How to Become an Israeli Journalist

[subsuelo]

This is a really outstanding analysis ... some specific items I know I've never noticed before. I will be reading news articles with an even more critical eye than before after reading this.. I would urge interested persons to read the whole thing if time permits.

In most of the articles on the conflict two sides battle it out: the Israel Defence Forces, on the one hand, and the Palestinians, on the other. When a violent incident is reported, the IDF confirms or the army says but the Palestinians claim: ‘The Palestinians claimed that a baby was severely injured in IDF shootings.’ Is this a fib? ‘The Palestinians claim that Israeli settlers threatened them’: but who are the Palestinians? Did the entire Palestinian people, citizens of Israel, inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, people living in refugee camps in neighbouring Arab states and those living in the diaspora make the claim? Why is it that a serious article is reporting a claim made by the Palestinians? Why is there so rarely a name, a desk, an organisation or a source of this information? Could it be because that would make it seem more reliable?


The Israeli army never intentionally kills anyone, let alone murders them – a state of affairs any other armed organisation would be envious of. Even when a one-ton bomb is dropped onto a dense residential area in Gaza, killing one gunman and 14 innocent civilians, including nine children, it’s still not an intentional killing or murder: it is a targeted assassination. An Israeli journalist can say that IDF soldiers hit Palestinians, or killed them, or killed them by mistake, and that Palestinians were hit, or were killed or even found their death (as if they were looking for it), but murder is out of the question. The consequence, whatever words are used, has been the death at the hands of the Israeli security forces since the outbreak of the second intifada of 2087 Palestinians who had nothing to do with armed struggle.

The IDF, as depicted by the Israeli media, has another strange ability: it never initiates, decides to attack or launches an operation. The IDF simply responds. It responds to the Qassam rockets, responds to terror attacks, responds to Palestinian violence. This makes everything so much more sensible and civilised: the IDF is forced to fight, to destroy houses, to shoot Palestinians and to kill 4485 of them in seven years, but none of these events is the responsibility of the soldiers. They are facing a nasty enemy, and they respond dutifully. The fact that their actions – curfews, arrests, naval sieges, shootings and killings – are the main cause of the Palestinian reaction does not seem to interest the media. Because Palestinians cannot respond, Israeli journalists choose another verb from the lexicon that includes revenge, provoke, attack, incite, throw stones or fire Qassams.


...The IDF, again the envy of all other armies, kills only the most important people. ‘A high-ranking member of Hamas was killed’ is almost a chorus in the Israel media. Low-ranking members of Hamas have either never been found or never been killed.

And then there are the Occupied Territories themselves. Remarkably, there are no Occupied Territories in Israel. The term is occasionally used by a leftist politician or columnist, but in the hard news section it doesn’t exist. In the past they were called the Administered Territories in order to conceal the actual fact of occupation; they were then called Judea and Samaria; but in Israel’s mass media today they’re called the Territories (Ha-Shtachim).

...Palestine is a word that is almost never used – there is a Palestinian president but no president of Palestine.

full story by Yonatan Mendel here

[aquart]

1. Was there ever a Palestine?

Is there a Palestinian language? Religion? Capital? Anthem? Flower?

A history book full of Palestine's kings, presidents, parliamentary leaders?

[subsuelo]

2. Would have been had the indigenous people not been forcibly removed

anyway, got any thoughts about the article?

[MaryCeleste]

8. No, its not econmically sustainable as a nations-state

Even if peace and good relations with all were to come about tomorrow, Gaza and the West Bank are not sustainable as states.

[azurnoir]

10. Not true

as things stand economic development is being blocked, by both the air and water blockades on Gaza and various means in the WB.
Gaza's economy could be very good for a number of reasons first off the discovery of a still undeveloped natural gas field off the coast of Gaza

Following the unexpected discovery of rich natural gas fields off the Gaza coast, BG and the Palestinian Authority launched parallel talks with the aim of supplying Israel.

But then Israeli premier Ariel Sharon, banking only on Egyptian gas, slapped a veto on the deal, arguing that the Palestinians would use the receipts to "finance terror".

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=16556

The article is from 2005 but nothing has changed lots of talk no action

[MaryCeleste]

13. 140 square miles without infrastructure is not nearly enough for a sustainable nation

regardless of how much NG that may be there. No viable airport, no operable railroad, no commercial seaport, no large scale power generation. Gaza also was not viable while under Egypt's control. Note the NG is only an estimate, not a proven reserve at this point.

