Human Rights Watch. Jenin Report

[system]

*Originally posted by DSeid *
Nevertheless, the point remains that the lack of a massacre, the fact that “witnesses” had lied, has gotten very little press … retractions rarlely do … and other accusations get center stage.

That’s a structural problem with news, if one knows how to drive the news cycle on can do damage. Still the corrections I think got across.

You read a very select group of media. Only the best.

Nature of my work, I need to read those sources.

I am also limited in my reads, but more breadbasket America. The Trib gets delivered and is about as pro-Palestinian as it gets.

Okay, if you say so. But it hardly seems representative of American media. Is there not also the other paper in Chicago? --Lexis Nexis has the other one.

I listen to NPR, which in Jewish circles is being called National Palestinian Radio. We each see a small selection of all media out there. Maybe I’m gettting an unfair representation of all of it. You may be as well.

Well, I don’t listen to NPR as I devote my listening time to other things

My critique of your posts persists as well. You were very eager to believe that the IDF had participated in a massacre.

I don’t recall feeling that way. I do recall being irritated at the sense that the story was getting dismissed out of hand and in manners which I found offensive, and did need to be investigated.

I may have --not having reviewed my comments–allowed myself to go overboard.

The news that there was none should have been significant to you, in fairness. Instead there was the jumping onto the IDF “war crimes anyway” bandwagon. It is hard to reconcile such behavior with even-handedness.

Well, perhaps I can provide perspective. I don’t find it unlikely that ‘war crimes’ from a strict point of view were indeed committed. However, I also like to put that in the perspective of war and operations in general. To my understanding, the IDF reservists were blind-sided by the ferocity of response, from my understanding this is precisely the sort of situation where frightened soldiers’ discipline breaks down.

For the good of the IDF --which as before I do commend for doing a reasonably decent job in respecting the ‘rules of war’ in the worst of conditions-- and for the good of long-term policy if there was a break down, and it seems likely and indeed understandable, that needs to be addressed.

Should the IDF investigate their own and discipline as appropriate? Yep. Will any such self evaluation and self regulation be crowed upon by the Palestinian side. Yep.

Very true, but in the end, Israel is stronger for it, while the Ps are weaker. It helps protect Israel’s moral position as well as strengthen Israeli society. And lead to more effective overall policy.

I have a fair degree of confidence that despite some bad players that the process will work.

As to what really happened at Camp David 2, I refer you to the “myths” thread. This much is agreed upon by all of the American side: Arafat did not come to CD2 with any intention of dealing unless he heard the ideal offer first. Barak was going for broke. If Arafat had negotiated in good faith, then even Malley concurrs a deal would have been reached.

I’ve noted in the past that while I see no small amount of blame to be attached to the Likud camp, to use a short hand, I generally consider Israel to be genuinely working for a real settlement. Arafat … well he’s both incompetant and a moron. I don’t know frankly if it is bad faith or just the depths of negotiating incompetence and stupidity. I favor a combined explanation, as I have hear P complaints as to his idiocy and incompetence. Frankly, the man is a small person not up to the task at hand. I believe that in some ways he really did want a genuine deal, but was too stupid to imagine a way to reach a compromise with Barak. And while in an ideal world Barak might have gone a little further, frankly he at least tried in more creative ways than Arafat did.

I hate to say it, but it’s a problem with Arab society --well the Mashreq region’s political habits, I over generalize to say Arab society-- in a general way, a sort of mule-headed idiotic approach to negotiating. Painful.

And the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza would be looking at a better future than they are now.

I absolutely agree.

I have simply gotten annoyed with a spin which places excessive blame on the PA. But they do deserve a huge heaping of scorn.

[Lemur866]

Collounsbury, could you define “Mashreq”? I tried a google search on it, but most of the sites seemed to be in French or didn’t define the word. Also, what’s the meaning of “Mahgreb”?

[system]

Sorry, sorry, jargon.

Mashreq means “East” in Arabic, with the sense of a geographic region. The Mashreq in ‘Arab’ circles refers to roughly Egypt, the Sham (Lebanon, home of the Lebs as I endearingy refer to them, Syria, Jordan and P-stine) and the Gulf/Arabian Peninsula. And Iraq. Sudan gets kinda left out.

Maghreb means ‘West’ in Arabic, the same form giving the sense of geographic region. It generally refers to Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, sometimes adding in Libya and Mauretania. The regional org covers all of the mentioned states.

Maghreb and Mashreq (or Machreq) do tend to get used more in French than English.

