There are 70 conflicts worldwide, so why do we focus on just one?

[shira]

By Stephen King
Irish Examiner Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Yes, there is public feeling about the Palestinians and their rotten deal. I’ve never heard Chechnya being discussed on the DART, whereas I have heard Israel being trashed on buses as well as at smart dinner parties. Besides, who’s ever heard of a “Sri Lanka out of Tamil Eelam” march through Cork or calls for a boycott of Russia?

I OWE Micheál Martin an apology of sorts. I admit that when I read media reports of his discussions with Ban Ki-moon in New York at the weekend my eyes rolled up to the heavens.

The country’s most senior representative to the rest of the world has a rare opportunity to raise Ireland’s issues with the UN secretary-general and what’s his top priority? Yes, you guessed it – Gaza.

It’s not that Gaza isn’t an important issue facing the world. It is. What Gaza is not, though, is an issue where Europe, let alone Ireland, can wield much positive influence. Gaza will only be sorted when the Arab states, the US and Israel – probably in that order – decide it should be sorted....


http://www.examiner.ie/opinion/columnists/stephen-king/there-are-70-conflicts-worldwide-so-why-do-we-focus-on-just-one-91585.html#mon

[Vegasaurus]

1. I read this morning that 75% of women

in Liberia have been raped, as an element of warfare (also true in the Congo, Durfur, Bosnia, Rwanda),

28% of cases were girls, under age 4, and 33% of girls aged 5-11.

Is there outrage against this violence?

Why is there more outrage about Gaza (where there is honor killing and factional violence) and blaming of Israel for many of their internal issues, when there are significant and serious issues (many MORE serious)?

[summer borealis]

2. Do you really have to ask?

Jews. Bible-thumpers. Jews. Jesus places. Jews.

[Vegasaurus]

3. Oh, I know the answer

but it is interested how people want to ignore the truths about deep-seated anti-semitism.

[Sezu]

4. No doubt there is a TON of antisemitism driving it

but I believe that there also are just a lot of naive, foolish folk out there that have allowed themselves to get focussed on I/P . Just look at all the nutty 9/11 folk out there. There are of course those who approach 9/11 in a rational way saying we didn't get the whole story but the kooks far outweigh the other.

[Vegasaurus]

5. There sure are a lot of kooks

Those who think Bush orchestrated the whole thing (in cahoots with Israel, of course).

That there were no Arab terrorists who brought down the Trade Towers, that it was Bush and Cheney instead (with help from the Mossad).

All because they wanted to start a war in the middle east.

But it always comes back to JEWS being responsible for all the world's ills, including terrorism perpetrated by Muslims.

Jews in Bush's cabinet with links to Likkud, etc. must have been responsible for 9/11.

Very easy scapegoating.

[Sezu]

6. Indeed and while a few reputable sites have divorced

themselves from the Israel did 9/11 meme, there are still a huge number allowing that kind of antisemitic shit to flourish. Oh well what's another blood libel or two? There just has to some kind of pathology at work when people believe the I/P conflict is the most important. Course there also those who figure that since Israel's enemies control all the oil....well, you know.

[LeftishBrit]

20. Yes, there are some pretty vile antisemitic sites

And unfortunately some people on the left assume, at least initially, that if a site is anti-Bush it must be left-wing. Some of these sites are anti-Bush AND antisemitc AND racist AND generally far-right. Now that Bush has gone, at least their true colours may become more obvious.

[LeftishBrit]

7. I don't think everyone focuses on just one...

For example, human rights organizations at the moment are very concerned with what is going on in Sri Lanka.

There are indeed some conflicts that attract more media attention than others.

Some of the level of attention is undoubtedly based on pre-existing prejudices, such as antisemitism and Islamophobia.

Some is based on the amount of information that is readily available about and from a given country.

And quite a lot is based on whether the conflict involves an ally or enemy of one's own, or an associated, country. Israel's role as ally to the USA tends to result in particularly strong support or opposition, depending on people's attitude to the USA and its role in foreign policy.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. A variety of reasons - probably Islamophobia is the single greatest factor, but there are lots.