Has anyone recognized Palestine as a nation yet?

[Scurrilous]

14. Here:

Costa Rica Recognizes Palestinian State

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=201241

[azurnoir]

15. China and Turkey also recognize Palastinian State

The claim is that about 100 countries however without a comprehensive list I will settle for 3

http://imeu.net/news/article0065.shtml

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/english/200003/09/eng20000309W111.html

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE5DF163EF934A25752C1A96E948260&sec=&spon=&pagew

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unrecognized_countries

[MaryCeleste]

19. Which governement (Hamas or Fatah?)

Do they have a seat at the UN or are they considered an NGO?

Its not a viable nation.

[azurnoir]

21. Not yet

but what is your point here? Are you promoting a one state solution?

[MaryCeleste]

30. It could go several ways

- All part of Israel, per the original partition
- Egypt integrates Gaza, West Bank returns to Jordan
- Remain the unsupportable mismash we have today.

Clearly the last option is what some Arab and Muslim nations really want. Leaves the residents as proxies to attack Israel with no cost (other than weapons)

[Phx_Dem]

22. There used to be a functional airport in Gaza

but the IDF bombed it in 2001.

[MaryCeleste]

31. Not really...

Single runway capable of only handling up to 727s is less than many small towns have. It would have been only for the elites. Gaza needs a viable port much more than a token airport.

I think the runway was done by combat engineers vice bombs, regardless, the runway is shattered. Subsequently The IDF has also done a job on the support facilites as well as the runway. Its all almost a write off.

[breakaleg]

3. By all means, ignore the substance of the article and pick on the one minor point you can dispute.

[subsuelo]

4. The truth is difficult to face

I believe there is hope for everyone however

[breakaleg]

5. This language is prolific throughout IP. Sometimes we need to remind ourselves of what the truth

really is.

[azurnoir]

6. Some answers to your assertions

Is there a Palestinian language?

Arabic, which is the language of a number of other countries in the region, the question is a little asking is there an American language

Religion? Mostly about 85% Islam and a Christian minority

Capital? Gaza City and possibly East Jerusalem in the future

Anthem? Flower? Honestly I do not know but those items seem minor

A history book full of Palestine's kings, presidents, parliamentary leaders?

There is a Palestinian president now, along with ministers; there have been Israeli PM's and ministers for about 60 years does that fill a history book, oh that's right kings you mean the biblical ones, so now the bible is a history book.

The underpinning of your comment is that there never was a Palestine so hence no Palestinian people

[MaryCeleste]

9. Some objections to your answers

There used to a sizeable number of Jews, Bahai, Druze and other groups throughout the West Bank and Gaza. What happened to them?

Consider this: Who recognizes the nation of Palestine and which government do they recognize. Also whom do the UN or the IOC recognize.

[azurnoir]

11. There is no Palestinian nation as of yet

never has been and well........, but thank you for proving my last point.

Now for those sizable numbers there still is a sizable number of Jews living on the WB and the overall demographics there used to be a lot more Arabs in Israel where did they go?

http://www.israelipalestinianprocon.org/populationpalestine.html

[MaryCeleste]

12. I was referring to the ethnic cleansing done by Jordan in 1948 in east Jerusalem

when Jordan killed or expelled all the Jewish residents there, and, in an effort to erase evidence of centuries of Jewish presence including all 58 synagogues. Even today there are those in the ME who claim that there is no evidence of Jewish presence on the Temple Mount and else where. Recent example from a few days ago:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1204546446423&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[azurnoir]

23. I must be confused then

your original post referred to other ethnic groups also but you say it's really only Jews your interested in.

here used to a sizable number of Jews, Bahai, Druze and other groups throughout the West Bank and Gaza. What happened to them?

As for the statement of Sheikh Raed Salah it is hardly the first time he has said such things. There are "leaders" on both sides that make similar claims on the land, that is a part of the problem. The Jewish ones are not usually on the front page of certain Israeli newspapers though.

[Crunchy Frog]

33. Is there any point to this question?

Does it negate anything in the article?

[azurnoir]

34. IMHO the intent was to

undermine the very concept of a Palestinian state-there never was a Palestine, hence no Palestinian people, hence how can there ever be a Palestinian state

[azurnoir]

7. The sanitizing of killing "them"

along with "they make us do this" is hall mark to the struggle, making digesting what would otherwise be atrocities palatable even desirable to a willing public.

