Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
But if you want examples: Characterizing a blockade as a "siege" sounds to me like propaganda, particularly w/o mentioning that several of the checkpoints on the Gaza border with Egypt were controlled by Egypt (not Israel) ....or a failure to acknowledge that Israel allowed humanitarian aide at various time during the blockade (the UN World Food Programme had been coordinated emergency food deliveries into Gaza for months, only to have it not delivered to those in need because of fear of being attacked by Hamas militia - whose goal is to use the blockade for political purposes) ....or that the blockade would have been lifted with one simple action by Hamas - an end to the four years (since the Israeli unilateral withdrawal) of indiscriminate rocket attacks into Israeli civilian areas.
Listing casualty counts w/o indicating that the vast majority were Hamas militia and not innocent civilians or that many of the civilian deaths resulted from the Hamas human rights violation of using them as human shields is intellectually dishonest, IMO I could offer more examples (suggestions of Israel's unwillingness to accept a two state solution, misinformation on new settlements) but whats the point. |
It's the media's job to inform the people of these things, not be the judge. But they need to spin things so to not alienate it's viewers plus not pissing off advertisers that pay the bills, and that is the problem. Very few news shows would explain Hamas's refusal to negotiate (and why it did), then show the suffering and attitudes of the Palestinians still in Gaza City (and the rockets randomly hitting Israel).
I don't know the back story of all of the decisions and events in the history of the Hamas/Palestinian - Israel fight. There seems to be a lot of reactionary violence against each other for something the other side did. But making a four hour documentary with the history of both sides would be a great idea for an unbiased news reporting company.