Biased reality
From a recent OCHA report (.pdf):
Note the sharp increase in Palestinian casualties last year – that’s what they get for having the audacity to elect their own government. Take a look also at the huge disparity in casualties for 2007 – by mainstream media definitions, reporting this in a “balanced” way would require that coverage is divided up 50/50, spending equal amounts of time on the suffering of “each side”.
In 2006, Israel killed 141 Palestinian children – almost three times the number it killed in 2005. According to the OCHA, the “vast majority” of them “died as a result of injuries sustained either to the head, chest or to more than once place of their body.” Again, despite the huge disparity (a single Israeli child was killed in the course of the conflict during 2006) of casualties, “balanced” reporting must give equal time to both sides.
Filed under: Israeli / Palestinian, Media, News and politics | 33 Comments
Tags: "reality has a Palestian bias", casualties, OCHA, stats, Terrorism
-
Subscribe to The Heathlander feed
-
Site Meter
A criminal does not get to decide his punishment. A political entity whose design ids the destruction of Israel does not get to dictate the possible retaliation to the attacks directed or encouraged by that entity.
A political entity whose design is the destruction of Palestine, on the other hand…
…gets F-16 fighter jets.
Except there is no design to destroy a nation that has never existed. Nor is there a design to destroy the multitude of Arabs who consider themselves Palestinians.
Ok, let them have a viable nation then.
To the Respectable Mr. Wolf: Except that a nation DID exist, insofar that Palestinian people were living in the area commonly known as “Palestine” even if under British or other rule. Do people have to have formal independence in a literal sense to be considered a “people”, a “society”, or even a “nation”? Hitler was engaging in “ethnic cleansing” to exterminate a complete “people”, “society” or what is now a technical “nation”. Did they have no right to exist when there was no “nation”?
Of course not. And Palestinians are now being ethnically cleansed by Israelis. They’re not allowed to live in Israel. What kind of democracy is that, btw? But Palestinians were living on that land, and now they are pushed off at gunpoint, at bulldozer shovel-end, and by being treated as non-entities. Non-entities don’t die. They don’t bleed. And their deaths are not mourned. They are just “collateral damage” in a “necessary retaliation” for the sake of “security”.
Wow. And that security is sure a rousing success isn’t it? Just like the U.S. is now more secure because we’re killing more Muslims and surveilling more and more people. Because ultimately “security” is obtained by obliterating the “enemies” who are everyone and everywhere, except they’re not “us”. And “we” are the good people and “they” are terrorists and evil and must be eliminated, every man, woman and child. I can’t wait to see the wonderful security that will bring! Peace and happiness to all the good and wonderful people who have the sense to kill for security, not the sick liberal bleeding hearts who think Palestinians are human beings, not terrorists, and must be considered for their “human component”.
Is it that anyone even seriously considers or even wants the elimination of Israel as a state? Hogwash. It’s that they seriously and desperately want the cessation of the process of elimination of non-Jewish people who like to live with their own human dignity rather than as slavish goyim with no rights, no land, no jobs, no economy, no government, no rights to their own religion, no voice, no respect, and the dubious right to tow someone else’s line with care, fear & trembling – from behind a barbed-wired wall, through checkpoints.
When will the Israelis ever become cognizant of the fact they’re in the power seat, and stop mowing people down? They have the f-ing Superpower in their back pocket, friend. The party in power has to give first, because they can afford to. It sure looks good, and it feels good, too. Give what? Either let Palestinians be a part of Israel, or have a single, contiguous nation for their own without strings attached.
If you want freedom, you have to let the other guy choose. If you really want justice, you’ve gotta walk in his shoes. But if you could meet halfway, tell me, how could you lose?
Omyma
It appears that for there to have been a nation, it requires to have had sovereignty. The Palestinians, other than those Palestinians who are now called Jordanians, have never existed as a sovereign nation.
This is not to say that they, like the Kurds, do not deserve to exist as a nation.
what you consider to be hogwash, I would consider to be wishful thinking on your part. But to be sure, as the charters, sermons, school teachings and street talk in Arab areas do seriously consider ways to conduct a second holocaust, forgive me for ignoring your opinion in this matter.
