Let us begin at the beginning: a lecture titled A Look at Anti-Israel Media Bias, hosted by the University Jewish Society, was always predestined for contention on a plethora of levels.
Certainly the title denotes a bias itself, but I was intrigued and wilfully hopeful that an alternative, positive perspective would emerge from within an educated and proven argument.
Sadly, it was not to be: presented by Simon Plosker, Managing Editor of HonestReporting, the lecture woefully meandered through PowerPoint slides displaying images of atrocities committed against Palestinians and Lebanese civilians supported by an argument with more holes than a wheel of Swiss cheese.
In sum: most images had been doctored; the pesky Arabs were planting toys in the rubble to gain world sympathy; the elderly woman mourning the loss of her home [left] was a savvy media harlot positioned repeatedly outside broken homes.
The fractured bodies under bricks, iron rods and cement? Merely actors! They were later seen running around!
The plumes of smoke as Beirut crumbled and smouldered under the Israeli attacks in 2006 [below]? My dear, they were merely Photoshopped! There was only one plume of smoke that was duplicated three times. See? Look!
And so it went on.
And on.
Ad infinitum, or so it seemed for one hour.
As image after image slammed onto the projector, Plosker’s explanations grew correspondingly fantastical.
During a lament that the plight of the Palestinians is likened by the media to the Holocaust, he indicated a picture of a young boy – no more than 12 – being hustled by IDF soldiers.
The boy, whose trousers were wet from distress, drew no mercy: “As you can see, oh dear, the boy has wet himself. In reality, it was only a stern talking to.”
I took three pages of lecture notes, but only the adjectives capture the true essence of the lecture: ‘pendantic’, ‘craptastic’, ’7alaaaas’, ‘bollocks’ and ‘excruciating’.
By minute ’80 my eloquence had gone out the window and my heart was thumping dully to the waves of nausea and ennui.
Funded by a 160,000 subscriber roll, rather than the Israeli government, members are encouraged to swell the inboxes of national newspapers that portray Israel in a negative manner.
For example, when Newsweek featured a cover illustration lamenting the tragedy of a young Palestinian suicide bomber aged 18, it placed her image alongside one of her victims, an 18-year-old Israeli girl [below].
Both young, both beautiful, both cut off in their prime by the cruelty of politics and conflict.
Unfortunately, for HonestReporting this is not tragic: it is scandalous and akin to placing the pictures of slain students at Virginia Tech alongside that of their killer.
The nuance was missed: the war takes lives on both sides and a life is a life is a life.
Whether the sentence structure does not tickle your nationalist fancy is irrelevant.
When questioned whether their arduous scrutinization of pictures of smoke plumes will change the reality that a disproportionate number of Palestinians and Lebanese die(d) in comparison with Israeli casualties, Plosker reverted to: ‘What if it is my kid? What if bombs fell on her kindergarten? Are you saying it doesn’t matter if my child is killed?’
The general absence of academic argument in favour of conscience-tweaking and speculation was rampant, and the desire to comprehend why one must favour the findings of Israeli bloggers in favour of the BBC/Reuters/AP was never sated.
The question and answers section proved equally inexorable as numerous hands shot up to protest Israeli settlements and the maltreatment of Palestinians.
What struck me was not the hecklers – this is as inherent a part of such an event as hangovers on New Years Day – but the demographic and responses.
Of an audience of around 30, but one Arab attended – a Palestinian journalist who provided the most cogent and constructive critique of Plosker’s speech.
My question is: where were all the Arabs? At the bar? At home watching soaps? Why were they not there?
The lecture was publicized all over the University and while many said they would go, they ultimately did not.
Call it boycott, call it avoiding confrontation; I call it betrayal – in such instances Arab perspectives must be heard.
The audience was made up of young students – many of whom are new to the issue of Palestine-Israel.
As Plosker weaved his Israeli propaganda, so too were their young minds imprinted upon; had it not been for the plucky and vociferous Palestinian journalist, Plosker would have succeeded in convincing the students of the veracity of his argument – that the Arabs are wanton media opportunists and that the real victims are the Israelis.
Voices must be heard and more crucially, the voices of organizations such as HonestReporting must be challenged.
Painful though it is to endure, the propaganda must be heard and responded to: it is not only a battle for politicians and militants, but one for academics and academia alike.
If this point was enough for Plosker to emphasize in his conclusion (albeit to an Israeli angle), as Arabs and sympathizers to the Palestinian cause, so too must we be present.
By all means boycott oranges; but do not boycott ideologies.
Whilst bemoaning the bias of the talk I think this article reveals much about where your own values lay.
