Lifestyle > Train of Thought
Bulldozers begin Ariel barrier in another land grab by Israel
Don Rizzle:
--- Quote from: I TO DA GEEZY on June 22, 2004, 10:30:45 AM ---It just emuses me and enoyes me at the same time, How people eat up any radiculous Land grab theory the pro palestinian propoganda spreads, just to justefy their next suicide bombing...
--- End quote ---
was reading this article and i thaught about your comment about pro palestinian propoganda spreads maybe you should take a read....
--- Quote ---Mid-East coverage baffles Britons
UK television news coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is confusing viewers and favouring the Israeli position, a new report says.
The study, by the Media Group at Scotland's Glasgow University, found Israelis were quoted more than twice as much as Palestinians in reports.
It said that news programmes did not provide enough information about the conflict's history and origins.
Many viewers were also not even sure who was "occupying" whose territory.
Language differences
Researchers focused on the BBC One and ITV News channels' coverage from the beginning of the current Palestinian intifada, examining more than 200 programmes and interviewing more than 800 people, including several prominent BBC correspondents.
They found that, in addition to "a preponderance of official Israeli perspectives", US politicians who support Israel were "very strongly featured" in news programmes, appearing more than politicians from any other country and twice as much as those from Britain.
The report takes issue with a tendency in the media to present the problem as "starting" with Palestinian action, while Israelis were seen to be "responding" with actions that were explained and contextualised.
"There was very little discussion of the nature of the relationship between the two sides - that one [the Palestinians] was subject to military control by the other [Israel]," the report says.
Researchers also found a strong emphasis on Israeli casualties on the news despite the number of Palestinian deaths being considerably greater.
And the differences in language used by journalists for both sides were also noted.
"Words such as 'atrocity', 'brutal murder', 'mass murder', 'savage cold blooded killing', 'lynching' and 'slaughter' were used about Israeli deaths but not Palestinian," the report said.
"The word 'terrorist' was used to describe Palestinians by journalists but when an Israeli group was reported as trying to bomb a Palestinian school, they were referred to as 'extremists' or 'vigilantes'."
'Breaking news' culture
The survey also showed that the average British person knew little about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Many people in Britain think the Palestinians are occupying Israeli territory and not the other way round and some think Palestinians are refugees from Afghanistan, despite extensive media coverage of the conflict.
Sometimes the why and how of a story are more important than the story itself
BBC News Online reader Paul Serwinski
Several journalists interviewed for the report blamed lack of time and the difficulties of reporting such a controversial topic for the dearth of adequate background explanation, while others pointed to intimidation of journalists by both sides.
Many BBC News Online readers blamed the "breaking news" culture for reducing news to sound bites instead of offering comprehensive coverage of one of the world's most covered but least understood conflicts.
"The history is the missing aspect in all coverage today," said BBC News Online reader Rakesh Jain from the US.
"This results in the people being susceptible to 15-second television sound bites and they totally misread the reasons for the problems."
While UK reader Douglas Shaw picked up a point suggested in the report, that there is a tendency among journalists to present Israeli settlements in the occupied territories as vulnerable communities, rather than having a key military and strategic function.
"The BBC could choose to describe all Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza as being 'illegal'," Mr Shaw wrote.
"This would be a small step forward in helping public understanding."
History lessons
Senior BBC news executive Mark Damazer denies any suggestion of anti-Palestinian bias in the corporation's coverage of the conflict, but concedes that because of the "grammar" of TV news important context is often left out.
People watch the news night after night and at the end of the day they have no understanding what the conflict is all about
Greg Philo, Glasgow University
"Sometimes important points of history get lost amidst the welter of coverage," he told BBC World Service's Newshour programme.
But he said correspondents and editors were aware of the risks and take their responsibility "very seriously" to sketch in the missing context over time.
And as far as the language of news is concerned, he said there was no evidence that the BBC had been "cowed" into being pro-Israeli.
"When BBC correspondents have to describe the West Bank and Gaza Strip they don't say 'disputed' territory, they say the territories are 'occupied'."
But Glasgow University's Greg Philo that told the same programme that the facts speak for themselves.
"You can't have a history lesson each time you do the news, but the problem is 80% of the population rely on television news for their information about the world," he said.