Israelis are very cognizant of who they are and what they have. And they intend to keep it.
While Palestinians are certainly human, I’m am concerned about the way Palestinians define humanity when the majority support suicide bombing.
Israel will not allow another enemy nation at the gates without strings attached. To expect otherwise is not reasonable nor rational.
By the way, 1.2 million Arabs who define themselves as Palestinians live in Israel as citizens. How is that being ethnically cleansed and not allowed to live in Israel?
A (quite) recent British Parliamentary report made quite explicit that the current state of affairs is effectively destroying the basis of a viable Palestinian state. If the latter has a “right to exist”, then – as set out by international law – Israel not only do not recognise it but are acting in such a way as to prevent it.
I’m not certain that the British parlement has anything to do with it other than apologizing for screwing it up.
Hi, Tim. Do you mean this one (.pdf) (from the Foreign Affairs Committee, July 2007)? It concludes, among other things:
etc. etc. It also concluded that U.S. and Israeli policies played a significant role in the outbreak of violence between Hamas and Fatah, and further that this not by accident but by design:
This has always been obvious but in mainstream discourse has remained a virtually unmentionable truth. Overall it’s a damning report, showing not only that the Quartet’s policies towards the conflict have been totally counter-productive to the goal of peace, but further that they were known to be counter-productive to this goal from the start. Which suggests an obvious conclusion: peace wasn’t (and isn’t) the goal.
It seems as though the Bush Administration’s only goal in the Middle East is the destabilization of the entire region. We sure have come a hell of a long way from the Camp David Accord…
When was the last time the region was stable? During the Iran-Iraqi war? During the “Rape of Kuwait”? During the Iranian revolution? The Jordanian-Palestinain War? The Lebanese – Palestinian war? The Egpytian – Yemen war?
Exactly when was the region stable?
“During the Iran-Iraqi war”
Who Instigated that?
“During the “Rape of Kuwait”
Who’s example did Iraq follow? Where did they get all their weapons from?
“During the Iranian revolution”
What was the reason for the revolution?
Not that I’m trying to point fingers, but certainly from the examples you’ve listed above, the West has played a major role in fucking up the Middle East.
You seemed to have missed the Egypt – Yemen war where Egypt used poisen gas.
But who was at fault was not the point. The previous writer stated that “Bush Administration’s only goal in the Middle East is the destabilization of the entire region”.
However, it does not appear that the region has ever been stable. Now it might be that the US wants the mideast to continue as it has for the last 200 some-odd years.
But Bush didn’t destabilize the region.
No, It’s not only Bush. He’s just continuing a legacy of the West.
The Americans and British overthrew the government of Iran, installing a dictator, which then led to the revolution. This was done because Presiden Mossadeq denied BP an oil monopoly in Iran. Surely, you’re aware of this.
And its not just oil for the reason why the mideast is not stable, but also because the West sees the region as a valuable strategic location for military bases to counter the perceived threat of communism, which used to come from the former Soviet Union (now looking resurgent), and China.
I left out Egypt, well since I really don’t know too much about conflict they had with Yemen, I’d rather not comment on something I’m not too familiar with.
Nobody are really saints here, I don’t see this as right vs wrong, black and white scenarios. But there are entities that commited crimes, and they should be held accountable for it, and pay reparations for it. And sovereignty should be recongnized, even if its not profitable.
You’ll have to build many more jails to hold all of the criminals from all of the Arab and western lands. You’ll find that holding them accountable makes it impossible to run the country.
The US tried to do just that in Iraq, holding accountable all of the Ba’athist who were involved in the ethnic cleansings and genocide.
Then they found out that there was no one left compitent to run the country.
Samr thing happened in Nazi Germany and Japan.
But those two countries wanted to rejoin the world with as much good will as neccessary, while it doesn’t seem that Arab countries care the same way.
Different moral standards.
“The US tried to do just that in Iraq, holding accountable all of the Ba’athist who were involved in the ethnic cleansings and genocide.”
Sorry man, the U.S. doesn’t give a shit about Justice in the region. And what gives the U.S. the moral authority that allows them to judge others? The U.S. went in there to secure oil for their military machine, nothing else.
