Quantcast
Opinion

Join the discussion: Is the media too biased on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Comments

Return To Article
  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    July 19, 2014 7:46 a.m.

    Procu, since you didn't provide any references I found it for you.

    The Abandoned Areas Ordinance, 5708-1948 at the Wayback Machine (archived October 28, 2009) defined an "abandoned area" as "any area or place conquered by or surrendered to armed forces or deserted by all or part of its inhabitants, and which has been declared by order to be an abandoned area." All properties in these areas was also declared ‘abandoned’ and the government was authorized to determine what would be done with this property.[21]

    Note that important part about conquering equals "abandoned". That's pretty lame. BTW I now own your car, because I said so. Give it up.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 17, 2014 9:56 p.m.

    We side way too much and give way too much to Israel based on some religious nonsense. They should have to seek their own place in the world.

  • Iron Rod Salt Lake City, UT
    July 16, 2014 10:20 p.m.

    I heard on the news today that Congress authorized and additional $367,000,000 to rearm Israel.

    I have some concerns about the power of the Israeli lobby in Washinton . This in addition to the annual three point two billion dollars equals almost $3,700,000,000 this year alone.. This is all borrowed money and no one seems to be concerned.

    You would think getting that much money each year they might listen to us a little. A good example would be stopping building settlements in the occupied lands.

    While we are talking about budget cuts in federal programs it seems to be political suicide to suggest that we cut foreign aid to Israel .

    Check out the web site of APIAC. American Israeli Public Affairs Committee and see what they say they want. I read that AIPAC is the second most powerful lobbying organization after AARP.

    At times what is good for America is not necessarily good for Israel and guess which one wins. Why ?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    July 16, 2014 10:16 p.m.

    I think any statement that says "palestinians wants"... deserves to be ignored from that point forward, just as any like statement about Israelis. Neither of these groups are homogenous, and there is no one way either group thinks or believes. You have extremist on both sides. Those who lit that teenage boy alive on fire are just as evil as those who claim they want death to Israel.

    The vast majority of average people in both places would be more than happy with a two state solution. Unfortunately they are not the ones with the guns.

    "I do not believe the Arab world will ever recognize or accept the state of Israel. The choice Israel has is to fight or die."

    Pure garbage. There are already neighbor nations that acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Again.... silly extremist language from our own people does little to bring this to an end. I could just as easily say all Utahns wish there were no ethnic people in their midst.... it would be just as equally unjust and unfair.

  • Rick for Truth Provo, UT
    July 16, 2014 9:36 p.m.

    I do not believe the Arab world will ever recognize or accept the state of Israel. The choice Israel has is to fight or die. Liberals are spitting into the wind if any one feels they can negotiate a peace between them which leaves the state of Israel intact. Can you say Chamberlin and Hitler all over again.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    July 16, 2014 5:36 p.m.

    2 bits:

    You forgot one aspect in your Orem / Provo analogy: If you're a "Provo-ite" in this situation, why would you keep building new apartment complexes in Orem?

    The situation is complex, and the Palestinians are certainly not without blame, but why in the world would anyone want to live in Israel? It's more arid than Nevada, you're surrounded by enemies, the whole region is a powder-keg.

    I'm not trying to hand the Palestinians a win here, but from a purely pragmatic standpoint, why not move somewhere else?

    I've often thought the Mideast situation would be a lot better if both the Israelis and Palestinians had more atheists among them. "This is it, folks, you better make the best of it. No grand plan, no 72 virgins awaiting you, this is all you get".

    I don't know for certain, but I think there would be fewer suicide bombers, and the Israelis would be more likely to find a peaceful existence somewhere else, where the neighbors aren't bent on your demise.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    July 16, 2014 5:14 p.m.

    @2 bits -- Yes, true, but Israel exacerbates the problem when it builds settlements in Palestinian areas. Procuradorfiscal -- These may be biblical Hebrew lands, but they have also been Arab lands for just as long, and since there has been massive migration into Israel from Europe over the past 60-70 years, it's clear that many of these particular Israelis did not live in the region prior to 1948. The Palestinians have a point, although I don't like their methods of resolving the issue.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 16, 2014 4:38 p.m.

    To put it into perspective you can understand... imagine your arch enemy that wants you gone (not just you, but your children, your fathers, and every one of your type dead or gone)... lives in Orem/Provo. And they have friends who are close to getting Nuclear Weapons, which they have promised to use to wipe you and your family and your country out.

    The people in Orem are free to enter your cities for work, school, etc, but often wear bomb vests. But if you enter Orem unarmed... you would be dead in minutes.