"They watch the news night after night and at the end of the day they have no understanding what the conflict is all about."
--- End quote ---
I totally agree up until about a year or two ago i never even knew israel was was only 60 years old or how it was created, its only because i went out and searched for the infomation myself read history etc. i have a full picture of the situation. i ust to feel sorry for israelis thinking they were attacked for little reason....
I TO DA GEEZY:
--- Quote from: Don Rizzle on June 22, 2004, 11:02:59 AM ---why not build your security wall on your own land? then it wouldn't be a land grab, instead all your doing is making sure your illegal settlements stay jewish, demolishing palestinian towns in the process, there is absolutly no justification. why do u think they want to blow ur guys up look at what your doing to them! look at the death tolls who died more? certainly not israeli's! you turned what is left of palestine into a large prison and continue to take more and more.
--- End quote ---
let's start with this, settlers are Israeli citizents- we build the wall departing them from Israel, Israeli citizens die, simple as that, and as for these settlements being Illegal-we've already gone through this with u, I would agree to remove the settlements if every Palestinian living on Israeli territory was moved to the Palestinian authority....cause while our settlers may be the reason to the arival of Israeli soldiers into the authority(to protect the settlers), Arabs that live on Israel's territory also get all kinds of financial support from Israel and are treated as Ctizents while in fact are in complete support of millitant groups in the Paletinian authority- and tend to co-operate with them. Their strategic vallue is 10 times more important to the Paletinian millitants than the Israeli defence force portecting the settlers to Israel.
Don Rizzle:
the truth of the matter is most Israelis want to kick the arabs out anyway plus keep the settlements which are continualy being built. my honest opinion israel should never of existed, if a jewish state should be anywhere we should have given you half of germany, we were wrong to give you part of palestine. but since we did israel should be confind to what we gave you.
I TO DA GEEZY:
--- Quote from: Don Rizzle on June 25, 2004, 02:32:32 AM ---the truth of the matter is most Israelis want to kick the arabs out anyway plus keep the settlements which are continualy being built. my honest opinion israel should never of existed, if a jewish state should be anywhere we should have given you half of germany, we were wrong to give you part of palestine. but since we did israel should be confind to what we gave you.
--- End quote ---
yea, the UN played an important part in the formal declaration of Israel, Although I doubt there was another option neither logiclly nor morally(Logic and Morals for some reason aren't very synonimous in reallity) , after the haulacaust it was clear to everybody Jews needed a state of their own, as for It's current geographical location being a wrong choice- I think u have a very twisted perception of the whole conflict, and trully I don't blame u, cause after all you're constantly being put to the very effective anti Israeli propoganda, but let's put it aside, U should know that basiclly on the first day of Israel's formal existance it was atacked, under those original boarders we were granted by the UN, we were atacked, and it certainly wasn't the last time Israel was atacked by it's neighbour states, that declined it's right to exist, The Palestinian's aren't diffrend in their viewes towards Israel, however what is diffrend is the fact they have a more urgent interest, cause while Egypt and Syria dreamt to unite and had a long term political plan Palestinians were more worried about the new neighbour that in their eyes endangered their everyday lives, and may I remind u this was more than 50 years ago, and situation was difffrend, be4 the settlments, be4 the Israeli deffence force having anything to do with them, be4 the refugee camps...they were anti Israeli way be4 Israel had any millitarry effect on them....
as for most Israeli's wanting to kick out all of the arabs out and keep the territory....well, I could say this with 200% of positivety about all- and underline the word-all of the Palestinians....the complexity of the situation lies in learning how to co-exist....
Don Rizzle:
ok explain me this why wouldn't israel except the cease fire agreement? why did they take out all references to UN boarders in their declaration of independence? like i said before the media is very slaunted in support of israel even in britain I just feel for the palestinian people i hope they get a fair deal, they have already lost so much why should they lose more? and i agree both sides do need to co exist arfrat has recently shown alot more willingness to co oporate regretting not excepting clintons deal, putting pressure on militant groups, recognising israel should stay jewish etc. yet israel shows little willingness to cooporate and still does everything on their own terms even going against america who are extremely lienent towards israel. is we could sort out the whole conflict the whole middle east would be alot more stable.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version