responses would make a valid article, a piece that criticized violence, even if it promulgated a Palestinian position, would form part of dialogue, and I would not complain. But I am much minded of the repeated criticism that the BBC is biased against Israel. I have seen that bias played out too many times to doubt the broad accuracy of the criticism. But to publish a blatant piece that tries to exonerate mass murderers of their crimes is to pass well beyond the limits of civilized and legal discourse. Who will you choose to exonerate next? Adolf Hitler? Mu’ammar Qadhafi? Pol Pot?’

This was the reply Dr MacEoin received:

‘...The viewpoint that you complain about was a companion piece with this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15369286 by Ron Kehrmann. A woman convicted of involvement in the suicide bombing that killed Mr Kehrmann’s daughter was released as part of the prisoner swap. These two articles were intended to allow and Israeli and a Palestinian to explain in detail their views and feelings about the prisoner releases. Each article is highly opinionated, personal and partisan. They are both clearly labelled as “viewpoints”.

‘The article that you refer to outlines what Mr Ghoul [one of the released Palestinian prisoners] was convicted of. It attempts to explain how many Palestinians feel about the issue of prisoners in Israeli jails and about the acts of violence carried out by them against Israelis in Israel and the occupied territories. Such views are widely held by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, and therefore we feel that it is important to represent them as a means of explaining the importance of the events we are reporting on the news.

‘The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has multiple narratives and can be looked at in many ways. Military occupation and colonisation lasting many decades and the murderous attacks by Palestinians against Israeli civilians have left thousands dead and a far greater number of lives in ruins. Palestinians and Israelis have suffered greatly in this conflict. This is not to excuse any individual act of murder or violence. My point is that a piece explaining how a Palestinian feels about the prisoner releases, in this context and as a part of our wide range of coverage, is legitimate and revealing journalism.

‘I hope this goes some way to explaining why we commissioned and published this piece.

‘Best regards and thanks,

‘Tarik Kafala
Middle East editor
BBC News website’

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk