“Capturing the Devastation of the Israel-Palestine Conflict” is a wonderful title for a video about a photojournalist’s time spent in the Holy Land documenting the situation.
Unfortunately, in the eyes of British-based Mexican Antonio Olmos, the only devastation worth detailing seems to be related to the Palestinians.
And now, a recent video by Vice News gave Olmos a platform to express his deep-seated sympathy for the Palestinians and his prejudice against Israel.
Join the fight for Israel’s fair coverage in the news
“People Who Had Died in the Past”
The video begins by showing Olmos describing one photograph, which features a gun-toting Palestinian terrorist. Evidently, his picture was taken at some kind of event — a protest, possibly — in which Olmos describes “soldiers, the militants” as “marching around, holding banners of people who had died in the past.”
Without any additional information, it’s impossible to say with any certainty who those being venerated were. But given the Palestinian propensity for glorifying terrorists, an ethical journalist would be expected to determine the identity of those depicted on the signs being waved in the air, and convey this information to viewers. Instead, all Vice viewers are told about is that these “people had died in the past.”
Olmos continues his dramatic tale, telling the camera:
The whole group was being defiant because they knew the Israelis could come at any moment and attack them”
Anyone who has served in the IDF knows what a biased narrative this is. Israel doesn’t randomly attack peaceful Palestinian demonstrators. Far more likely is that one or a number of the protesters initiated hostilities by approaching soldiers tasked with keeping the peace, and throwing rocks or firebombs at the Israelis, who might then be required to use force to protect themselves.
Only a couple of minutes into the video, when this story is revisited, do we learn that those “who had died in the past” were actually “martyrs… people who have been killed fighting the Israelis.” The picture, we learn, was taken in 2002, in the midst of the Second Palestinian Intifada, a violent Palestinian terror campaign that claimed the lives of over 1,000 Israelis.
Terrorists “Hunted Down”… but Victims Warrant No Mention
At no point in the video does Olmos explain that these “fighters” were deliberately targeting Jewish civilians, including children, Holocaust survivors and babies, and that Israel at that point had endured years of suicide bombings and shooting attacks. In 2002, these attacks were occurring literally on a daily basis. And at no point does Vice deem it necessary to add this context, which Olmos declined to provide.
Instead, Vice allows Olmos to talk about “leaders who had been killed” after “they were hunted down by the Israeli army.”
Just a gentle reminder: We’re talking about terrorists with blood on their hands. And instead of focusing on, or even mentioning, the victims of these heinous crimes, Vice showcases to its viewers a man who can only express sympathy for the terrorists trying to escape justice.
What an utter perversion of reality.
Admission of Ignorance and Anti-Israel Prejudice
Olmos admits that he had no knowledge of Arabic when he arrived to launch his project. It’s actually fairly common for journalists and reporters to not speak the local language fluently, if at all.
This is part of a problematic dynamic, especially when combined with parachute journalism – the practice of sending journalists to cover a story in an area in which he or she has little knowledge or experience. This, coupled with tight deadlines, often results in inaccurate or distorted reports. So when Olmos tells Vice viewers that he doesn’t understand Arabic at all, it’s a phenomenon that goes far beyond one particular journalist and afflicts much of the industry.
Olmos earnestly recounts his first moments in the country:
So I get to Tel Aviv, and I am a brown-skinned person. And the first thing that happened to me was a woman at the border gate, before she looked at my passport, she just assumed I was Palestinian, and she started shouting at me in Arabic. And even though I didn’t know a word of Arabic, I knew what she was saying was offensive. And then she finally looked at my passport, and then she saw that I was born in Mexico. And then she went completely from hating my guts to, ‘Oh, I love Mexico. I spent so much time in Cancun, blah, blah, blah.’ The turnaround was amazing. That was really informative.”
Yes, that was really informative, Mr. Olmos. But not for the reasons you imply. You essentially admitted that you “didn’t know a word of Arabic,” yet nevertheless “knew“ that an Israeli speaking the language was using words that were “offensive.”
And then there’s the way Olmos addresses the notion of how Israelis view skin tone. It’s demonstrable nonsense – the majority of Jews in Israel are of Middle Eastern and Northern African origin. There are many, many brown-skinned Jews in Israel.
Basic Error About Checkpoints
Another story told by Olmos as he discusses a picture of his also raises eyebrows. The evocative photo of a diminutive Palestinian woman displaying her ID to Israeli soldiers portrays Palestinians as essentially powerless.
But one particular detail just doesn’t add up.
Anyone who traveled through a checkpoint near Jerusalem during the Intifada can tell you that traffic typically formed in only one direction – the side that leads towards Jerusalem. That’s because Israeli soldiers who operated these checkpoints were stationed there to ensure that bombs and guns were not smuggled into the city from neighboring Palestinian towns and villages.
Today, Palestinians who work in Jerusalem still have to get up early to go through airport-style security, and be processed by an Israeli soldier or security guard who checks each person’s papers, before passing through to Jerusalem. Once the workday ends, Palestinian workers return the way they came, with one significant difference: there are no security checks, meaning papers are not processed and there are no scanning for weapons. As a result, traffic flows freely in this direction.
Indeed, this writer recalls serving in the West Bank at a similar checkpoint near the city of Jericho, not far from Jerusalem. Our instructions were clear: All individuals in vehicles exiting Jericho and approaching Jerusalem were to have their IDs checked; but all vehicles traveling the other way were to have free passage.
With this background, the claim that “the Palestinians have to queue up from both directions” really sticks out.
Is Olmos guilty of stretching the truth?
Either way, again, in speaking only about the Palestinian experience and their “anguish” of waiting to cross checkpoints, without providing any context regarding why checkpoints even existed, and the severity of the terror threat Israel faced at the time, Olmos and Vice effectively misportray Israel as heartless and dominating, and the Palestinians as powerless and hopeless.