To see these sentiments echoed on a "progressive" board is chilling, the sentiment that it is all "their" fault has gotten to the point of ridiculous.

[Looking4Light]

16. Ahem, about the original message...

It's not hard to see why this guy wasn't given a job at a newspaper. He doesn't care about facts.

In most of the articles on the conflict two sides battle it out: the Israel Defence Forces, on the one hand, and the Palestinians, on the other.

In less than 2 minutes I found the following quotes online:

Haaretz
The Palestinian Islamic Jihad on Thursday claimed it fired at least 15 rockets into the western Negev by early morning,


Jerusalem Post
Islamic Jihad released a statement in Gaza saying Karkur was one of the group's top West Bank commanders and threatened to avenge his death.

Following the maneuver, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades said that it would no longer abide by an unofficial truce with Israel.

[Behind the Aegis]

17. What a pathetic article.

This article is chocked full of propaganda and out-right stupidity. It is remarkably bigoted as well. I am guessing he wasn't hired because he can't distinguish fact from fiction or fantasy or propaganda.

"...Palestine is a word that is almost never used – there is a Palestinian president but no president of Palestine."

Well, duh. There is no president of Palestine because there is no "Palestine." However, there are Palestinians, and therefore, the adjective, Palestinian, can be used to describe a president.

Of course, the biggest load of crap was in this paragraph...

If the words occupation, apartheid and racism (not to mention Palestinian citizens of Israel, bantustans, ethnic cleansing and Nakba) are absent from Israeli discourse, Israeli citizens can spend their whole lives without knowing what they have been living with. Take racism (Giz’anut in Hebrew). If the Israeli parliament legislates that 13 per cent of the country’s lands can be sold only to Jews, then it is a racist parliament. If in 60 years the country has had only one Arab minister, then Israel has had racist governments. If in 60 years of demonstrations rubber bullets and live ammunition have been used only on Arab demonstrators, then Israel has a racist police. If 75 per cent of Israelis admit that they would refuse to have an Arab neighbour, then it is a racist society. By not acknowledging that Israel is a place where racism shapes relations between Jews and Arabs, Israeli Jews render themselves unable to deal with the problem or even with the reality of their own lives.

First, "Palestinian citizens of Israel" are Israelis. Second, bantustans and ethnic cleansing are propaganda-laced words used by those unfamiliar with the terms or those who don't really care what the terms mean and simply use them as 'weapons' against Israel. As for al-Nakba, I have seen that word in a number of Israeli articles, postings, and news sources. Finally, the author gets into the realm of lies and distortion.

"If the Israeli parliament legislates that 13 per cent of the country’s lands can be sold only to Jews, then it is a racist parliament." LIE. No such legislation exists. He is referring to the Jewish National Fund (JNF). FACT: The JNF has and does rent land to non-Jews. So, basing a conclusion on a lie, leads to a false conclusion. The statement is also riddled with inaccuracy as the JNF doesn't sell land. Over 95% of Israeli land cannot be sold to Arabs or Jews, period.

"If in 60 years the country has had only one Arab minister, then Israel has had racist governments." What an absurd conclusion! So, when there was an Arab minister, suddenly Israel didn't have a racist government? Whether a government is racist or not is determined by its actions, not by who is or isn't a member.

"If in 60 years of demonstrations rubber bullets and live ammunition have been used only on Arab demonstrators, then Israel has a racist police." Again, this is an absurd conclusion, but it isn't as absurd as the aforementioned example. Besides, it is not true. Rubber bullets and other non-lethal methods have been used on a variety of demonstrations, including ones with Jews.

"If 75 per cent of Israelis admit that they would refuse to have an Arab neighbour, then it is a racist society." Is this a reference to that idiotic "study" about racism in Israel that one poster here loves to puke up so often? Well, even if not, racism is not uncommon in situations like this and of course, the author doesn't point to the fact the numbers work in almost similar way in Arabs opinions of Jews. Then again, the author has shown his willingness to make up facts and not provide sources, so why should this be different?

"By not acknowledging that Israel is a place where racism shapes relations between Jews and Arabs, Israeli Jews render themselves unable to deal with the problem or even with the reality of their own lives." As Jews are not the only citizens of Israel, do not other groups need to be aware of how racism shapes the reality of their lives?

The real fact is racism is a problem in Israel, like it is in the rest of the world. The real fact is that the racism runs in many directions.

