When you watch a TV news broadcast, it's really more like a cinematic experience: they even use music sometimes. It's difficult to keep track of how you are being manipulated when you are being presented with an overhwelming image-sound-emotion experience. Your perceptions are being formed by so many things: pictures of suffering children, the tonal quality of the presenters' voice, juxtapositions of "weak" protestors and "strong" military. It's good to have the transcript, which really shows up how one sided and poorly argued the presentation is.
Frankly I don’t know if the Israeli response was disproportionate. I do know that I’ve never lived in a country that has been virtually under siege, surrounded by enemies, as has Israel since 1948. I also find it hard to imagine the sheer scale and ferocity of what was not by any normal definition a mere protest. In other circumstances I might be tempted to say it could prove counter-productive. As one of the BBC’s more rational interviewees this week stated, should the unrest spread to the West Bank the consequences could be catastrophic. Yet what is the IDF to do? Does the MSM believe that Israel should have allowed thousands of Palestinians with murderous intent to enter Israel?
Over the past week every Israeli spokesperson interviewed by the BBC from Mark Regev onwards has been challenged and openly doubted on every single point. All the usual BBC tactics, much discussed on this blog, have been employed. Netanyahu is simply dismissed as a “liar”. Yet during the same period even the most outrageous claims from Palestinian sources are taken on face value. Calumnies like ”apartheid state” and “the largest prison in the world” have now become part of the language. Bowen, Doucet et al continue to report entirely from the Palestinian side of the conflict, offering the public distorted and revisionist versions of history as background. It is always a case of “Israel’s actions” as if those actions existed in a vacuum without cause. We are told that it is Israel who is standing in the way of a two state solution, yet it is clear that Hamas would never agree to this.
The MSM is neither naive nor stupid. There is a whole raft of reasons, from misplaced Western guilt to plain old anti-Semitism that might explain their position, but there is only one realistic conclusion. Just like Hamas, they seek the destruction of the Jewish State. Calls for a two state solution from the BBC and SJW Guardianistas are just so many words.
Perhaps not everyone here would agree with Simon Shama, but I found his Personal Reflection on Radio 4 today shone small beacon of optimism in what has become a seemingly hopeless landscape. It was certainly the most balanced view I have heard during the last week.
Very useful thanks.
ReplyDeleteWhen you watch a TV news broadcast, it's really more like a cinematic experience: they even use music sometimes. It's difficult to keep track of how you are being manipulated when you are being presented with an overhwelming image-sound-emotion experience. Your perceptions are being formed by so many things: pictures of suffering children, the tonal quality of the presenters' voice, juxtapositions of "weak" protestors and "strong" military. It's good to have the transcript, which really shows up how one sided and poorly argued the presentation is.
DeleteFrankly I don’t know if the Israeli response was disproportionate. I do know that I’ve never lived in a country that has been virtually under siege, surrounded by enemies, as has Israel since 1948. I also find it hard to imagine the sheer scale and ferocity of what was not by any normal definition a mere protest. In other circumstances I might be tempted to say it could prove counter-productive. As one of the BBC’s more rational interviewees this week stated, should the unrest spread to the West Bank the consequences could be catastrophic. Yet what is the IDF to do? Does the MSM believe that Israel should have allowed thousands of Palestinians with murderous intent to enter Israel?
ReplyDeleteOver the past week every Israeli spokesperson interviewed by the BBC from Mark Regev onwards has been challenged and openly doubted on every single point. All the usual BBC tactics, much discussed on this blog, have been employed. Netanyahu is simply dismissed as a “liar”. Yet during the same period even the most outrageous claims from Palestinian sources are taken on face value. Calumnies like ”apartheid state” and “the largest prison in the world” have now become part of the language. Bowen, Doucet et al continue to report entirely from the Palestinian side of the conflict, offering the public distorted and revisionist versions of history as background. It is always a case of “Israel’s actions” as if those actions existed in a vacuum without cause. We are told that it is Israel who is standing in the way of a two state solution, yet it is clear that Hamas would never agree to this.
The MSM is neither naive nor stupid. There is a whole raft of reasons, from misplaced Western guilt to plain old anti-Semitism that might explain their position, but there is only one realistic conclusion. Just like Hamas, they seek the destruction of the Jewish State. Calls for a two state solution from the BBC and SJW Guardianistas are just so many words.
Perhaps not everyone here would agree with Simon Shama, but I found his Personal Reflection on Radio 4 today shone small beacon of optimism in what has become a seemingly hopeless landscape. It was certainly the most balanced view I have heard during the last week.