Help the Arabs in France and Belgium, you dumba--!

[Reffo]

There's an interesting book by an Israeli journalist which charts the development of this myth. Maybe you should read it, and then you really might have a better understanding of other points of view and might even move a little closer to the middle ground.

OK Sumud.....give me the reference I am rearing to learn what he has to say and learn something....Really.....I mean it......I am not just pulling your leg.

Ok, but I don't think you'll like it too much.
'Intifada Hits the Headlines: How the Israeli Press Misreported the Outbreak of the Second Palestinian Uprising'.- Daniel Dor.

But I'll recommend some antidote for you as well, as you'll proabably choke on that one. Try a dose of 'Covering the Intifada: How the Media Reported the Palestinian Uprising' by Joshua Muravchik. It has an American focus, but I'm sure you'll love it. He belongs to Club Med too -it's all Arafats fault, the Palestinians are evil and the Israelis are peace-loving, but maybe a little naive, and the media is anti-Israeli (except for Fox). I'm sure lots of members here have it in their book case.

Having Googled both the sources, this is my understanding of each of their positions:

DANIEL DOR
He is critical of the Israeli electronic and printed news media for reporting on the Intifada in a biased, one sided and selective manner. He claims that the net effect of such reporting has been the hardening of Israeli public opinion against peace, not because Israelis are not prepared to offer “territories for peace”, but because they perceive that there is no partner for peace on the other side. Daniel blames the Israeli media for building up this “false impression” because he claims that:

1. The Arab uprising (the Intifada) was spontaneous and Arafat was not personally responsible.
2. The uprising was caused by Palestinian frustration about the stalemate in the peace process and Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Haram Al Sharif/Temple Mount.
3. Barak had a role in the failure of the Peace Process.
4. The IDF’s conduct caused the escalation of the uprising
5. There was systematic disregard that Palestinians live under complete occupation
6. The wave of suicide bombings against Israeli civilians made things worse
7. The September 11 attack emboldened the media to treat Arafat as the local Bin Laden

JOSHUA MURAVCHIK
He is critical of the Western electronic and print media for managing to turn tiny democratic Israel into a pariah state. He calls this phenomenon “a fascinating historical question”. He attributes this to a number of prejudices including; anti-Semitism, sentimental third worldism, Marxist anti colonialism and anti Americanism. He claims that because western media are guilty of “bankrupt ideologies, and moral idiocies that have rendered the Middle East's only full-fledged democracy and free society into an international villain and that the selective, ignorant and biased reporting has misled the public about the real situation in the Middle East. He examined 10 key events and he claims that:

1. Ariel Sharon’s visit to the temple mount was used as only a pretext to the Uprising, not the cause of it. He mentions that a number of Arab leaders, including marwin Barghutti actually admitted this.
2. The western media slavishly perpetrated the myth that Sharon’s visit was a provocation and kept quiet about the fact that the Temple Mount is Judaism’s holiest site and is not just a Muslim holy site.
3. Much of the media ignored completely or played down a "vitriolic and incendiary sermon" preached by an anti-Semitic imam opposed to any negotiations with Israel. The imam stirred up the crowd with claims that the Israelis were going to turn the mosque into a synagogue and threats that Muslims "are ready to sacrifice their lives and blood to protect the Islamic nature of Jerusalem.
4. The media was guilty of selective reporting by mentioning that Israeli police killed four rioting Palestinians but omitting to mention that this happened while Palestinians besieged a police post near the wailing wall and that the mob rained rocks on Jewish worshippers.
5. Their report that day also ignored the death of an Israeli soldier who was gunned down by his Palestinian partner in a joint patrol
6. He accuses the media of using false moral equivalency because they repeatedly gave credence to claims of discredited Palestinian spokesmen. He mentions the example of a particular accusation against Israeli settlers that they tortured a Palestinian man to death when in fact, it was proven the man died as a result of a motor vehicle accident.
7. Another example of the use of false moral equivalency, involved the reported shelling by Israel of empty Palestinian police stations, Israel pre warned the Palestinians about their intentions after a frenzied Palestinian mob lynched the two captured Israeli reservists. A media outlet chose to present this by saying that “There are Israelis and Palestinians who do not want this peace plan to succeed. Yasir Arafat is vulnerable to those forces and so is Prime Minister Barak."
8. On another occasion, the same western reporter made the claim: “Various Palestinian factions as well as Jewish settlers in the territories are calling for another day of rage,”. The reality though was that the settlers never did call for days of rage.
9. Another western media outlet equated the act of Sharon visiting the Temple Mount to the Palestinian act of destroying Joseph’s tomb. Joshua questions how the act of visiting a site that is holy to Jews is equivalent to an act of destruction of a site that is holy to someone else?
10. The coverage of the so-called Jenin massacre encapsulates best the failures of the media to distinguish between the defensive actions of a democratic army and the murders of an autocratic terrorist gang. The media again initially gave credence to the exaggerated Palestinian claims that the Israelis killed over 500 people in a massacre. Of course, such claims were thoroughly discredited later.

