Double standard in coverage of terror threats facing Israel

[vminfla]

Suppose for a moment that a man carrying 11 pipe bombs, a pistol and ammunition tried to cross into a secure area in the U.S. -- perhaps at an airport -- but was stopped in time by police and prevented from carrying out what could have been a lethal terror attack.

Would the Washington Post have ignored this incident? I doubt it very much. The Post would have given it front-page coverage and followed up with stories about the identity and motives of this would-be terrorist.

Yet, when exactly this kind of incident occurred on Sunday, Jan. 8, at a West Bank checkpoint near Jenin where a Palestinian, armed to the teeth, was halted trying to cross into Israel, the Post kept it a secret from its readers. Not a single sentence.

The New York Times didn't do much better. It buried the incident in another piece about Israeli prosecutors filing charges against five Jewish settlers who had raided an IDF base as part of an effort to block the dismantling of an illegal outpost. The incident about the Israeli-bound Palestinian intruder was tacked on in the last two paragraphs of the Times piece about the prosecution of Jewish radicals. Most readers probably never even saw it.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/01/double_standard_in_coverage_of_terror_threats_facing_israel.html#ixzz1j9ifE1lj

[LeftishBrit]

1. OK, I'm going to shoot the messenger here...

because this particular messenger has no place on a liberal board.

'American Thinker' is a truly vile site. Current titles on the site include:

•The Top 5 Reasons Obama Must Be Removed as Commander-in-Chief - Stella Paul
•Obama's Fascist America in 10 Easy Steps - Timothy Birdnow
•A Defense of Ron Paul and Political Boldness -

One article is entitled 'GOP timidity is a path to political defeat' and ends:


'The left-leaning bias in the press cannot be changed in the short or intermediate term, nor can it be avoided by running candidates the media may find less objectionable. The Democrat candidate will always be the hero to the GOP's villain. Sooner or later, the GOP is going to have to muster the courage to trust the American people to see through the biased coverage, and to support a candidate who reflects the conservative values that are still generally mainstream, even if not in the dominant media. The strategy of appeasing the left with a watered-down candidate is destined for defeat in the both long and short term.'

Yes, yes, shooting the messenger. But I am doing so because ALL RIGHT-WING IDEOLOGY IS INTRINSICALLY INDESCRIBABLY EVIL, and should not be promoted on a liberal board. No, I do NOT think that being pro-Israel makes someone right-wing. But writing for 'American Thinker' does make people right-wing. (And quoting such people in support of Israel will only enhance the position of axis-of-evil mirror-image-ists who consider that everything about Israel is right-wing just because Bush considered it as an ally.) I'm not even sure that the site is all that concerned about Israel; they basically include articles like this so as to score points against the 'left-wing' media.

[vminfla]

3. So you have no arguments against the article itself?

Just the site it was posted on?

[LeftishBrit]

4. And the author who wrote it, etc.

Leo Rennert is very clearly not just pro-Israel. He is pro-right against left in *and* out of Israel.

Though I'm unhappy about posting links to such people's views, here is an example:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/ny_times_to_the_rescue_of_a_netanyahu_foe.html

Note that this is (a) a defense of Netanyahu against left-wing Israeli media; (b) the last two paragraphs:


'I view the brouhaha over Channel 10 in a somewhat different light. Bronner's article actually is part and parcel of an all-out New York Times campaign against conservative, right-of-center institutions - whether in the U.S. or in Israel. For example, since Rupert Murdoch bought the Wall Street Journal and turned it into a successful competitor to the Times, the Sulzbergers have gone after him, milking every jot and tittle of a hacking scandal at a Murdoch-owned British tabloid. There's still plenty of pugnacity in the Old Lady.

The left, including the Times, is determined to retain command of cultural and media agendas. It's ready to use every trick of the trade against right-leaning actors - whether it's Murdoch in the New York press wars or Netanyahu allies when they push back against Israel's dominant left.'

Clearly, he is against 'Israel's dominant left' and in favour of right-leaning actors; and his articles are embedded in this agenda.



Look: if you were to say, 'I know this site is a vile site; and I agree that the right wing and the Republican party are promoters of great evil, and their fundamental views have absolutely NO validity and must be fought at every turn; BUT I think that points X, Y and Z in this particular article have some validity', then that would be one thing. But without making such comments, it can come across as an endorsement, or at least toleration, of Republican and right-wing viewpoints.

And I hope that all of us, whatever our views on the I/P conflict, are all in it together in opposing all aspects of the right wing.

[vminfla]

5. The article speaks for itself

I do not need to know the name of the author or even the site if a cogent argument is made. His argument is no less relevant.

[shira]

2. The double standard is deliberate...

They simply do not want the rest of the world really knowing what Israelis are up against.

The narrative is supposed to remain one sided.

Only Palestinians victimized by evil Zionists make the news. This is why many folks don't think Israel has any right to attack Gaza, for example. Such an act is reported as aggression, not defense.