Yet when it comes to the siege of Gaza and the continuous suffering of its residents, little or nothing at all is being said.
I could probably use some distinctions here; there are certainly those journalists who are consistent in their stances toward human rights abuses. I am certainly not talking about those (who are, for all the wrong reasons, infinitesimally insignificant in their influence). The group of individuals that is the most eloquent demonstration of this hypocrisy is the likes of Thomas. L. Friedman or Jeffery Goldberg. I have absolutely no respect for this duo. On the other hand, and while I disagree vehemently with Johann Hari’s views on Dubai, I respect him for being consistent when addressing the plight of Palestinian people.
Hell, I even I agree with his critique of Tarantino's infamous movie.
It’s an observation larded with irony that many people who cheered Hari’s article on Dubai wouldn’t ever agree with his view on Gaza’s massacre.
To this denomination of people, the two aforesaid journalists (Friedman and Goldberg and their likes) are of great use. They tell them that the status quo of the foreign policies of their countries is absolutely fine. They keep the uncomfortable facts away. To them, the United States (and to lesser degree, the UK) have always been the neutral broker of peace, the power player whose biases are always weighed in by the moral superiority of Israel. “They are like us”, “they are the only democracy in the middle east”, “their survival is in danger ”..etc.. are the hot headlines and talking points these journalists are supposed to maintain.
No, I’m not talking about a powerful cabal or a worldwide conspiracy. I’m talking about the media not being representative of the situation on the ground.
Sometimes, the biases of free (or cheap) speech could be as disgusting as those of propaganda outlets.
It’s not the fault of free speech, though. It’s the imbalance in power and influence. obviously, the Israel lobby is much more effective than the Muslim and Arab lobbies combined. An American scholar, John Mearsheimer, talks about this in his book "The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy". To illustrate the power of the lobby, a congressman staffer once told a journalist that they (the lobby) could at any given moment rely on the reflexive support of 250-300 congressmen on whatever they propose. That’s more than half the number of congress members. The other half will probably need a little persuasion. Also, a former AIPAC member once boasted, as he sat to a restaurant table, that they could get signatures of half the senate on a piece of napkin.
Such a bias in the political circles is well understood. (You may want to read
the book for further illustrations of this power and its perils.)
The issue that grates on my nerves is that erudite journalists are supposed to be better informed and less intimidated by the consequences of their opinions than politicians. Or at least, you’d hope so.
That’s not the case at the moment. And unless that changes (I could argue) we will not have peace in the Middle East.
16 comments:
T CC
When you learn how to have a civilized conversation, come back here and we'll talk about it.
LOL! So you discovered that it is really all some journalists' fault that the Palestinians are knee deep in their own in shit?
You squared the circle, young Jazza!
Herr Nick,
Obviously, you have nothing of material to add to the topic or to counter my argument.
As for your deplorable lack of empathy for the Palestinians, I guess from a humanitarian point of view it's similar to saying that people at Auschwitz were waist deep in their own shit. It only betrays the bias and bigotry of the said person.
That's a bollocks analogy. The Palestinians are knee deep in shit for many reasons. The media's role in this is marginal because right and left wing media "balance" (cancel)themselves pretty much out. Neither have much influence.
Confusion, as usual.
Let me put it to you in simpler terms, if the reporting on the issue was fair and balanced, then YOU and majority of western population would be rightfully angry at Israel. Pressures will be made etc...See what I'm saying?
I'm not saying you lack sympathy, you obviously don't. Every decent human being don't. It's just that your perception of reality on the ground is distorted. (again, because of the media and your inner biases)
Jazz,
I think it's you who is confused. Not only that, but also ill-informed. The reporting on the Israeli- Palestinian conflict is actually, as I said, pretty balanced. European media by and large has a bleeding-heart left leaning towards the poor Palestinans. On one hand you have a great chunk of covertly Anti-Israeli European media; overtly they dare not be because of possible accusations of Anti-semitism. (But how would one know by only reading English language and Arab news websites...)
On the other hand you have a clear Pro-Israeli bias in a great many US papers and TV channels.
Nothing in media, Jazz, is fair and unbiased. That's naive of you to even hope for. What you can do is read/listen to both sides and draw your own conclusions. This is what I meant by the "balance" of the media's role.
And now make your mind up, please. Do I now lack empathy (previous comment) or do I have sympathy (latter comment)? What's it gonna be?
NO no no; accusing someone of lacking empathy towards suffering at all is a serious thing. I don't accuse YOU of that.
But, at the same time, my firm believe is that your conclusions about the conflict would be different if the scope of the Palestinian suffering was highlighted in the western media with the same transparency and 'balance' compared with other conflicts.
Suffice it to say, if, instead of being about a bunch of poor Arabs in a godforsaken Gaza, the Oxfam's, UNRWA's and Amnesty International's reports on the humanitarian situation were about Jews or white Europeans, they'd earn front page coverage in the leading US newspapers.
Well, at least I'm glad you agree with me that the coverage in the US is pretty much pro Israel. (VERY pro Israel). Sadly, in the making of peace, and in being able to apply pressure, only the US holds the upper capable hands. Others, EU, Russia and Turkey, tried and failed.
"...only the US holds the upper capable hands. Others, EU, Russia and Turkey, tried and failed."