    Orem's leaders are constantly breathing out threats to kill you IF they can.

    Orem daily lobs missiles into your neighborhood, your kid's school, your office complex.

    You can't get away. You are surrounded by the Orem people, and their friends who also want to kill you on all sides.

    So you hunker down, and be industrious, and focus on defenses. And try not to make problems (while occasionally punishing the more egregious attacks from Orem).

    This is life in Israel.

    I'm not kidding! They are that close... and that dedicated to the destruction of Israel!

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 16, 2014 4:11 p.m.

    Re: "The[y] didn't buy the land, they took it."

    Wrong.

    Every square inch of land in Judea and Samaria [so-called "West Bank"] on which settlement is allowed was either purchased, or was proven to be abandoned, and procured through judicial quiet title action, in compliance with procedures and protections very similar to those in the US.

    The few small areas in East Jerusalem in which construction has been permitted were either purchased or were actually proven to be owned by successors of Jewish families that were driven or forcibly removed from their properties by Jordanian civil or religious authorities during the Arab occupation, without compensation or recognizable due process.

    It should also be noted that Arab leaders are so open to the idea that settlement lands should be bought and paid for, several Arab sellers have been murdered by fellow Arabs for selling, or being suspected of an intent to sell, property to Jews.

    Suggesting some fanciful, unsupported Arab "higher right" to any part of modern Israel is either misinformed, or is based on blatant antisemitism.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    July 16, 2014 4:06 p.m.

    @procuradorfiscal

    What is your explanation / interpretation of what happened at the King David Hotel? Was that justifiable, in your opinion?

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    July 16, 2014 3:47 p.m.

    This is what happens when England and the US tempt and help a people take land from other people. The didn't buy the land, they took it. They could have paid very handsomely for it by now if they had honesty in their hearts instead of theft.

    Not one patriotic American would bow down to a foreign power and give up your homes willingly, yet you expect Palestinians to do it?

    How many rockets would the TEA party have launched?

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 16, 2014 2:15 p.m.

    Re: "Israel brings some of these problems on itself when it sets up a Palestinian area and then lets Jews build settlements within the area . . . ."

    Israel never set up a "Palestinian area." Israel's enemies and the UN did that, at the end of Israel's 1948 war of independence. It initially gave control to Jordan [hence its former name, "Transjordan']. But, that was never recognized by Israel, which has always claimed sovereignty over Eretz Yisrael [Land of Israel], except for the small area south and west of the Gaza Strip, from the mouth of the River of Egypt down to Kadesh Barnea, over which it ceded control to Egypt, in their peace treaty.

    Gaza was never part of Eretz Yisrael. The so-called "West Bank" [Judea and Samaria], that the PLO claims it controls, is, was, and always will be part of the Land of Israel, regardless of who exercises control over it. Jerusalem [including East Jerusalem] is, was, and always will be the capital of the Land of Israel, regardless of US, UN, or Arab maps to the contrary.

    Don't blame Israel for the UN's mistakes.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    July 16, 2014 12:57 p.m.

    Israel brings some of these problems on itself when it sets up a Palestinian area and then lets Jews build settlements within the area, causing Palestinians to feel that once again their land is being taken away from them. That said, I think Israel has the higher ground in that it does not actively try to kill civilians, whereas that is exactly the point of what Hamas is trying to do. And from a purely cold-blooded analysis, Israel is our best ally in the region. Still, since the USA gives Israel hundreds of millions of dollars every year in aid, I think we should have some input into their humanitarian policies (demand a stop to new settlements) and should not think Israel should dictate our foreign policy (as some Republicans seem to think they have a right to do.)

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 16, 2014 10:31 a.m.

    I think happy2bhere put it very succinctly... "If the Muslims put down their arms, we'd have peace. If the Jews put down their arms, we'd have genocide".

    ============

    Several posters said this started at the end of WWII, when Jews were given a homeland in Jerusalem. I'm pretty sure there were JEWS in Jerusalem before WWII (hence the name).

    ========

    WWII was part. And there have been significant events SINCE WWII. But it wasn't just WWII!

    This conflict goes back to biblical times. I won't go into that angle because some immediately dismiss it. But I assure you the people referred to in the Bible as "Israel" and the "Palestinians", or "Philistines", Greek-Palaistina", Hebrew-pelehsheth", don't dismiss it.

    Jerusalem being a refuge for European Jews after WWII was a big event. But Jews probably inhabited Jerusalem before then (it was kinda named after them).