[DSeid]

Collounsbury,
No, it is not just “a structural problem with the news.” It is a manifestation of the bias of different news outlets. Different outlets have differernt degrees of bias in different directions. My experience with what I read/listen to regularly, and with the sites that I visit (CNN and BBC) is that a distinct anti-Israeli bias exists in these sites. To discuss this requires more than counting headlines. It requires collecting/gathering as complete of a picture of a series of event s as is possible from a variety of sources and then seeing over time how each outlet portrays and covers the same events. What gets left out? Is it a consistent pattern? What kinds of words are used to describe each sides actions? Where does it get placed? To my eyes CNN, BBC, NPR, and my local Trib, all to various degrees have a systematic anti-Israel bias in the way they report (or do not report) pertinent events. In the “Massacre” thread my position was that this bias was the main factor in how the events of Jenin were (and have since been) reported. What gets emphasized and with what words. What got left out in many of these same reports. I documented examples of such bias.

No offense, but a respose of “absurd”, hardly earned you points as a great debater. Nor did your putting words into Sam’s mouth, implying that he felt that Palestinians were lying bastards who deserved to die. You have since shown that you are capable of more than that.

(BTW, our other paper is a commuter rag mainly devoted to the sensationalist local crime stories and the muckraking that gets a subway rider to pick up a copy. Chicago is a great town, but not for newspapers.)

[system]

*Originally posted by DSeid *
Collounsbury,
No, it is not just “a structural problem with the news.” It is a manifestation of the bias of different news outlets. Different outlets have differernt degrees of bias in different directions.

Certainly some do, however the phenom. you noted and which I replied to, that is new news driving off follow ups is a structural issue.

My experience with what I read/listen to regularly, and with the sites that I visit (CNN and BBC) is that a distinct anti-Israeli bias exists in these sites.

Well, from your POV perhaps that is true. I find that POV absurd and distorted. Insofar as that has been adequately developed and taking off your spectacles is not my business I let it stand at that.

To discuss this requires more than counting headlines. It requires collecting/gathering as complete of a picture of a series of event s as is possible from a variety of sources and then seeing over time how each outlet portrays and covers the same events. What gets left out? Is it a consistent pattern? What kinds of words are used to describe each sides actions? Where does it get placed? To my eyes CNN, BBC, NPR, and my local Trib, all to various degrees have a systematic anti-Israel bias in the way they report (or do not report) pertinent events. In the “Massacre” thread my position was that this bias was the main factor in how the events of Jenin were (and have since been) reported. What gets emphasized and with what words. What got left out in many of these same reports. I documented examples of such bias.

As I recall the thread you gave an anti-Israel gloss to reporting that is just as easily characterized by simple reaction to the event. I find the reading unconvincing, and indeed if one wants to claim there is general anti-Israel bias one has to go beyond one crisis moment. I may as well pick out critical, nasty comments after a bombing and claim general bias against Arabs or Muslims. same game.

No offense, but a respose of “absurd”, hardly earned you points as a great debater. Nor did your putting words into Sam’s mouth, implying that he felt that Palestinians were lying bastards who deserved to die. You have since shown that you are capable of more than that.

Points? I could give a fuck about points. Your contention is and remains absurd. As for Sam, his response to the HRW report and off-handed dismissals deserved precisely my response.

[DSeid]

Then again, sometimes people can prove that they are as asinine and arrogant as you had thought they were! (Note to Collounsbury: generally debating requires providing reasoned arguments and/or evidence to supporrt your positions. Name calling and blanket statements are as inappropriate as they are immature. Misrepresenting other posters comments earns you disrespect.)

Meanwhile, some reasoned comments regarding the balance between security and preserving human rights from Israeli Supreme Court President Justice Aharon Barak as quoted in today’s Ha’Aretz-

Speaking at the second annual conference of the Israel Bar Association in Eilat, Barak said “terror does not justify abandoning legal norms, even if the war against terror is that of a law-abiding state and law-abiding citizens against those who crudely and without any human feelings violate the law. Neither are human rights a platform for national suicide and self-defeat.”
…
He presented three fundamentals that characterize Israel’s struggle against terror. First is a struggle to “define the law, done with legal instruments, and examined in the courts.”

Second is the balance needed “between the seemingly contrary values of the state’s security and human rights.” He said human rights cannot justify in every case and every situation harm to state security, and human rights cannot be a platform for national suicide."

The balance between the two values, he said, “is based on the need to find a synthesis between the clashing values and principles, that reflects the rich and mature essence of the rule of law, and the essence of democracy, which itself is a balance between majority rule and the rights of the minorities and the individual.”

The third principle Barak cited is that human rights cannot be fully protected as if there is no terror, and the security of the state cannot be protected as if there are no human rights. Balance and compromise are the price of democracy, but a price worth paying."
…

Attorney Shlomo Cohen, head of the Israel Bar Association, said that “even in a just war, the army is subject to the law and the law is relevant in every matter in which the government is active, including battle. Nobody in the IDF disputes this. Only the politicians do.”

