Doc's Talk: The Mainstream Media’s War on Israel

Saturday, December 08, 2012

The Mainstream Media’s War on Israel

Author:

Blair Hart Newman

The controversial TIME magazine .

Wars throughout history were fought on land, at sea and in the air, but today’s battleground is far more ephemeral and complex. Rather than M-16s and rockets, today’s war involves ideas and information, but it is just as threatening to Israel’s existence.

The violent attack on the Jewish state waged by mainstream media, is turning credible news publications into forums for Israel-bashers to delegitimize the state – all under the guise of honest reporting. It is now more apparent than ever that the anti-Israel bias in the media is not just present – it is pervasive.

In Israel’s early history, mainstream media cast the young state in a positive light. As the regional underdog that shocked the world in its defeat of five invading Arab nations, the exemplary portrayal of the state came as no surprise. In 1973, Life Magazine epitomized the media’s high regard for Israel when it described the state as “enlightened, robustly democratic and hip, a land of astonishing achievement.” Yet in recent decades, the mainstream media has abandoned its support for Israel and instead, embarked on a full-blown war against the Jewish state.

In his recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, “What Happened to Israel’s Reputation?” Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, acknowledged that the Jewish state would not be portrayed in the same light today as it was in 1973. Despite Israel’s democratic values and commitment to peace, the media would depict “Israel’s overwhelming military might, brutal conduct in warfare and eroding democratic values – plus the Palestinians’ plight and Israeli intransigence.”

The cause of this shift, Oren says, “lies in the systematic delegitimization of the Jewish state. Having failed to destroy Israel by conventional arms and terrorism, Israel’s enemies alit on a subtler and more sinister tactic that hampers Israel’s ability to defend itself, even to justify its existence.” This includes the media’s false portrayal of events. By constantly challenging the public’s perception of the Jewish state, the media has become a powerful, strategic tool in the war against Israel.

Much of the intolerance and hatred directed at Israel stems from pure ignorance of the facts – facts that are on Israel’s side. Taking many forms – from misleading headlines, to the omission of information, selective sources and word choice – the mass media perpetuates this ignorance with biased, one-sided reporting. Such tactics distort the public’s understanding of the conflict and ultimately threaten the Jewish state. Because this media battleground is paramount, its threat to Israel cannot be underestimated.

Even the venerable TIME Magazine is no stranger to anti-Israel bias. In September 2010, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas traveled to Washington to “begin a fresh round of talks on peace between Israel and the Palestinians,” TIMEprinted a controversial cover story, “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace.”

The article, written by Karl Vick, depicts Israelis living in a bubble: focusing on “the good life” and indifferent to making peace with the Palestinians. This portrayal, intending to show readers that Israelis are to blame for the stalled peace process, was both misleading and inaccurate. The article doesn’t mention that in Israel, all citizens serve in the military, where Palestinian confrontation often means the ends of young Israeli lives. TIME doesn’t tell the reader that political debates are the norm in Israel’s many coffee shops. It doesn’t mention that every Israeli has a heart-wrenching story about a friend, loved-one, or neighbor killed during a war or at the hand of terrorists. Truly, Israelis – a people with such a deep connection to their country – are far from indifferent to peace.

The New York Times is also guilty in the media war against the Jewish state. As one of the world’s most widely read publications, the Times has a responsibility to report the whole truth. Yet its regular columnists “consistently distort the positions of [the Israeli] government and ignore the steps it has taken to advance peace.” As Ron Dermer, Senior advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu half-joked, “it would seem the surest way to get an op-ed published in the The New York Times these days…is to attack Israel.”

Among its most troubling pieces published in the last year is “Gilad Shalit’s Release,” an editorial from October 2011. While other news outlets weighed the costs of Israel’s decision – letting hundreds of Palestinian prisoners go free to redeem a single Israeli soldier – The New York Times seized the opportunity to condemn the Jewish state. The editorial criticized Prime Minister Netanyahu’s decision, stating that it would make him “less willing to make the necessary compromises to restart negotiations.” They questioned his willingness to negotiate this deal with Hamas when he refused to negotiate seriously with the Palestinian Authority. The Times concluded: “the problem is not that he can’t compromise and make tough choices. It’s that he won’t.”

Earlier that year, the publication’s usual anti-Israel fervor reached an unprecedented level. In May 2011, The New York Times published the Palestinian Authority President’s op-ed, allowing him to rewrite history. Mahmoud Abbas explained: “Zionist forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in the future state of Israel.”

While it is no surprise Abbas opts against laying blame on his Palestinian predecessors for their statelessness, it is surprising that The New York Times let a complete fallacy get into print. Had the Palestinian Arabs accepted the United Nation’s Partition Plan – or any of the countless other opportunities – a Palestinian state could today be a reality.

Despite denying responsibility in The New York Times article, Abbas has in the past admitted Arab responsibility for the flight of Palestinians from Israel. In 1976, he wrote, “The Arab armies … abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons.”

While magazines and newspapers are filled with anti-Israel propaganda, television stations are just as guilty. In April 2012, CBS aired the 60 Minutes segment, “Christians of the Holy Land.” A defamatory report on Palestinian Christians, the segment is likely the most astounding example of the anti-Israel bias on television in recent history. Bob Simon, who reported on the issue, used severely slanted sources to support his claim that the Israelis are single-handedly to blame for Palestinian Christians leaving the Jewish State.

Blaming Israel’s policies and settlements for pushing Palestinian Christians out of the region, Simon depicted the Jewish state as the oppressor. He portrayed the obstacles posed by West Bank checkpoints and the separation barrier, as if Israel specifically targeted the Christians with these measures. Checkpoints, in addition to the barrier, severely inconvenience residents of the area, however, they were only implemented to combat terror threats. In fact, Israel is the only country in the Middle East that protects – not oppresses, as Simon claimed – its Christian population.

These examples scrape the surface of the pervasive bias against Israel in the mainstream media, all carried out under the guise of honest, accurate and unbiased reporting. They serve as clear reminders that the media’s opposition to the state of Israel is rampant and there is no end in sight.

Today it is clear that this bias must be addressed. It is not only about restoring the integrity of the mainstream media and providing readers with factual information – it is a matter of Israel’s survival.

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