    ==============

    Subsequent expansion. Google "1948 Arab-Israeli War" and "Six Day War"...

    Egypt, Jordan, and Syria attacked Israel to take their land. Isreal won... and took some of THEIR land (West Bank) as a buffer against future invasions. Borders sometimes change when you lose a war.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 16, 2014 9:23 a.m.

    Re: "At the conclusion of WW2 the victors decided to . . . mov[e] the Palestinians from a land they called home."

    Truth is, a century before, Jews began making aliyah [in-gathering] to a mostly empty land they had been forcibly removed from. The parts they reclaimed began to blossom, resulting in some Arabs immigration from other areas and countries.

    During and after WWI, British and French interests enabled and encouraged even more Arab immigration, while discouraging, even prohibiting Jewish aliyah.

    Before and during WWII, Muslim leaders stirred up hate against Jews, even allying with Hitler. Shortly after the war, Jews, who had mostly supported the Allies, began to seek the independence they had been promised. Unfortunately, Britain had also promised Israeli Arabs just the opposite. When Israel declared independence, Britain favored and supported her Arab enemies.

    After a hard-fought war for independence, Israel granted, and still upholds, equal rights for Israeli Arabs. Those that stayed, prospered. Many more were, however, encouraged, often forced by Palestinian leaders, to evacuate to refugee camps, with a promise they'd return after Jewish annihilation.

    Those are the facts.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    July 16, 2014 8:37 a.m.

    Ask yourself this question. As an American, particularly Christian if you are, which place in the Middle East would you feel most safe to walk around as such? I wouldn't go near Gaza, West Bank, Syria, Lebennon, and most other Middle-East Muslim countries. With the exeception of the danger coming from missiles fired at them, Israel is the only country I'd feel comfortable being an American in. That should tell you a lot about who is the problem in the Middle-East. The breakdown on my chart. 97.8 % of the problems of war and violence there come from the Muslims. If the Muslims put down their arms, we'd have peace. If the Jews put down their arms, we'd have genocide.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 16, 2014 8:35 a.m.

    When terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Towers, should we have been sympathetic to those terrorists? Should the media have told us that terrorists were doing the right thing?

    Hamas attacked Israel. Hamas uses innocent men, women and children as shields. Hamas uses hospitals, schools and public buildings as launch sites for its rocket attacks. Is that ethical? Should we sympathize with a "military" that uses innocent people as shields?

    If anything, the world press should list the names of every Hamas leader. It should list the amount of money other countries send to Hamas to finance their attacks. It should list the percent of money from each barrel of oil that we buy from the Middle East is forwarded to terrorist activity.

    Fair reporting tells the facts. It does not sympathize with any side. Hamas deserves the negative media coverage it is getting.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    July 16, 2014 6:53 a.m.

    "just going back to 1994, as if that about covers it??"

    Unfortunately even going back to 1972 doesn't go far enough back. Go back to the 30's and 40's when the then Israeli's were using many of the same tactics as Hamas does not to try to get the then controlling government out... minus the rockets of course. But there were bombings, assignations, the whole lot.

    There is no doubt that Hamas is a bad operator in the region. Even many palestinians would agree with this. Israel is in a difficult position here - but no one would or should condone reprisal by Israelis of setting a teen age boy on fire while still alive. It did nothing but lower that group who did that act beneath those who killed those three Israeli teens.

    We need to be able to call out wrongs no matter what side does them. Israeli has an undeniable right to defend itself. But as good friends, we need to also call them out when they step across certain lines.

  • Allisdair Thornbury, Vic
    July 16, 2014 4:42 a.m.

    It is important to remember this battle is part of a war that started in the 1940s.

    At the conclusion of WW2 the victors decided to give the Jews a homeland by moving the Palestinians from a land they called home.

    After 60 years the Jews have the right to defend their land and protect the citizens. My difficulty is the continuing land grabs through settlements in the “Occupied Territories” and blocking supplies to Gaza.

    Ever since I was a child I have known if you back a dog into a corner expect a fight. Just as if you strip away a person’s humanity by depriving them a decent life for their children, don’t expect a peaceful life.

    I have been to Germany and seen the camps. I have worked with and for Jews and would call many friends including those who lost family in the Holocaust. Many of them choose to live outside Israel because they do not agree with the Right Wing Extremists controlling Israel.

    This War will not end until the mothers on both sides stop teaching HATE to the toddlers. I saw the same thing in Irish when I lived in London in the 1970s.

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    July 15, 2014 7:04 p.m.