“Then they found out that there was no one left compitent to run the country.”
They can barely secure the Green Zone in Baghdad, yet they have the uncanny ability to look for competance? Right.
“But those two countries wanted to rejoin the world with as much good will as neccessary, while it doesn’t seem that Arab countries care the same way.”
Who’s world to join? Is there an application form for it? I want in!
Regardless of your concept of what the US does or doesn’t care about, what it tried to do was inject justice in the equation.
And just as they discovered in nazi Germany and Japan, they could not run the country while eliminating the old power structure. That is why they can’t secure the green zone. Nothing to do with competency. There was nothing left to control the freedom of Iraqis to kill each other off in record numbers for 20 years of revenge. Just like in Yugoslavia.
In the late 40’s, both countries wanted to join the UN. But the current world was not going to expell Iraq from the UN even if Saddam murdered 2.5 million Kurds.
And what gives the U.S. the moral authority that allows them to judge others? Who knows. over 60 dictorial murderous regimes give the UN moral authority for many things. Seems moral authority isn’t worth much these days.
“Regardless of your concept of what the US does or doesn’t care about, what it tried to do was inject justice in the equation.”
How can you equate Justice by invading a country that posed no threat to the United States, ripped our a tyrannical government installed by the U.S. only to be replaced by one that favors one sect over another?
I have many Iraqi friends, Sunnis and Shiites (I also have Iraqi relatives). And believe me, the Shiites detested Saddam with a passion. It’s ironic to hear them say that despite that, Iraq under Saddam at least functioned compared to what it is now.
“In the late 40’s, both countries wanted to join the UN. But the current world was not going to expell Iraq from the UN even if Saddam murdered 2.5 million Kurds.”
I can now understand why the UN didn’t expell France for occupying Algeria, China for occupying Tibet, or Israel occupying Palestine. Thanks for putting that into perspective.
“And what gives the U.S. the moral authority that allows them to judge others? Who knows. over 60 dictorial murderous regimes give the UN moral authority for many things. Seems moral authority isn’t worth much these days.”
It seems that the U.N. is a failure again, given that they were tasked with preventing wars.
Justice has nothing to do with whether or not a country poses an immediate threat to the US. Saddam brutalized 75% of Iraqis who were not Sunni Arabs. He commited crimes of genocide against the kurds, he discriminated against the Shi’ites.
Italy and Germany functioned quite well under Hitler and Mousilini. And many Jews will tell you that.
Not only did the UN not expel France, it made it one of the permanent members.
imagine, a state where half of the nation gleefully fought for Hitler, surrendered with not much of a second thought, and has next to no military strength, through diplomacy, became the 5th permenant member.
Of course, the Saudis did ask France to massacre the Wahabists who took over Mecca.
By the way, Israel does not occupy anything but a small sliver of Syria. You have to be a sovereign nation to consider yourself occupied. As amply proven over the last 60 years, the palestinians have never existed as a sovereign nation.
“By the way, Israel does not occupy anything but a small sliver of Syria. You have to be a sovereign nation to consider yourself occupied. As amply proven over the last 60 years, the palestinians have never existed as a sovereign nation.”
Palestine has always existed because its people have always existed, and that is all that matters, quite frankly. Saying that there is no occupation, from my point of view, complete and utter bullshit.
Agani, the legal definitiom of occupation has to do with being a sovereign nation.
The palestinian people do not merit such under the legal definitions.
Your point of view, if not based om actiual facts, is easily dismissed.
On Sovereignty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi49tvs8jp8 (one of the few times that bush is actually right)
On the Occupation:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=972845012851906265&q=jeff+halper&total=17&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
(Jeff Halper, Israeli citizen working with the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions)
I know where I get my facts from. Not so easily dismissed
Frankly, nobody gives a flying wombat what you think, Jacob.
The United Nations defines the West Bank as ‘Occupied Palestinian Territory’ as does almost every country around the world and groups such as the World Bank and the European Union. A motion supporting this definition is regularly supported by all but a handful of nations at the General Assembly of the United Nations.