:-The Palestinians are Muslims, while the Israelis are westerners. This makes the conflict a focal point for anti-Muslim bigots, of whom post 9-11 there are an awful lot in the West.

:-The Israeli/Palestinian conflict has massive ramifications beyond its own borders - it's arguably the single most likely cause of World War III. Most conflicts don't.

:-Most other such conflicts are fairly non-controversial - everyone agrees that the atrocities are bad things. However, because the Palestinians are Muslims, a lot of people try to defend the indefensible when it comes to crimes committed against them, which in turn leads to people like me feeling it's more worth while drawing attention to them. Controversial issues tend to attract more attention than ones where everyone agrees.

:-The I/P conflict involves Westerners. This always attracts more attention than Africans killing Africans or Sri Lankans killing Sri Lankans, sadly (N.B. "does" not "should").

:-It's one of the few where the US could improve matters by inaction. Doing much good in Sri Lanka or Liberia would involve doing more, which is hard. Doing good in the ME would simply involve providing or threatening to provide less monetary/military/political support to Israel, which would be much easier, making it more worth pressing for.

:-I suspect that the contribution of the answer Shira is clearly hoping for - "it's antisemitism, of course" - is negligable.

[cali]

9. say what? that's contrary to the facts on the ground

The European postition on I/P is certainly not rooted in Islamaphobia. Other points you make are far more germane.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. No, but the fact there *is* a European position probably is, to some extent.

In the same sense that the US fought the Cold War because of communism.

Europeans condemn Israel's treatment of the Palestinians more than e.g. Liberia or Sri Lanka for various reasons, one of which is that the I/P conflict is higher profile.

One of the reasons it's higher profile is because it is controversial and disputed, whereas everyone condemns atrocities in e.g. Liberia.

One of the reasons that people defend crimes against the Palestinians is because they are Muslims.


There are certainly lots of other factors, many arguable more important, but I think that's a non-trivial one.

The feminist movement is huge. The movement against discrimination against reheads never got off the ground. From this we conclude not that people think discrimination against redheads is acceptable, but that there are sufficiently few people advocating it that it is not discussed.

[shira]

11. Let's see if we can agree on some things

:-The Palestinians are Muslims, while the Israelis are westerners. This makes the conflict a focal point for anti-Muslim bigots, of whom post 9-11 there are an awful lot in the West.

So you believe the MSM, UN, and NGO's are anti-Muslim? Almost all their criticism is of Israel.

:-The Israeli/Palestinian conflict has massive ramifications beyond its own borders - it's arguably the single most likely cause of World War III. Most conflicts don't.

But this doesn't explain why the MSM, UN, NGO's focus more on Israel's "aggression" against Palestinians while barely condemning Palestinian mis-treatment at the hands of Hamas or Lebanon (refugee camps). If the focus is on Palestinian rights, why is their hardly any criticism of actors other than Israel who cause Palestinian suffering? It appears there is more a thirst for "blaming Israel" rather than looking out for Palestinian rights.

:-Most other such conflicts are fairly non-controversial - everyone agrees that the atrocities are bad things. However, because the Palestinians are Muslims, a lot of people try to defend the indefensible when it comes to crimes committed against them, which in turn leads to people like me feeling it's more worth while drawing attention to them. Controversial issues tend to attract more attention than ones where everyone agrees.

Do you believe it's more worthwhile for the MSM, UN, and NGO's to spend way more of their time and attention on I/P and therefore far less time on the 70 other conflicts worldwide, because not enough people see Israel in a poor light?

:-The I/P conflict involves Westerners. This always attracts more attention than Africans killing Africans or Sri Lankans killing Sri Lankans, sadly (N.B. "does" not "should").

I agree this is sad, but also pathetic. In the 70 other conflicts worldwide, the "aggressors" (all of whom are worse than Israel) are benefitting from all the disproportionate criticism Israel is receiving - so they have less incentive to stop oppressing their victims. The victims in those 70 other conflicts are worse off as well, as their suffering is largely ignored. No "progressive" could possibly be thrilled about this. If only those other victims in other nations were suffering at the hands of Jews Israelis...:eyes:

As for the involvement of 'Westerners', see Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq - all 3 of which are horror shows due to UK and USA involvement. Civilian casualties and human rights violations are at least 10x worse. And yet the UN, MSM, and NGO's aren't nearly as critical of the UK and USA as they are Israel.