    I'm just glad Native Americans don't have the same mindset as the Palestinians, because it would be ugly, and unending. By comparison, our conquest of the New World was a Kindergarten birthday party.

    Arabs and Jews are related from Abraham, and, personally, I think both groups are missing the "reasonableness gene".

    Blowing up hotels and terrorizing people into leaving their land is pretty much what we all expect from the Palestinians... but this is what the Jews did - actually led by future Prime Minister Menachem Begin.

    In hindsight, after the Halocaust, when the Jews were offered home lands in Argentina or southern Africa, I wonder how many of them wish they had taken the much better land deal - without the perpetual revenge/terrorism.

    Argentina sounds a whole lot better, at least to me.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    July 15, 2014 5:18 p.m.

    Israel is reacting to Gaza rockets. It did not start this. The reaction is pinpointing targets whereas the rockets hit here and there with no military target. Best to move the people in Gaza to another location and allow Israel to occupy it. Same for the west bank. Jews in the US are 2% of the population yet awarded one third of the Nobel prizes. Israel has just as much or more right to live in Israel as the Muslims. This continuous fighting helps no one. 1.5 million Muslims live in Israel.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    July 15, 2014 4:10 p.m.

    Frankly neither of the sides are very sympathetic since neither seems to view sustained peace as something worth achieving.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 15, 2014 2:31 p.m.

    I wish the graph in the article went back a little further. Seriously... just going back to 1994, as if that about covers it?? I'm wondering if the "Percent sympathetic to Palestine" graph goes up... or down.. in 1972 (after the "Munich Massacre") Google it. It's when Palestinian terrorists took the Israel Olympic team hostage and ended up killing them all... The 3 surviving hostage takers were later released in exchange for a hijacked Lufthansa jet (kinda remind you of a more recent story involving America and terrorists)??

    Some people don't remember that. I was in High School. I remember it well. It didn't make me a big Palestine/Hamas fan.

    Israeli–Palestinian conflict"

  • Grumpy Granpa Spanish Fork, UT
    July 15, 2014 2:19 p.m.

    All I can say is USS Liberty.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    July 15, 2014 2:09 p.m.

    Israel accepts Egypt's brokered cease fire. Hamas rejects it and fires another 800 rockets into Israel. Civil Palestinians are caught in the middle. Hamas then promotes the idea Israel broke the cease fire.

    If the UN were to go in, Hamas should be demilitarized and leaders tried for crimes against humanity.

  • Michael Hunt Murray, UT
    July 15, 2014 1:45 p.m.

    The bias comes through with a conflation of the death tolls and cheap demonstrations of victimhood. If a poorly armed militant movement with an aberrant agenda is unable to kill many of it's targets, then the proper response is continued condemnation and not a greater effort of understanding. This is a great opportunity for Americans to stand up for our principles and condemn Hamas and any organization that explicity targets civilians. If these cowardly groups that boycott Israel in order to sleep well at night were to enter any military conflict, they would understand the importance of clear rules against certain acts of violence. Human history is riddled with wars and violence and one thing should remain clear - if you are in a position to lose a war, you had better jump at the chance for diplomacy. Hamas is clearly both disinterested in diplomacy and international rules of military engagement - Israel retains the moral high ground in the conflict.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 15, 2014 1:15 p.m.

    IMO the BIG difference is... All the people of Israel require Hamas to do to live in peace is for Hamas to do nothing. All Hamas requires is... Every Israeli citizen to die... preferably in a very painful way.

    Which agenda sounds more reasonable???

    Which one should the USA support???

    And IF we support the Hamas agenda... how should we do it? With lethal gas, rockets, or nukes???

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 15, 2014 1:08 p.m.

    Re: "Is the media too biased on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?"

    That's like asking, "Is the Pope Catholic?"

    Of course the media is too biased. Hamas shoots hundreds of missiles and mortar rounds at innocent Israeli civilians, and all the media can do is chant that Israel is endangering women and children when they target launchers and warehouses Hamas cynically hides among women and children. Even after Israel gives fair warning to them to run before they strike.

    Israel unilaterally agrees to an Egypt-brokered cease-fire, while Hamas increases the rocket launches. Then, when Israel again targets the launchers and mortars, all the media can do is chant that Israel has ended the cease-fire.

    It's a good thing Israel's military knows how to play an incredibly callow, biased, Palestinian-ruled media. They know when to strike and when to display Hamas at its worst.

    But, it's sad that they have to. It's sad that blind, lazy, biased media organizations are so inexplicably one-sided.