IMRA says photos like this one from Reuters yesterday in Gaza go a long way toward explaining why Palestinian civilian casulties are so high:
An HonestReporting communique clarifying why Israel’s security fence is not an ‘Apartheid wall’ has just been released and is available online here.
To receive HR communiques by email, the moment they are released, signup in the box above.
The lead article in the Hartford Courant today — addressing the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s decision to publicize a video of the aftermath of the last suicide bombing — cited HonestReporting as well:
“The Israeli government has refrained from doing things like this, from showing films like this in the past,” said Michael Weinstein, managing editor of HonestReporting.com, a website in Jerusalem that monitors media coverage of Israel. “Israel had considered it crass and inconsiderate to the victims to air such films.”
The efficiency with which Israelis clean up areas where suicide bombings have occurred, he said, and a reluctance to allow photographs have had a “disinfecting effect” on how the attacks are reported in the mainstream media.
“The goriness of the video is intended to show this was not a legitimate military strike – this was beyond the pale,” Weinstein said.
? Nasty headline of the day, courtesy The Australian:
Israel to Cut 100km off ‘apartheid wall’
? We found the ‘T-word’ in The Independent’s coverage of the security fence – Saudi Arabia’s security fence, that is:
The project, involving fencing and electronic detection equipment, has been in the planning stages for several years. It may cost up to $8.57bn (£4.58bn). Behind the plan is a deep-seated lack of trust in the Yemeni authorities’ ability to arrest infiltrators before they make it into Saudi territory….
The perpetrators of earlier terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, spanning at least a decade, also used explosives from Yemen, state-controlled Saudi media has reported.
The report then elaborates in detail the Yemeni connection to Islamic terror in the Saudi Kingdom. It’s worth noting that the Saudi casualties to Yemin-based terror and the quantities of weapons seized are a drop in the bucket compared to the number of Israeli terror victims and the illegal weapons awash in the Palestinian areas.
Ze’ev Schiff in Haaretz questions European coverage of the conflict:
terrorism against Israeli citizens is seen by many abroad, and especially in Europe, as part of a tribal war in a distant land. That accords with one of the conclusions of a study conducted in Germany (published recently in the professional journal Media Tenor) about the way in which German television covers Israel. “In the news, Israel is for the most part seen as the guilty party. Even when covering stories where Israelis suffer from the acts of their opponents, they are not simply presented as victims. Editors often frame suicide attacks as a reaction to injustices committed against Palestinians.” When such a trend continues for years, it’s no wonder that in many places Israel is seen as constituting a threat to world peace, much more so than North Korea or Iran, for example. The researchers say there is a direct link between the negative publicity about Israel and attacks on Jews.
On the other hand, a bigger headline is guaranteed if the Israelis dare to defend themselves determinedly. That has always been the approach, long before Israel began to build the separation fence. There is no point in going to the International Court of Justice in The Hague if Israel cannot succeed in convincing anyone that it is on the defense in the face of mass terror.
Here’s the Media Tenor critique of German coverage of Israel, which Schiff refers to.
From IMRA: The lastest poll of Palestinian popular opinion shows a sharp drop in support for current methods of anti-Israel violence.
Stefan Sharkansky presents a nice chart of the results, and comments:
I don’t know what I find more remarkable, the stunning drop in support for the Intifada and suicide bombings; or the fact that an equal number of Palestinians assert that the Intifada serves Palestinian interests as admit that it harms their interests… Either way, Sharon and Bush deserve more of the credit for Palestinians losing their appetite for senseless violence, than does the world community of terrorism appeasers.
Curiously, we didn’t see this anywhere else, so we’ll translate it from the Israeli news site, Y-Net:
During his visit in Munich, in the framework of the NATO summit, (US Defense Secretary) Rumsfeld was asked: “You speak of nations that are attempting to acquire nuclear weapons, like Iraq, Iran and North Korea. What are you doing with Israel? After all, Israel has more nuclear weapons than all other nations in the region. Why do you continue to be silent regarding Israel?”
Without confirming or denying the claim that Israel has nuclear weapons, Rumsfeld immediately responded to the questioner: “You know yourself the answer. The entire world knows the answer. Israel is a small nation, with a tiny population. Israel is democratic, but exists in a region that wants to see her in the sea. Israel clarified that she does not want to be in the sea, and as a result of that, for many decades, Israel arranged it such that they cannot throw her into the sea.”
UPDATE: Here it is from the US Defense Department
A reminder of how deep the anti-Israel paranoia runs in Iranian political culture and media — an editorial in Tehran Times bemoaning an internal leadership conflict concludes:
Undoubtedly, the resentful enemies of Iran, particularly the destructive and racist Zionist regime, are delighted by the current disagreement between governmental officials, small as it might be. They intend to take advantage of the current circumstances and damage the reputation of the Islamic Republic through further mischief.
(Hat tip: Joe Schick)
A number of recent articles discussing the best approach to making Israel’s case in the court of world opinion:
? Gideon Meir of Israel’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs says Israel activists should stop using the term ‘hasbara’ (‘explanation’) because:
it has a negative or apologetic connotation and we have nothing for which we have to apologize. We have a strong case.
? The chairman of the Israel Hasbara Committee disagrees with Meir, and believes the main need now is to separate Israeli leaders from corruption:
Only this approach will prevent Israel from being labeled and equated as one of two warring peoples, as if we are on the same level as the corrupt regime of Yasser Arafat. When we really start to get serious on these issues, we will begin to change our fate.
It is said that societies produce leaders they deserve just as water will always find its own level. Leaders reflect the qualities of the masses. All change is made by leaders, not by the masses; and this is equally true of democracies. Once Israel starts to do a little house cleaning, perhaps we can start to make some real progress in our ‘Hasbara’ efforts. So let us not be shallow-minded and naïve and think that change will come about by any other means, such as making a few cosmetic name changes by replacing the word ‘hasbara’. Let us not make this word a scapegoat for our real failings.
? UK Chief Rabbi Jonathon Sacks believes it’s necessary to adjust the message to the audience:
influencing public opinion has ground rules, and they are different in each country. In Britain they require a certain tone of voice: subtlety, the use of nuance and an absence of stridency. This is not always understood by Israelis or members of the Jewish community who sometimes feel that the purpose of a media intervention is to make Jews feel better rather than to persuade the unpersuaded. Shreying gevalt may be good therapy, but it is poor hasbara.