:-It's one of the few where the US could improve matters by inaction. Doing much good in Sri Lanka or Liberia would involve doing more, which is hard. Doing good in the ME would simply involve providing or threatening to provide less monetary/military/political support to Israel, which would be much easier, making it more worth pressing for.

In other words, the laziest, cheapest, and easiest way for the USA is to just bully Israel and do next to nothing about virtually everything else. Gee, this should make all progressive Americans proud of their country.

:-I suspect that the contribution of the answer Shira is clearly hoping for - "it's antisemitism, of course" - is negligable.

Re-read the above points and you'll find that the MSM, UN, and NGO's are inconsistent, hypocritical, and irrational. Tell-tale signs of anti-semitism.

What else explains the reason for the MSM and UN falling for PCHR propaganda like this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=270897&mesg_id=274151

It's not so bad the MSM and UN fall for that, but they do it repeatedly. This still hasn't been retracted by any media outlets. The UN still maintains the PCHR count in its criticisms against Israeli actions in Gaza.

Riddle us that one if you can. I have an explanation for it. What's yours?

[shaayecanaan]

12. Point by point...

"So you believe the MSM, UN, and NGO's are anti-Muslim? Almost all their criticism is of Israel."

Most statistical analyses of I/P coverage have shown that Palestinians receive the most negative coverage. The only exception to this was broadsheet coverage in the United Kingdom, which tended to be about even.

In the United States, press coverage is decidely pro-Israeli. However, it is significantly less pro-Israeli than it used to be. During the 1980s there was very, very little journalism in the United States that was even vaguely sympathetic towards the Palestinians. This has changed significantly, and because of that change, many people are fooled into thinking that the US media was even-handed before, and is pro-Palestinian now. Typically, most people who think that MSM coverage is anti-semitic tend to hold right-wing views on the I/P issue, so in a large sense it is a mistake largely borne of perspective.

Do you believe it's more worthwhile for the MSM, UN, and NGO's to spend way more of their time and attention on I/P and therefore far less time on the 70 other conflicts worldwide, because not enough people see Israel in a poor light?

Media organisations publish news stories that get ratings. The I/P situation gets ratings. You're not interested in Darfur, Sri Lanka or Chechnya, and neither is hardly anyone else, which is precisely why news agencies don't bother much with any of those other issues.

In other words, the laziest, cheapest, and easiest way for the USA is to just bully Israel and do next to nothing about virtually everything else. Gee, this should make all progressive Americans proud of their country.

I'm not sure that *not giving $3 billion a year = bullying*. Mozambique is arguably in far more need of $3 billion a year than Israel; however, the US does not give it to them. Does this mean the US is a "bully" of Mozambique?

During the apartheid years, many people criticised the ruling white regime in South Africa. A good many of those critics both in South Africa and overseas were Jewish, such as Helen Suzman, Louis Rabinowitz, and many others. Most left-leaning Jewish periodicals of the day would frequently carry pieces against apartheid.

Of course, living conditions for Blacks were far worse in Angola, Mozambique and the Congo, than they were in South Africa. Yet Jewish critics of apartheid very rarely mentioned those places. Do you think this is evidence that leftist Jews hated white Christians, or do you have some other basis for distinguishing between white leftist support for the Palestinians, and leftist Jewish support for Black South Africans?

[shira]

13. you missed some points with your selective replies

Typically, most people who think that MSM coverage is anti-semitic tend to hold right-wing views on the I/P issue...

Most American Jews are liberal (nearly 80% voted Obama) and most feel MSM coverage regarding Israel is biased. You can find examples of this within or outside the USA at blogs like Progressive Zionism (zionation), Engage, Bluetruth, Harrys Place, etc. CAMERA, FLAME, HONESTREPORTING, etc.. are quite popular among many liberal Jews. I once tried to post an article here written by Petra Marquardt Bigman from the Guardian, who frequently writes about media bias against Israel, and the thread was deleted (she's a longtime Meretz supporter).