An interesting comment, considering that the US has pumped more money, attention, efforts, into improving Palestinian lot than all of these countries, + Arab countries, combined.
Here is a bit more realistic reading of Friedman's article:
"The root of “Palestinianism,” as Matthias Kuntzel points out in Jihad and Jew-hatred, Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11, is “the narrative” of jihad. Israel represents everything America and Western civilization stand for — democracy, tolerance, modernity — which is precisely what Islamists and jihadists despise.
Naively, Friedman calls on Muslims to promote a “positive interpretation” of Islam. Nice, if you don’t get murdered trying. And what about “liberating Palestine”?
If “ending the occupation” is a prerequisite for rapprochement, as Friedman proposes, let’s get that narrative straight. If “Palestinianism,” wiping out Israel, is simply another form of jihadism, then why not include that in “The Narrative”?
When genocidal calls to eliminate Israel are not only tolerated but applauded in the United Nations; when Israel is vilified daily, not only by the Arab world, but by the media, including the Times; when Arab terrorists are called “activists” and Arabs preaching incitement and Jew-hatred receive U.S. and EU funding, why isn’t that part of “The Narrative”?
“The Narrative” against which Friedman writes so eloquently is not only about Islamists; it is also about those who preach “Palestinianism” as another form of jihad, masking a fake and virulent nationalism supported by the international community that seeks Israel’s elimination.
Homicidal Muslim leaders aren’t the only danger — so are the respectable politicians and journalists who believe that giving Arab Palestinians a state and appeasing terrorists will end the violence.
Friedman’s take on “The Narrative” is not a solution. It’s part of the problem."
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/tom-friedman-has-the-wrong-narrative-on-islamic-hatred/2/
LOL!
It's amusing how hysterical Zionists could get.
"The blog also notes that both Friedman and Walt treat "Muslims" uniformly, without acknowledging differences from country to country, and points to a recent Pew survey where 54% of Indonesians thought Obama would be "fair in the Middle East" compared with only 17% of Pakistanis.
It's curious that while accusing Muslims of buying into an imaginary narrative, Friedman himself buys into an imaginary alternative one: the romantic idea that US foreign policy is altruistic – "dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny". That is nonsense. US foreign policy, like that of other countries, is based primarily on its perceptions of its own interests.
The kind of self-righteousness seen in Friedman's column – puzzling over Muslims' apparent ungratefulness towards the US – is not only simplistic but actively harmful, Walt says. It "makes it harder for Americans to figure out why their country is so unpopular and makes us less likely to consider different (and more effective) approaches".
Agonising about "why they hate us" – as Friedman and many others in the US do – is never going to be productive so long as it is framed within the notion of an altruistic foreign policy, but once self-interest is recognised, the picture becomes clearer.
There is nothing abnormal about pursuing self-interest but the US is in a unique position. As the only superpower it is capable of pursuing its interests more forcefully than anyone else – which raises questions both about the number of interventions (either unilaterally or with the US in the driving seat) and about the methods used.
Assuming a role as the world's policeman and advertising its ability to create "shock and awe" doesn't help either. On one hand it appears domineering while on the other it raises expectations abroad that go often unfulfilled. In effect, the US is both damned if it does (invading Iraq) and damned if it doesn't (failing to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict)."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/07/arab-muslim-narrative-foreign-policy
"...the romantic idea that US foreign policy is altruistic"
It is not a romantic idea. It is a fulfillment of an obligation, set in the foundational documents of the UN, redacted at the time when the UN still stood for universal justice and moral principles.
The US was instrumental in bringing the genocide of Muslims in Bosnia to a stop, in stopping Milosovitz's campaign to eradicate Kosovar Muslims from Kosovo.
There is no oil in the Balkans, as you must know. And absolutely nothing to be gained from intervening in those conflicts except to provide relief for human beings.
The US is also the one providing the most funds to the Palestinians, which should be a source of embarrassment for rich Arab countries whose residents seem more interested in gold plated faucets than anything else.
Oh well, when you start pulling things out of your ass, it doesn't matter to what extent you're gonna go with the lies and fabrications, it'll still smell shit at the end of the day.
Certainly, the United States, like any other country, is mainly populated by good folks. The US foreign policy is something entirely different. US foreign policy couldn't be representative of average American public opinion, or a reflection of general American aspiration for a positive role in the world. I know of many Americans who would laugh at the notion that American foreign policy in the last 20 years went out of its way to protect and save Muslims (sometimes from themselves!). If that so, then how come the Palestinians are still living in misery? how come they're still under occupation? how come they're still discriminated against by none other that the very best US ally in the region? the US is either doing a horrible job as a superpower, or the idea is false and hypocritical at its core. (similarly, the United States foreign policy in the middle east is largely influenced by the Israel lobby; which is doing it more harm than good).
It also betrays yours and Thomas Freidman's racism to suggest that Muslims and/or Arabs are, by nature, an ungrateful bunch. That they hate the US despite the 'massive aid' that was bestowed upon them.
You have no idea what Arabs, rich or poor, were and still are doing for Palestine and the Palestinians. Or well, you're a Zionist propagandist, I'd not expect much more from you except lies and propaganda.
The discussion over this subject is over, further comments will be deleted.
Now I believe it's time for you to FUCK OFF!
Post a Comment