|
|
The worst examples are when the US media spin enormously distorted reports about “crossfire” and “Palestinian violence” that utterly negate the fact that Israel is in military occupation and Palestinians are fighting for their freedom in these instances. Is commercial output more important than moral principle? Can a newspaper or news programme afford to offend the culture that supports them? Unfortunately, most often the news stories give you what you want to hear, self-censorship of the most sinister variety. I believe we must turn to unbiased reporting – for example the reporting of the Guardian’s Suzanne Goldenberg and the analysis of Robert Fisk who is an equally sharp criticiser of both the Israeli government and the PA’s crimes. I find it truly upsetting as a Westerner that Israel’s official record, a state built on conquest which has sometimes bombed and destroyed at will, and the fact that it is occupying other people’s land against international law – is almost never subjected to scrutiny in US media, never mentioned as having a role in provoking the “Islamic terror” in the first place. Even though some prominent Israeli spokesmen openly express their fears that once the truth is known it would significantly damage Israel’s reputation abroad, most of the American media and politicians persist with the disgraceful one-side slant on the conflict. One would understand this in the state-owned theocratic media of a proportion of the Arab and Muslim world, but isn’t the USA supposed to be a haven of impartiality where people are free to express their viewpoint?
Some believe that pro-Israeli lobbying affecting the US policy on Israel is a myth, and that actually the USA are simply defending their financial interests by being close allies with the one Western-styled democracy in the oil-rich Middle East region. (Whether or not the fact that Israel gives little democratic rights to the Palestinians nullifies whether Israel can even be called a democracy is another issue). These people say that the US cares only for the “sales”, “commodities” and “exports” that have made the US what it is in the first place. Whichever argument you believe depends on how cynical you are, although the latter certainly carries some weight. The great paradox of the Middle East is that the US is an clear advocate of one side, having given 4 billion $ each year of economical and military aid to Israel since 1979 and having a vehemently pro-Israel agenda, but only with US involvement can a settlement be attained. Under these circumstances, how can the US act as an unbiased mediator for peace?
(Having made all these points, I must state categorically that much of the Arab and Muslim world have condemned terrorists in all their forms from day one, and have stated that innocent people should never have to be murdered to appease a few crazy fanatics. Likewise, there are many Jewish and pro-Israelis who have condemned the oppression and state-terrorism regime, particularly in Sharon’s government, from day one. What I have been discussing is the unfortunate results of the actions of a minority).
Unfortunately, there is a climate in the world today where any criticism of the side “supported” by your government is asking for abuse such as being called “Jew-lover”, “anti-Semitic”, “Arab-hater”, “Jew-hater”, “Zionist”, “Arab-lover”, “terrorist”, “fanatic” and so forth.
Why do we hear so few people of both sides complaining against the actions of their own governments? Palestinians, for example, have suffered hugely from the corruption of the PA and its associated groups. Much of the money reaching the PA seems to go into the pockets of a number of people who are seeking simply to further their own power. Why do so few Palestinians actively complain (for example by initiating a campaign) about the support of suicide bombing – the most inhumane act possible? Why do some Palestinians celebrate when an innocent Israeli dies? Why do people close to Arafat not bring forward the evidence to show him linked to some major suicide bombing “organizations” and instead only provide deceit and avoid the question when asked at interview? What about the Israelis – why do they not stand up and say the bombing of hospitals and schools and the building of settlements in land to “accomplish the Zionist dream” is morally wrong? Why is it that prominent Israeli politicians in interviews are so very clear about the evil terrorism of suicide bombing and its links to the PA but visibly flounder and mumble when they are asked the simple question, “Will you stop building officially illegal settlements on Palestinian land?” Why do so few complain about the systematic human rights abuses of the Israeli army – amazing considering the extent of Jewish suffering under the Holocaust? We can only answer this with one quote – “my people, right or wrong, are my people”. For people like the Israelis and the Palestinians who are facing such hardship, there is an unfortunate attitude that an individual criticising a policy would weaken the foundations of their people’s goals, be it for a safe Israel or an independent Palestine. This is an unfortunate predicament and it is very difficult to suggest how this could be helped.
|
Tags
You must be logged in to add tags.
|
Writer Profile
N Gadd
This user has not written anything in his panorama profile yet.
|
Comments
Feedback I have received N Gadd | Jun 5th, 2002
After receiving much feedback from many people about this article, I must say that there are a few striking omissions that I have made and these will be addressed before the second version, because I agree with them completely.
Firstly, it is increasingly evident that the first steps for peace have to be taken by the Palestinian Authority and that only when the terror networks are destroyed can anything positive happen.
Also, a very important issue is that in many Palestinian schools there is substantial hate-mongering, and blaming of all of the Palestinians' problems on the Israelis. Clearly the brainwashing of the Palestinian youths is another huge problem.
Looking at both sides, I have also forgotten to mention the dehumanization which allows either side to not feel guilty when they are committing all sorts of crimes. This is much more pronounced in the case of the Palestinian suicide bombers who think they are serving a just cause by murdering innocent civilians, or carrying out actions which are for the greater good, but we must also mention the prominent Israeli politicians such as Ehud Barak who make statements like "all Arabs are liars", a racist dehumanization which is the pretext of so much discrimination.
Other mistakes N Gadd | Jun 5th, 2002
I have been reliably informed by one of my friends who is a Zionist that Zionism is not expansionism (which is what I have equated it with in my essay) but rather the legitimate desire for a safe Israeli homeland. Hence I must apologize for this error.
You must be a TakingITGlobal member to post a comment. Sign up for free or login.
|
|