Media organisations publish news stories that get ratings. The I/P situation gets ratings.

So therefore, bias exists against Israel.

The media is therefore not objective and not really doing their job properly. And ratings is a poor excuse to air false anti-Israel views (like the PCHR report I mentioned in the last post, which you ignored) that only feeds anti-semites, or make more people anti-semitic in their views. That's quite disgusting, actually, and is in no way progressive.

You're not interested in Darfur, Sri Lanka or Chechnya,

Low blow. And you know this based on faith?

...and neither is hardly anyone else, which is precisely why news agencies don't bother much with any of those other issues.

Shouldn't that greatly bother a "progressive" like yourself? And if not, why not?

I'm not sure that *not giving $3 billion a year = bullying*. Mozambique is arguably in far more need of $3 billion a year than Israel; however, the US does not give it to them. Does this mean the US is a "bully" of Mozambique?

It means that pressuring Israel (because they're more easily influenced by pressure) rather than putting similar pressure on others - is a form of selective bullying.

You missed some points in my last post - still thinking of how to reply to them?

[shaayecanaan]

25. as did you...

Most American Jews are liberal (nearly 80% voted Obama) and most feel MSM coverage regarding Israel is biased.

Perception of bias is often itself an indication of bias. Many conservatives complain of a "liberal media bias" even though the public corporations that own media agencies are hardly leftist bastions. The fact that there is significant discussion of a "liberal media bias" but not a conservative media bias (despite the fact that there are large sections of the media, such as local print, talkback radio, religious broadcasters etc which are firmly right wing) lends some support to this.

One very pervasive indication of this bias is the fact that in American discourse, a person is considered either "pro" or "anti" Israel and not "pro" or "anti" Palestinian, eg Jimmy Carter is anti-Israel, but Chuck Schumer is not considered anti-Palestinian.

Similarly, evangelical Christian support for Israel is usually explained as being a consequence of biblical prophecy, and not anti-Muslim sentiment (which in large part it plainly is).

By and large, Jews vote for the Democrats not for their foreign policy platform but because of traditional concerns about the right-wing, populist base of the Republican party. Jewish support for Obama at one stage looked to be quite weak (60% or so, almost as low as Jimmy Carter) until Sarah Palin's candidacy was announced. The appointment of a right-wing, Christian populist seemed to drive most undecided Jews back into the Obama camp.

Political figures such as Joe Lieberman and other neo-conservatives (who advocate, broadly, a left-wing domestic policy and a right-wing foreign policy) seem to indicate that there is a growing Jewish constituency in the US that is torn between love of Mordechai and hatred of Haman (to quote the book of Esther).

So therefore, bias exists against Israel.

The media is therefore not objective and not really doing their job properly.

The media is not in the business of producing stories that no one will read. A few days ago, I posted an article in the National Security forum about Sri Lanka, which I have been following reasonably closely. Given that that post garnered only a few replies, I can only surmise that besides myself, very few people are genuinely interested.

Low blow. And you know this based on faith?

I know this based on the fact that I have not seen you post a single word on any of those other conflicts. I doubt you could even tell the difference between a Sinhalese and a Tamil, let alone a Mau Mau and a Hutu.

The fact that the IP situation receives more airtime does not indicate bias towards Israel. It always received more airtime, even when 15 years ago, coverage was much more unanimously pro-Israel than it is today.

There are of course some reasons for this:-

1) The Western public knows the players in the IP conflict. They dont know the players in the Sri Lankan conflict or the Congolese conflict.

2) The IP conflict feeds into a number of Western ideologies. The Left sees in Israel a western, neo-colonialist project largely in the mould of Algeria or South Africa, that is supported by the United States. To state that leftist criticism of Israel is motivated by anti-semitism is to imply that had Israel been colonised by WASPs instead of Jews, the left would not criticise it. This is plainly stupid. One only has to look at Northern Ireland, where Britain received left-leaning criticism even though it acted with far more restraint than Israel, to see that this is wrong.