The International Court of Justice at the Hague has declared the Israeli security wall to be against the Geneva conventions and illegal. Very many respected international human rights organisations – such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch regularly detail abuses perpectuated against the Palestinian community by the Israeli military in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (their term). Even many Israeli organisations accept the term.
So you are not arguing with anyone here – you are arguing with the vast majority of political, diplomatic, human rights, legal and moral authority. In order to have any validity, you need to have far more of an argument than ‘this is the case because I say so’. You don’t have an argument because it is illogical nonsense.
Of course you do, Joe.
Ali, Bush’s, and especially not Halper’s, opinion gets to trump actual International law (as opposed to International opinion)
Acceptance of a term does not indicate acceptance of legal penalty.
Riiiight, so you’re telling me that the use of the term ‘occupied Palestinian territory’ does not imply Palestinian territory which is occupied?
Seems to me that legal brains bigger than yours have accepted that it is occupied land, and the highest court in the world has accused Israel of breaking the Geneva convention.
Makes precious little odds whether you accept the legal penalty or not – except of course to the ordinary Palestinians who feel the blunt end of Israel’s failure to accept responsibility for its actions.
It does not imply that there is an occupation that meets the legal definition of such in accordance with any International law. This means that the opinions of those court remain merely that, opinions, with absolutely no efforcement possible because they are only opinions.
If you would care to read the Geneva convention it its entirety, rather then just cherry picking what suits you, you would know that. Believe it or not, and regardless of what you do or think, the ‘biggest legal brains’ also know that.
The court did not deal with facts, just the politics. And you’d know that too if you actually followed the day to day working of the court when it dealt with that issue.
Bullshit.
The only reason the ‘opinions’ are not enforceable is that nobody wants to pick a fight with the world’s only superpower, who has decided to support Israel right or wrong (or is that wrong and more wrong?).
Amnesty International “Blatant violation of International Law”
Human Rights Watch “Threatened Sanctions on Gaza Violate Laws of War”
International Committee of the Red Cross “ICRC’s known position is that the settlements in the occupied territories are unlawful”
Presidential statement from the EU “The European Union reiterates that the construction of the separation barrier in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, is contrary to international law.”
UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/ES-10/15, 2 August 2004 “The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated regime, are contrary to international law” voted in favour by 150 nations, 5 against, 10 abstained
The only people who do not accept this are those who want to pretend that International Human Rights don’t actually apply to them.
UN General Assembly resolutions are normally political pandering to appease one faction or another but with absolutely no enforcement. Knowing this, many of the countries that vote, doing so as a prearranged bloc, do so with a clear conscience. They know that no sanctions will be set and no punishment mete. However, for the sake of assuring that they will receive oil, they routinely vote in such matter as to kiss ass.
Since the UN committees dealing with Human Rights have been acknowledge, by the UN itself to be a joke, most people know that the resolutions are meaningless gibberish. Don’t feel bad that you were so easily fooled.
It is funny how many nations pick fights with the only Super Power yet you still believe they don’t. The truth is right in front of your eyes and you keep putting trees in the way.
Funny how four of the five links I supplied above are not from the UN. The ‘facts’ are those accepted by almost everyone except people like you.
I’m curious – do you think that the Jews effectively stateless and escaping Naziism in Europe were legitimate refugees? Do you think that an organisation like Amnesty International, whose very existance was due to corporate inaction in the face of human rights abuses in Europe affecting the Jews, is really part of a global anti-semitic conspiracy?
It seems to me that you enjoy whitewashing anyone who does not agree with you on very vague and spurious grounds.
joe – just so you know, i’ve effectively banned Jacob from here for being trollish (accusing people of “genocide” willy-nilly, shouting “Islamo-Fascism” alot, etc.); that’s the reason he’s not replying. But if you’d like to continue this exchange with him, you can of course do so at his website.
(my guess is that he’d argue that ‘yes, Amnesty International and other NGOs are all hopelessly biased against Israel and Jews, so they’re all completely useless and their reports mean nothing’).
Ok fair enough Jamie. I’d really like to understand where these people are coming from because I just don’t get the mindset.