Muravchik claims that the problem with the media's distortions, whether they result from professional sloppiness, ideological bias, ignorance, or fear of reprisal from Palestinian terrorists, is that first impressions are created that last beyond the later corrections. The "Jenin massacre," for example, lives on in a "documentary" circulating on college campuses,

My Reaction to Both Journalists
Firstly, I agree with both journalists that most if not all media outlets have their own biases and inevitably they have to displease one side or the other. The least biased ones tend to displease both sides. But it does not mean that the media cannot take sides, as long as they stick to proven facts and/or report other news as unsubstantiated claims (as much as possible).

Secondly, with regards to Sharon’s visit of the Temple Mount: I don’t really care whether the uprising was spontaneous or pre-planned. Either way, I agree with the general perception of many Israelis that that action and the subsequent wave of suicide bombings and terrorism (which incidentally never completely really ceased even before the Intifada) revealed that there is no real willingness for peace on the other side.

Thirdly, the claim that Barak had a role in the failure of the Camp David negotiations does not sound to be credible. No lesser people than Bill Clinton and Dennis Ross, who were directly involved in the negotiations, put the blame for the failure, fairly and squarely on Arafat and not Barak.

Fourthly, it is disingenuous to blame the IDF for the escalation of violence because the violence was clearly started by the Arabs. Although it is quite probable that the IDF was heavy handed and that because they were neither equipped nor prepared to deal with such violence, there were probably some unnecessary Palestinian deaths and casualties. Having said that, based on past historical patterns, I doubt that the events would have unfolded with significant difference even if the IDF would have been more professional in their crowd control. After all, this was not the first ever Palestinian uprising in the holy land. Such uprisings occurred even during the British mandate and invariably the violence escalated and thousands died before the uprisings subsided. For instance, in the 1936 to 1939 Arab revolt, it was estimated that over 5000 Arabs died.

And Sumud, lastly, just for the record, let me reiterate that I am pro Israel. In that sense, I don’t describe myself in the middle ground with regards to this long standing conflict. By the same token, I would not describe you as being in the middle either because you on the other hand seem to be pro Arab/Palestinian. To my way of thinking, one can only describe themselves to be in the middle if they are neutral. However, when I described as being in the middle, I meant it within the spectrum of the pro Israel opinion. As I said, I favour the idea of land for peace but only if it’s NOT pretend peace!

[MGB8]

Reffo,

Just to post some responses:

• Barghouti, I believe, among others has stated that this intifadah was pre-planned;
  
• In terms of being a pre-text, how is a Jew, even a hated one, visiting a religious site enough to justify a war? (that seems like quite a weak pre-text to me);
  
• its not just the sermon or background of violence, but ALL the sermons, teachings, and other incitements for violence that the Western media has ignored, not to mention Pal Arab leadership statements that show that peace was never in the plan;
  
• I think you unfairly say that Barak had no role in the failure of camp david. I'm sure that there is a limited amount of truth to it. However, the bottom line is that Barak went to the Israeli red lines (at Taba), and darn close to them at Camp David, with the real differences being a little bit of land and no temporary Israeli military control of the Jordan Valley - which, frankly, is a very reckless offer on Barak's part and likely would have led to war. Barak's real failure is not realizing that the Arabs could not accept the Israeli red lines, because they were not willing to compromise at all, they believed that accepting the existence of Israel at all was their compromise, and thus no peace was (and likely is) possible between the Pal Arabs and the Israelis (for the forseeable future).
  
• I am sure that there are many legitimate greivances against IDF conduct, etc. There is a good Israeli website on it - I forget its name, but I posted to it a while back. Most are relatively "minor" things, rudeness, etc., but they exist and I'm sure make things worse;
  
• That said, I agree with you that its pretty baseless to blame the IDF for the intifadah. Most of the things in the website, above, came IN RESPONSE to the intifadah - the vast majority. The checkpoints, curfews, and closures, etc... also AFTER the intifadah. You had a pre-planned war, and it would have gone forward regardless of how the IDF reacted. You think all those suicide bombers were recruited and gotten bombs for spontaneoulsy? I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale...
  
• In the end, it comes down to the question, does occupation, in of itself, justify targetted mass-murder of non-combatants? The Arab Imperialists say yes, more or less... they refuse to say no, or, when some of their western compatriots say "no" - they say it quietly, without force, and then change the subject and go back to justification.
  
• Now, considering that "occupation" has been milder to the occupied than CITIZENSHIP in most Arab nations, especially Pal Arabs who are not even citizens in the Arab nations they reside in (with the exception of Eastern Palestine=Jordan, where they are the majority) and are restricted in profession, ownership, education, far more than any of the grievances in Israel and the territories (where are the Pal Arab universities in Lebanon, Syria, etc? where are the Pal Arab doctors and lawyers and accountants there? they exist in Israel and the territories.) The only conclusion is that it is not about "freedom", but about opposition to Jewish control of said land - which is backed up by the Arab's statements. Its based in Arab/Islamic Imperialist ideology - and this ideology is what makes peace impossible in the near and medium term.