3) There are two other ideological forces at play. One is Christian eschatology, which views the mid-East war as the precursor to the end times. The other, more important political force is anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe, which is increasing steadily. A good many right-wing populist parties such as the BNP in Britain are jettisoning anti-Semitic rhetoric to engage Jewish supporters and capitalise on Islamophobia. If Europe, overall, is presently much more anti-Islamic than anti-Jewish, then generally one would expect coverage of the IP situation to skew towards Israel, rather than away from it.

It means that pressuring Israel (because they're more easily influenced by pressure) rather than putting similar pressure on others - is a form of selective bullying.

In terms of real "pressure" the US will probably threaten to withhold loan guarantees, at most. By comparison, Israeli pressure on Palestine usually involves sealing their borders, cutting off all essential supplies, and imposing a naval blockade. If the US is a "bully" then Israel, plainly, is a tyrant.

[shira]

26. to answer a few of your points

The media is not in the business of producing stories that no one will read. A few days ago, I posted an article in the National Security forum about Sri Lanka, which I have been following reasonably closely. Given that that post garnered only a few replies, I can only surmise that besides myself, very few people are genuinely interested.

The job of the media is to report, objectively, fairly, honestly and accurately. The fact is they don't, and worse, you don't seem to mind very much at all (you have yet to comment on the bogus and slanderous PCHR report that the media sold to the public). You claim to care about the situation in Sri Lanka, but don't mind very much that the media minimizes the situation there (which does nothing to help those suffering in that conflict). This gives the UN and NGO's the excuse they need to give short-shrift to a conflict much deadlier than I/P (multiply this times the 70 other deadly conflicts worldwide). So you'll have to excuse me for not believing that you really care about worse situations elsewhere around the globe. I see nothing progressive about your lack of concern regarding media bias and the I/P conflict.

I know this based on the fact that I have not seen you post a single word on any of those other conflicts.

Wow. I'm floored by your genius. Have you ever considered that this is an I/P forum and writing about other conflicts would sorta be off-topic? You know, the fact is that I haven't seen you post a single word on most other conflicts around the world here on the I/P forum....maybe I should also make some asinine leap asserting that you don't care about any of those other conflicts? Nah...

The fact that the IP situation receives more airtime does not indicate bias towards Israel. It always received more airtime, even when 15 years ago, coverage was much more unanimously pro-Israel than it is today.

It's not just more air-time, it's the obvious anti-Israel bias and hostility like the most recent and slanderous PCHR report or the bogus deliberate strike on the UN school-building in Gaza, the false "white flag" story during OCL, etc, etc., ad-infinitum (like Muhammad al Dura, Jenin, Gaza Beach, Qana). Rarely are the bogus accounts retracted, the same unreliable sources are trusted in the future, and it just keeps going.

Do you think that kind of reporting is pro-Palestinian b/c for the life of me, I don't see how that kind of reporting helps the average Palestinian one bit. Sure, it helps Hamas and the PLO but...

To state that leftist criticism of Israel is motivated by anti-semitism is to imply that had Israel been colonised by WASPs instead of Jews, the left would not criticise it. This is plainly stupid.

It's not that they wouldn't criticize it....the question is HOW would they criticize? Would the rage be anywhere near the level it is if Jews weren't involved? I think we know the answer to that one.

In terms of real "pressure" the US will probably threaten to withhold loan guarantees, at most. By comparison, Israeli pressure on Palestine usually involves sealing their borders, cutting off all essential supplies, and imposing a naval blockade. If the US is a "bully" then Israel, plainly, is a tyrant.

For someone who lectures others about their PHD's on "hamburger-ology", you should be embarassed to make this sort of asinine comparison. The USA isn't at war with Israel while OTOH, Israel has been engaged in a state of war (low level, whatever) for some time now with its neighbors - which may just explain the difference in pressure, dontcha think? No, the USA only kills about a million Iraqis in its war overseas thousands of miles from citizens they say they're "protecting" in their own mainland. That's so much better than Israel, really, I can see why the American left here on this I/P forum feels they are morally superior to Israelis.