A particularly bad example in this article is by once again drawing moral equivalence between a Palestinian terrorist, deliberately targeting a civilian and her Israeli victim and somehow suggesting they were both “cut off”, as if this were some kind of unfortunate accident. This woman blew herself out in an atrocious expression of hatred. I find your lack of recognition of this issue frankly quite frightening.
Yes, (as was fully recognised by speaker at the talk) the Israelis are far from blameless and indeed the country suffers from its own internal angst as to the correct approach to the problem but this vitriolic, one-sided attack and failure to recognise that the Palestinians undoubtedly do not help themselves by engaging in terrorism and internecine violence helps no one.
You highlight the Palestinian journalist as being cogent, but how about you also bring to attention the pro-Palestinian student who, when asking a question about the conflict did not even seem to know where the Palestinian refugee camps were, and presumably suffers from a similar lack of knowledge in other aspects of her understanding of the conflict.
Perhaps this is more typical of those that support the Palestinian cause so ardently within the UK
Bob, regarding the Newsweek matter my point is that they are both victims of the broader malaise enacted by the Palestinian, Israeli and indeed, Western governments. You note that she “blew herself out in an atrocious expression of hatred” – but was it hatred or frustration?
The tribulations endured by the Palestinians has proved conducive to measures such as suicide bombings, which claim the lives of innocent Israelis. Both lives are of equal worth and therefore are equal in tragedy: both sacrificed at the alter of politics.
Regarding the pro-Palestinian girl – I know who you mean, and yes, even I gurned in confusion. But she was young and clearly confused in the heat of the moment. The Palestinian journalist was however, in another category. Perhaps through his own experiences or merely an enhanced understanding of the conflict, his critique bore a firmer framework.
Ultimately, criticising Israel and calling for not only the preservation of lives (on both sides) but also for a cessation in petty disputes is not frightening. It is logical and necessary.
The sooner a resolution is found, the better for both sides.
I have a few issues with what you have said:
First you continue to draw moral equivalence between a suicide bomber and an army engaged in a war against terrorists. I refuse to believe that the Israelis deliberately target civilians. War is a terrible thing, and it is tragic when thousands die, but all the evidence suggests that Israel are not engaged in a “genocidal” struggle against their adversaries. To be callous about it, if they were, there would be far more efficient ways of going about it. Further, constant efforts for peace during the nineties and noughties would also suggest otherwise. Which somewhat diminishes your point.
Further- frustration. I can understand Palestinian frustration. After years of being maltreated and misguided by their leadership (particularly Hamas, who insist on engaging in a war with Israel and bringing misery upon their own subjects) they have a right to be frustrated. However, they should not take this out on Israel. Rather, they stop regarding Israel as the unwanted “Zionist” intruder and start viewing them as a legitimate partner for peace. Israeli violence and “oppression” is a symptom of this failure of leadership. However it is not the cause! They certainly have not traditionally helped themselves. Hamas for instance are refusing at the moment to let Gazans vote in the West Bank elections. These internal divisions need to be sorted out as they destabilise the peace process in its entirety and diminish the Palestinians as a credible partner for peace.
If you look at the West Bank on the other hand, where checkpoints are coming down, the economy is growing hugely and violence is ceasing, a state is looking increasingly viable. This should be the Palestinian model. I think there is a consensus (even largely in Israel) that the Palestinians should have their own state, and the settlements should come down. However, history suggests that the Palestinians have traditionally refused to renounce violence after Israel has made a peaceful gesture (the Gaza withdrawal in 2005 being a great example) and Israel must be assured of its security before giving the Palestinians their own state. Whilst the Palestinians continue to elect a government for instance in Gaza who are constitutionally bent on its destruction and who continue to engage in a terrorist war, I don’t see this happening. There needs to be a widespread acceptance that Israel deserves to exist and is here to stay. Once this happens, as perhaps it is in the West Bank, finally, then I think we will see peace.
You make some really logical points, Bob.
Of course, it has become a mantra to dispute the point that “Israel deserves to exist and is here to stay,” but as you saw in the q&a, this leads to an intractable circle of words with no end in sight. I think on that point we can only agree to disagree.
But certainly, on the Palestinian side, life is not being made more bearable by the Palestinian authorities. As I have noted previously on this site, in Gaza alone Hamas is turning post-conflict Gaza into a conservative stronghold to the detriment of women’s rights. Corruption is as endemic a feature of the political establishment as it is elsewhere in the world – coupled with the security scenario and it is all the more bleaker.
It is for this reason that Plosker’s lecture irked: there are such bigger matters on the agenda – such minutiae only serve to provoke further ire, which is least desirable at this point.