[LeftishBrit]

18. Isn't this true of any country?

When reporting deaths in war, one normally does not say that the people were 'murdered'. Soldiers are 'casualties' and civilians 'collateral damage'. And the euphemisms mentioned in the article are also common. Perhaps it would be a good thing if deaths in war WERE generally called murder; but the fact is that they aren't.

As regards Israeli journalists specifically, my impression is that overall they are more honest and more prepared to criticize their own government than the journalists of many other countries. Certainly, this seems to be the case with 'Ha'aretz'.

The reason why there isn't a 'president of Palestine' is that there isn't yet a Palestinian state. I hope there soon will be.

[bemildred]

20. Yes,it is "normal", but Israelis are not particularly special in terms of speaking out.

There are rather vocal critics of the Iraq war all over the world, for example, and they sometimes get coverage, as with Ms Rice a day or two ago.

[subsuelo]

24. I never really bought into the whole 'but other countries are doing it" approach

Not saying it doesn't happen in other countries either, but that doesn't somehow negate the analysis.

[LeftishBrit]

25. I am not saying that it's an excuse that 'everyone else is doing it' ..

whether for a child or a country.

But sometimes I perceive anti-Israel exceptionalism, where people imply that Israel is some sort of uniquely evil country because it does what practically every other country does. I don't approve of exceptionalism in *favour* of any country, including Israel; but I also don't like exceptionalism *against* specific countries.

I also think it's often easier to understand and thereby combat a phenomenon if it's recognized as a common one than if it's identified with a specific country,

[subsuelo]

26. I didn't intend to imply you were excusing it

I am sorry so if it came across that way.

However, I still disagree with the approach generally, and here's my reasoning: I think that kind of response tends to take away from the analysis provided, as if it is somehow less valid. Of course, any given analysis about some phenomena is not less valid based on the fact that the phenomena occurs in other countries.

I do have some disagreement with your points on "anti-Israel exceptionalism". In my view, there is a greater focus on Israel and the U.S. due to the fact that we are constantly bombarded with pro-Israel and pro-US propaganda from most of our media in the west. So you end up with people who are, in a sense, fighting back. We get this pro-US/Israel propaganda stuffed down our throats so much that one can't help but to stand up and say "No, this is wrong, and that is wrong" and provide some corrections to the volumes of distorted facts, selective topics, half-truths, spins, manipulations, and outright lies. Furthermore, I find it unfair to then turn and characterize those who counter the propaganda as being someone questionably 'exceptionalist' towards Israel and/or the U.S.

This isn't to say that there does not exist anti-Israel sentiment based solely on people wanting to direct their hatred or ill-will towards Israel just because they hate Jews or based on some whacky religious theory. One has to be on guard against that type of sentiment, however, in my experience, those views and opinions are usually fairly easily distinguishable from the views of those who are fighting back. You often get the obvious slanderous statements against Jewish people, or against Jewish culture thrown in. Whereas those who are merely countering the pro-Israel propaganda are usually lacking in that kind of slander.

[pelsar]

27. i thought this was interesting..

Whereas those who are merely countering the pro-Israel propaganda are usually lacking in that kind of slander.

so what do you call accusations that dont have anything to back them up with?

[subsuelo]

28. Empty.

What else is there to call an accusation without anything to back it up?

[pelsar]

32. i was reminded of your previous posts...

but this is not the place to go into it......so i'll pick them up elsewhere......

[LeftishBrit]

29. I understand what you mean...

however, I think that one has to be careful about the risk of what I call 'mirror-image-ism': falling into the trap of being so opposed to the establishment and its propaganda that one becomes willing to accept uncritically anything that's against the establishment. I'm not saying that *you* are doing this, but it is something I see from time to time.

Years ago, I knew a young Polish man, who had moved to Britain to study. This was when Poland was still part of the Soviet bloc; and he had lots of negative experiences with Soviet oppression and propaganda, and as a result thought at first that ANYTHING that was opposed to or by the Soviet Union was a good thing. This included Thatcher, Reagan and even McCarthyism: "I have heard of that - it was a very good thing, wasn't it?" After a little while in England, he did come to realize that not everything that Pravda opposed was automatically wonderful!

I think there can be equivalent dangers with Bushie propaganda. It is indeed dangerous and nasty propaganda, and should be resisted; but this does not mean that all that the American government supports is evil, or that everything opposed to the American government is good.

I don't think that just because Israel is an ally of America it is perfect and can do no wrong; but I also don't think that just because it is an ally of America it is outstandingly evil. (Same goes for the UK!)