[shaayecanaan]

28. Okay...

The job of the media is to report, objectively, fairly, honestly and accurately. The fact is they don't, and worse, you don't seem to mind very much at all (you have yet to comment on the bogus and slanderous PCHR report that the media sold to the public).

The Indian and Sri Lankan press reports on the issue extensively. I generally read the Indian Times online at least every two days. I would recommend it to you if you want to learn more about Sri Lanka.

Perhaps your opinion would have some import if the US had a government press agency (other than VoA which primarily operates overseas). But as it is, the US press is run by private companies, which are in the business of generating profits. They generate their profits by running stories that their audiences are interested in. Their audiences are not interested in the Congo or Sri Lanka, but they are interested in the middle-East. You are essentially stating that NBC should give up making mindless pap-driven situation comedies and instead broadcast well-regarded productions of Shakespeare, since this would obviously be a far more meritorious use of their audience's time, even if it isnt what their audience wants.

It's not just more air-time, it's the obvious anti-Israel bias and hostility like the most recent and slanderous PCHR report or the bogus deliberate strike on the UN school-building in Gaza, the false "white flag" story during OCL, etc, etc., ad-infinitum (like Muhammad al Dura, Jenin, Gaza Beach, Qana). Rarely are the bogus accounts retracted, the same unreliable sources are trusted in the future, and it just keeps going.

Again, this is a mistake largely borne of your perspective. For example, take the incident on Gaza Beach. The IDF initially took responsibility for the deaths of the people - as it had done in the case of Muhammed al-Dura. Normally, when a party admits to something, it is treated by the media as fairly conclusive evidence that the assertion is true. For that reason, most of the world's media took it as given that the 8 deaths were caused by an incoming Israeli tank shell.

Israel released a report denying that it was responsible. Amongst other things, it asserted that victims of the blast were admitted to hospital before it had fired its tank shells. This was shown to be untrue. Pieces of artillery were removed from a victim's abdomen with stampings on it. The IDF claimed that perhaps Palestinians had used an unspent tank shell as an IED, which seems a bit of a stretch. But eventually, it conceded that the explosion had likely been caused by IDF ordinance, although it maintained that the explosion had been caused by an earlier dud shell in the sand that had been set off either by the latest barrage of shells, or by human traffic. You claim the press account was "bogus"; however, the only account to me that seems definitively bogus is Israel's assertion that the blast was caused by a Palestinian IED.

From the HRW report:-

If the Israeli allegations of tampered evidence are to be believed, many Palestinians would have to have engaged in a massive and immediate conspiracy to falsify the data. The conspirators – witnesses, victims, medical personnel and bomb disposal staff – would have had to falsify their testimony, amend digital and hand-written records, and dip shrapnel into a victim’s blood. It beggars belief that such a huge conspiracy could be orchestrated so quickly.

To a large extent, the techniques used by pro-Israeli hacks are the same techniques by holocaust negationists. Negationists operate at the margins:- they focus all of their attention on the few thousand Jews who didn't actually die in the holocaust but instead were already dead from Spanish flu or who had a heart attack. From those few marginal instances they then mount an attack on the main body of evidence for the holocaust, saying that because of these few instances where uncertainty exists the credibility of the holocaust as a whole must be in doubt.

The same technique is used to defend Israel. There are a great many Palestinians aside from those on the Gaza beach that day who have been killed by Israeli tank shells, even if, as seems likely, the Gaza beach victims were killed by an Israeli shell. Yet by drumming up controversy over those few instances, a perception of uncertainty can be created in relation to the whole.

No, the USA only kills about a million Iraqis in its war overseas thousands of miles from citizens they say they're "protecting" in their own mainland.

Interesting. You use the highest available estimate for the numbers of civilian dead during the Iraq war (higher than even the Lancet study and the estimate by the Iraqi health ministry). I imagine you would be histrionic if someone attempted to use such a high estimate for the numbers of dead during Operation Cast Lead.