(bolding mine)

HRW sees no need for this balance; for them human rights should be protected as if there was no terror. Which is why no government fighting terror can meet their standards. Meanwhile the Israeli legal system must do its job, and assure that security is not protected as if there are no human rights.

[edwino]

Wordy post coming up. Ya know, I mentioned above that I don’t like playing the media bias game. I’ll chip in a few cents here and shuddup about it.

When I load up cnn.com and I see a bombing, my steps are:
a) Read the first word of the article to see where the bombing took place.
b) Think of all my family and friends who live in that city (i.e. Yael is from Rishon L’Tzion, I wonder if she is OK/I wonder if her family is OK/I wonder if she knew anyone hurt or killed).
c) Read the article on CNN.
d) Read Ha’aretz and possibly the Jerusalem Post.

Step b) obviously represents my shortcoming, and step d) confirms it. I lose perspective easily on a situation and I personalize it. This leads to objectifying both sides and a loss of rationality. The immediate source of content is mostly one-sided. Bear with me here, it is late, I am still at work and I’ve been here for 13 hours already.

Media outlets in Israel and the Arab world are very prone to losing perspective and objectification. Nobody would accuse them otherwise, except the free press in Israel is mostly better than the government mouthpieces of the Arab world. Everyone can agree here.

In the US, there is far less objectification and far more perspective. Newspapers here are free to take either/both/neither side of the issue. What side they are on is dictated by the writers’ and editors’ personal tastes and what they can sell.

The fact that both the pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian sides are playing the media bias card to me says that the media as a whole is pretty even-handed. Individual media can be quite biased, but as a spectrum it pretty much evens out. I personally don’t find much pro-Palestinian bias in CNN or NPR, and I find the “studies” showing “data” (i.e. the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli talking heads) to be exercises in futility. I think most national media tend to go for the most perspective with the least objectification. If they are guilty of using flawed sources, it is usually acknowledged (alleged Jenin massacre), and it is only due to lack of better sources. As much as us Israeli sympathizers like to forget it, there is another side here. There are babies getting killed by errant tank shells. They are humans, and they deserve their inalienable right to self-determination.

As a final point, I will side with Coll mostly on the issue. Reporting of the outbreak of hostilities is usually big news. Invasions, bombs dropping, explosions, casualties is always found on the front page. I clearly clearly remember like it was yesterday watching CNN on the outbreak of the Gulf War with Bernard Shaw hiding under a table in a hotel in Baghdad. I was 16 years old. I barely remember the reporting on the signing of the cease fire, apart from a few vague images. It is really no different here. Positive entropy (shit blowed up) is good headlines. Negative entropy or no change in entropy (shit rebuilt, shit didn’t get blowed up, shit never got blowed up in the first place). Works on both sides of the fence: suicide bomber blowed shit up, front page. Suicide bomber caught – little if any news.

Modern news is driven by pictures. The reporters go to where the cameramen and photojournalists can get good pictures. The stories with the best pictures get shown the most, as people read and watch things with good pictures. Hence, Pulitzer Prize goes to Palestinian refugee weeping in her destroyed house. Pulitzer Prize does not go to Palestinian refugee standing outside of house that the Israelis thoughtfully went around.

[GilaB]

*Originally posted by DSeid *
No, it is not just "a structural problem with the news."

I’d certainly agree that there is an anti-Israel bias to most American news organizations (although I also recognize my own bias probably causes me to see the opposite bias in others), but this issue really is a structural problem with the news. In general, saying something didn’t happen, or didn’t happen as much, isn’t as big a news story as saying that something did. Fundamentally, the news business is about selling newspapers or attracting listeners/viewers and thus advertisers, and people aren’t usually particularly interested in revisings of earlier news stories, particularly when such revisions take them in a less sensationalistic direction.

I see on preview that edwino has included most of the above rather more articulately than I have. Oh, well.

[istara]

This “anti-Israel” bias supposedly in “most American news organisations” - was it there six months ago? A year ago? Has it always been there?

If not - why is it there now?

[edwino]

istara:

In my formative youth, I remember my auntie clearly complaining about anti-Israel bias during the first intifada. A few pages I have read on the prelude to the 1967 war complained about how the press was miserably silent about U Thant’s withdrawal of UN forces from the Sinai, about Egyptian troop buildups, and about Syrian shelling of the Gallilee.

[yojimbo]

Wow good thread guys

I haven’t being ignoring this thread BTW. I just have nothing to add to the very good and informative posts.

Cheers.