The problem is that if you come from a position that Israel does not deserve to exist this is;
1. Anti-semitic, in that it refuses the right of the Jewish people to have self-determination. I am hesitant to use this word, as legitimate criticism of Israel is of course reasonable, but denial of its right to exist is not.
2. Factually incorrect, because it was fully UN mandated and has been recognised largely by the international community. I can understand somewhat the unhappiness with Israel exceeding its pre-67 borders, but even then I’d argue this is understandable given that it was attacked in both 48 and in 67 and felt it needed a buffer. It shouldn’t be there but Israel is a very small country after all. As I said before, security guarantees are needed before Israel could realistically allow a Palestinian state to be created.
3. Very unhelpful, because it does not allow one to take a pragmatic approach. That is that a two state solution is needed with Israel inhabiting, well Israel, and the Palestinians inhabiting the West Bank and Gaza. Obviously something will have to be done about Jerusalem but this can be sorted.
This is a very important point as it underlies the whole debate. If the Palestinians refuse to accept Israel’s existence what essentially are they fighting for? Well it’s the destruction of Israel, which isn’t going to happen is it? They need to set themselves the much more realistic goal of establishing their own state, which can be done with Israeli cooperation.
I think the focus of Plosker’s lecture was to demonstrate that the situation is not as simple as “Palestinian goodies” v. “Israeli baddies” as many people tend to now believe. I don’t think this was a case of simple nitpicking. I certainly came out questioning certain aspects of the media’s presentation of the story and I think others did too. It really drove home to me that the conflict is much more complicated than it seems.
Hmm. I think points 1-3 form the crux of the dispute and fall within the remit of ‘agree to disagree’. Even if it is sanctioned, it does not mean it is morally sound.
The conflict is indeed more complex, but I remain sceptical of the fruitfulness of such nitpickery.
They say that those who think they are unbiased have merely not yet discovered their filters, and that goes for everyone, regardless of how objective they make it sound. Making it sound objective while the content is obviously leaning into a certain direction is probably worse seeing it’s finessing people into taking the said as a fact, which considering it’s a bad case of selective perception is rather disturbing. Pseudo-objective writing is still opinionated and subjective, just like wrapping a ribbon around a pile of steaming shit doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a steaming pile of shit. =)
I admit I’d have a hard time trying to sound objective if ever wrote a blog entry on “HonestReporting” (oh the irony =/). Alright, let’s face it, I always have trouble sounding objective.
I’m not going to start dismantling arguments on either side here as I agree with the OP about it being rather pointless at the moment, just two observations. I agree that the post is biased (and yeah, no really? I’d be scared if someone read something and deemed it ‘unbiased’, that would surely be a monument of the judgers endless stupidity).
I can see why people would be offended by photo editors putting the pictures of a suicide bomber and her victim next to each other, I wouldn’t say it’s particularly tasteful, I’d probably be offended by that too. Though seeing that the media prostitutes everything and pulls many things out of context grossly I’d say I’d probably not be particularly chuffed, unless I wanted to prostitute the issue.
On a final note.
I’m amused by the notion presented that ‘one could argue’ that it’s understandable that Israel need a buffer (that keeps on gradually expanding…) I also don’t see how that in any way legitimates their continuing expansion (through peace efforts as well as times in which they weren’t at peace) I wonder where their ‘buffer’ will be in around 50 years if things continue on like this. I can almost sniff it – across all so-called palestinian territories?
And saying Israel don’t attack innocent civilians is obviously ignoring a large, large portion of reports that may well deserve the title of ‘evidence’ supplied by both sides [by palestinians and by Israelis who advocate peace], a feat that only a rather selective perception can achieve, imo. Let’s all stop complaining about bias, OK? ;-]
This is a bit like trying to reason with a Christian by pointing out the flaws in the logic of believers… those who already agree will nod in approval, and those that don’t won’t change their minds anyway. It’s unfortunate, but that’s the way it is a lot of the time.
having said that… *disappears into the musty shadows*
Before you disappear into the musty shadows, Defpunk, I must concede a slight victory, for you are quite right.
Objectivity is nigh impossible in cases such as these and I cannot help but wonder whether a more apt title for the post would have been A Question of Objectivity.
Nevertheless, it is such polemics that render the world such a complex and interesting place, for without such dichotomies there would be no debate, and with no debate it would be a mighty dull place.
However, as I noted, this is a deeply contentious issue and as the intractable cycle of persuasion becomes wearisome I abide by the decision to merely respect the differences between myself and readers, though their views are most welcome here.
Forgive me for making the impression of not respecting differences in opinion, I’ll leash myself a bit for next time.
Ah! Not you, I meant in general – your opinions are always welcome