[shira]

29. Alright....

You are essentially stating that NBC should give up making mindless pap-driven situation comedies and instead broadcast well-regarded productions of Shakespeare, since this would obviously be a far more meritorious use of their audience's time, even if it isnt what their audience wants.

You're comparing prime-time, entertainment TV to the news and you don't see a particular problem with that? News is news. I expect world news to be reported objectively and fairly, from big stories to small. News agencies are not advocacy organizations, nor are they entertainment bastions. That you think they should be just shows you don't mind the obvious bias and the fact that other conflicts far more deadly are either minimized or virtually ignored (as a progressive, you should be outraged by that).

Again, this is a mistake largely borne of your perspective. For example, take the incident on Gaza Beach. The IDF initially took responsibility for the deaths of the people - as it had done in the case of Muhammed al-Dura. Normally, when a party admits to something, it is treated by the media as fairly conclusive evidence that the assertion is true. For that reason, most of the world's media took it as given that the 8 deaths were caused by an incoming Israeli tank shell.

You know as well as I do that even if Israel flatly denied it up front, it would still be headline news and skewed in such a way as to report that Israel only "claims" no responsibility.

Israel released a report denying that it was responsible. Amongst other things, it asserted that victims of the blast were admitted to hospital before it had fired its tank shells. This was shown to be untrue.

Schrapnel was removed from the victims, by PA doctors, when it was neither called for or good for the patients (the logical conclusion being that they were removing incriminating evidence):

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150355528023&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"On Monday, the Human Rights Watch, while sticking to its demand for the establishment of an independent inquiry into a blast on a Gaza beach 10 days ago that killed seven Palestinian civilians, conceded for the first time since the incident that it could not contradict the IDF's exonerating findings."

Also see this..

Gaza Beach Tragedy: Exploiting Grief:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmevqCYkL_c

Interesting. You use the highest available estimate for the numbers of civilian dead during the Iraq war (higher than even the Lancet study and the estimate by the Iraqi health ministry). I imagine you would be histrionic if someone attempted to use such a high estimate for the numbers of dead during Operation Cast Lead.

I'm including the hundreds of thousands (at least half a million) killed due to US sanctions (you'd call it "collective punishment") in the 90's and leading up to Iraq part 2.

[azurnoir]

15. Are you still trying to promote that POS

when ever will you be willing to post a link to something than a link? How long until every victim of OCL is declared a militant?

But as to you op the nearest thing to truth IMO was the end part where it was pointed out that reorters have better accommodations in Israel than in Darfur, which does not make it right

[shira]

16. if you don't like that link, there's this, which shows PCHR lied big time about civilian casualties

Imagine, NPR publishing an article from TNR, golly gee....

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103844397#commentBlock

and way to avoid the main point of the article.

...and FWIW, that list from EoZ is now at 286 civilians turned combatants...if you were honestly interested in accuracy and fact, you'd click on the links he provides to see for yourself that close to 300 of PCHR's 'civilians' were actually combatants. Appears you're more interested in shooting the messenger than accepting accurate fact. Anything to avoid......how unsurprising.

[azurnoir]

18. Jonathan Dahoah Halevi exIDF is making a list

also said he's ex intelligence would that be Shabak or Mossad be what ever comforts you Shira
BTW the NPR article does not claim he is correct it is about him and his mission to discredit PCHR

another gem from Halevi

Study: Palestinian Authority Will Use Conference Funds To Pay Terrorists

Jerusalem — Yesterday, Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi, senior researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, documented that the lion’s share of the $5 billion raised on Monday at Sharm el-Sheik for rebuilding Gaza will likely instead reach the coffers of Gaza terrorist groups.

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/03/11/news/world/doc49af74d24d46e258165266.txt

[geek tragedy]

14. So, Israel=Russia now. Stirring defense. n/t

[shira]

17. way to avoid the main point of the article

[LeftishBrit]

19. The most horrific conflicts at the moment are probably in Africa...

specifically Darfur, and the Congo. Neither gets the attention that it should.

