As I mentioned in an earlier blog, the press and media in general is constantly being used, abused and manipulated. Take, for example, the spoofs or Pallywood productions; Hamas leaders holding a government meeting by candlelight, as daylight cuts across the photo from a slit in the curtain, the so-called “Jenin Massacre”, the Mohammed al Dura case, etc., etc.!!
So many of the newspapers and TV stations are jumping on the bandwagon of deligitmising Israel.
The Guardian UK
This paper even goes so far as to blame Israel for the recent "military escalation" while in fact justifying the Palestinian missiles that led to IDF operations in Gaza in the first place. As a friend stated in a letter to the paper "publishing opinions disguised as facts is blatant dishonesty."
The papers op-ed then goes on to say “that Israel's entry into Gaza cannot possibly be a legitimate act of self-defence" but is carefull to omit the fact that to fire rockets at a sovereign nation deliberately intended to kill and injure its citizens is an act of war, for which the country under attack is entitled to defend itself.
This organization which I have heard referred to as the “Beirut Broadcasting Corporation” or alternatively the “Baharani Broadcasting Corporation” refers constantly to “the occupation” by Israel of the Gaza Strip. According to the Oxford dictionary “To Occupy” is defined as “to enter, stay and take control of a place by military conquest or settlement.” Strange – I thought every Israeli was removed from the strip nearly 3 years ago.
British-based human rights organizations
On Thursday the above human rights organizations released a scathing report in claiming that the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is at its worst point since Israel captured the territory in 1967.
It also said that hospitals are suffering from power cuts of up to 12 hours a day, and the water and sewage systems were close to collapse, with 40-50 million liters (10-12 million gallons) of sewage pouring into the sea daily.
Now just what is the $1 – 1.4 billion donated to the Palestinians yearly used for????
Because I have used 3 examples for the UK, it doesn’t that it is only in the UK that we see such dishonest and biased reporting. It is not for the want of trying to get the media interested in a more balanced approach - a lot attempts are going on to try to the press involved more on the Israeli problems – they are, in the main, just not interested in our side of the story.
The journalists reporting on the Palestinian “stories”, cannot or do not check up on the facts. They have to report what they are told otherwise they don’t get access to the Palestinian “stories” in the future. Those reporters who try to be fair also can have their stories “rewritten” by their local or other editors
Israel is in a conflict not of its own making – indeed it withdrew every Israeli soldier and all 9000 Israeli civilians from the Gaza Strip in its 2005 disengagement initiative. But it is forced to act in self-defense to protect itself from deliberate missile attacks on its civilians by the Hamas terrorist organization.
International law recognizes that civilian deaths and injuries may occur in lawful military operations. For an operation to be lawful it must be directed at a "legitimate military objective" and be "proportionate".
Under the Geneva Conventions, if a military objective, such as a missile launcher or weapons stockpile, is placed in the heart of a civilian area, it does not cease being a lawful military objective. The responsibility for civilian causalities arising from the 'shielding' lies with the party that deliberately placed civilians at risk.
Hamas makes no effort to comply with international law, Israel is committed to limiting itself to a lawful response. This means that, while Hamas uses civilians both as a shield and a target, Israel seeks to limit injury to civilians on both sides.
A survey of international practice undertaken by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs suggests that the steps taken by Israel, and its approach to proportionality, correspond to, or are more stringent than, those taken by most western countries confronting similar threats.