I do think that the more linked an area is with America or Europe, directly or indirectly, the more attention it gets.

[aranthus]

21. He gets close to an answer in the last part.

There are several reasons why the interest in and attention to Israel/Palestine out of proportion to the casualties and Israel's share of fault.

1. Oil.
2. Terrorism. There hasn't been anything comparable to it up until the piracy in the seas off Somalia.
3 Opportunity. Most of the opposition to Israel outside of the Arab/Muslim world (and even within it) comes from the Left, and much of that opposition is to Israel's existence as much as anything else. So the real question is why does the Left focus on Israel when there is so much worse going on in the world? I think the reason is that Israel is an outpost of the West (read the United States) that the Left thinks can be subverted. It targets Israel to be wrecked because it thinks Israel is wreckable. Ever since Marx, the highest goal of the Left has been to destroy the outposts of Capitalism so that a better world can be built on the ashes. Israel is Capitalist, Religious, Jewish, and an ally of the US: everything that the Left hates. Add that the Left dominates the media and academia, and you get a public focus on Israel.

[Vegasaurus]

22. It is only the"progressive" wing of the democratic party that hates capitalism and Jews

the rank and file Democratic party is supported predominantly by Jews who are also Zionists.

IT is only the left "fringe" members who hate Israel and are obsessed with its demonization.

[LeftishBrit]

23. I agree with one point here...

a lot of left-wing opposition to Israel *is* because it's seen an ally, or indeed outpost, of America and the West. Some left-wingers are generally anti-American; all are opposed to RW American governments such as that of Bush - and just as the Bushies saw all allies of America as good, and their enemies and opponents as an 'axis of evil', so some anti-Bush people take a mirror-image-ist view where all America's allies become an 'axis of evil'. Not all do by any means - but the phenomenon exists.

I definitely disagree that the Left dominates the media however! This certainly doesn't appear to be true *at all* of American media, with Murdoch and Fox News dominating the scene, and RW talk-shows having (apparently) an even more pernicious influence. As regards Europaean media - *possibly* some of the media most often read/viewed by American liberals is relatively left-wing, but definitely not the media as a whole, or what is most influential in Europe. The RW tabloids have a *much* wider readership in the UK than 'The Guardian' for example.

[aranthus]

24. I beg to differ about American media

Since I live in the US, I'm more familiar with US media than that in Europe or elsewhere. Though there are some Right wing outlets (Fox News, most talk radio, WSJ), most of the Television and Newspaper press is on the Left. The three main broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC), the major papers except the WSJ (NYT, LA Times, Boston Globe, SF Chronicle, etc.) are all on the Left. As far as talk radio, in LA we have two main Right wing stations and two Left wing stations. That may not be indicative of other markets, but it still shows that talk radio is not quite as one sided to the Right as it might appear at first look (though it's pretty solidly Right wing). Of course, the internet is changing that in ways that go beyond Left and Right, but as far as the old media goes in the US, it is definitely on the Left. One thing that Europe has over the US is that more of the media wears its biases on its sleeve. No one is going to accuse the Economist of being anything but on the Right, and they don't deny it. Here in the US the media (Left and Right, except for talk radio) tries to pretend that it doesn't have a point of view.

[shaayecanaan]

30. Rubbish...

the major papers except the WSJ (NYT, LA Times, Boston Globe, SF Chronicle, etc.)

USA Today has more than double the circulation of most of those papers, and is moderately conservative. As far as periodicals go, the biggest circulating periodical in the United States is Reader's Digest, which is staunchly conservative. It has an extended readership of 38 million, which dwarfs that of Newsweek, Time, etc.

The three main broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC)

Why omit CNN (which was once left of centre but has now moved right of centre)? Or Fox? Those two stations put together are watched as much as the rest of the cable news stations combined.

though it's pretty solidly Right wing

No shit.

but as far as the old media goes in the US, it is definitely on the Left

Because that is the overwhelming impression that is created. By the media.

[shira]

31. I agree with you......I don't believe the MSM has a liberal bias at all

[bemildred]

27. Why, because it's the most important one, of course. nt