How media conditions people to be anti-Israel

No villages, water supplies, orchards, lives damaged at all.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2058660,00.html#ixzz1xY7ZupIp

The rest is about the settlements, now I took the knife as meaning as opposed to a gun or bomb, but it did not say Palestinian terrorists so of course.......but the article got one thing right ,the Fogels deaths transmuted into politics and this OP is a very good example of that

From the article:

and view all Palestinian actions as though they happened in a vacuum?

because the article it pointed to did not say Palestinian terrorists but no thinking what believe the twaddle about the knife being blamed either, oh and the usual rant about the BBC, so whats new?

show me the proof that the public has turned against Israel your OP sites a couple of news stories as though they were representative of all media everywhere

eta IMO the large majority of the American really does not care much one way or the other they're far more concerned with domestic policy

...and now you're demanding that I show you more proof?

Seriously?

Most of the time, violence is violence.

And by now, even YOU would have to admit there have been as many innocent Palestinians killed as innocent Israelis. Just accept that there's plenty of ugliness in the actions of both sides already. Always saying "Israel's better! Israel's better! Israel's better!" serves no purpose and simply vulgarizes the discussion.

And there's never been a justification for the "ten lives for one" thing. All that does is end up killing people who had nothing to do with the original killing.

....and the very deliberate murder of a baby in its bed.

When the IDF starts mowing down civilians in cold blood, for absolutely no military purpose whatsoever, THAT would be the equivalent of murdering the Fogels or blowing up people in a pizza place or disco.

Following violence, Sudanese leave Arab Israeli town en masse
http://www.timesofisrael.com/sudanese-leave-arab-israeli-village/

Perfect example of what the media is doing.

It's not bad Israelis the media is looking to demonize. It's only Israeli Jews. Israeli Arabs, like Palestinians, are virtuous. To report this story worldwide - just as they are doing WRT Israeli Jews and the Sudanese - would be against the narrative b/c only the Israeli Jews are racist, not Israeli Arabs, and certainly not Palestinians. Israeli Arabs and Palestinians are virtuous victims. Israeli Jews are racist oppressors. To report otherwise would be politically incorrect.

If the article is telling the truth about the media and Israel (and I believe that it is), then isn't it likely that the media is using the same tactics on every other major story or issue?

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=273979

Narrative buster WRT the so-called peaceful humanitarian Mavi Marmara / Flotilla.

It's all about demonization/delegitimization and cover for extreme rightwing Islamist organizations and leadership. I swear I can't distinguish b/w the hard Left and hard Right these days. I wish someone would explain the difference to me.

The hard Left and hard Right. BFF. And the International media is silent...

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2012/06/reuters-says-israel-breaks-truce-after.html#disqus_thread

1. Hamas shoots 2 rockets. That does not break the truce.

2. Israel retaliates, but THAT breaks the truce.

trying to figure out just what it is you want. Are you Israeli?

What did you think about the parts in the OP titled "The Great Hoax Massacre" and "The Melting Pot"?

You don't see anything worthy of mention there?

when others answer your questions with a question of their own. Why not answer my questions before asking any of your own?

That's why I asked whether you read it or not.

You asked what I want.

I think it's important for anyone keeping up with I/P in the news to consider their sources before casting judgment.

And no, I'm not Israeli.

Your turn.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57457175/alice-walker-rejects-israeli-translation-of-the-color-purple/

I didn't know Israeli was a language.

Way to cover her bigotry, CBS!

here is the statement-



now are you accusing CBS of covering her 'bigotry against Israel? or is there something more that you are implying?

...all Jews who speak hebrew.

or do Jews everywhere except Israel speak Hebrew for religious services and prayer? Hebrew is the language of Israel and Jews anywhere can read the Color Purple in any just about language except Hebrew, but your reply was indeed a 'nice' foxtrot around Jews=Israel and Israel=Jews

Ms Walkers move had to do with Israel which of course you imply in comments here is antisemitic

eta Hebrew is the Jewish language so only Jews in Israel speak Hebrew or do all Israelis regardless of whether or not they're Jewish?

You wouldn't have a problem with that, right?

After all, real, genuine apartheid is practiced in all Arab nations bordering Israel.

of course Israel doesn't practice apartheid in the West Bank there;s just a set of laws for Israeli's living there and another one for the natives, but that's not apartheid right?

....for any perceived wrongdoing, correct?

and whether or not I approved would depend entirely on the reason(s)

...due to her belief Israel practices apartheid, both within Israel and outside of Israel.

So presumably, since there's even worse apartheid in Israel's neighboring states, I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with someone (right or leftwing) boycotting Arabic.

Correct?

In complaining about the light coverage of the event on BBC radio and television programs, the newspaper reported that Mensch said, “I only found out, after the event, from an American blog, called ‘Dead Jews is no news,’ and the more I went into it, the more shocked I was. There was a feeling that the BBC just didn’t care and that if a settler had opened the home of a Palestinian family, slit the throat of their children, that the BBC would have covered that.”

Thompson, according to the Jewish Chronicle, responded that the story occurred during a “very busy news period,” including the fighting in Libya and the tsunami in Japan and that “news editors were under a lot of pressure.”

He reportedly added, “Having said that, it was certainly an atrocity which should have been covered across our news bulletins that day… But I do want to say, to all our audience, including our Jewish and Israeli audiences here and around the world, we do want to make sure we are fair and impartial. We made a mistake in this instance.”

http://www.jewishjournal.com/world/article/bbc_official_admits_the_network_got_it_wrong_on_fogel_murders_20120622/

Today, The Commentator reveals a Freedom of Information request showing that the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has so far spent almost a third of a million pounds (more than half a million dollars) in order to conceal the infamous 'Balen Report', into the corporation's coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict, from the British public.

Britons are required by law to own licences in order to use televisions. This raises £3.6billion in funding for the state broadcaster. Despite this public funding, the BBC does not have to comply with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 with regard to actual information held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature.

The Balen Report was written in 2004 and campaigners say the BBC does not wish to release the document over fears that it will substantiate claims of BBC bias against Israel. Ironically, it is understood that former Director of News for the BBC, Richard Sambrook, commissioned the report in order to allay public fears. The report, however, was never released.

more...
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1565/exclusive_bbc_spends_a_third_of_1_million_concealing_middle_east_balen_report_

http://news.yahoo.com/israel-court-says-u-activist-not-unlawfully-killed-065132808.html

As Muslim mobs, allegedly outraged over the YouTube video, "Innocence of Muslims," assaulted American embassies and murdered American diplomatic personnel, the Associated Press (AP) and the Wall Street Journal published portions of telephone interviews with a man claiming to be the film's director who identified himself as an Israeli-American named Sam Bacile. (Shown at left being taken for interrogation.) News outlets, especially those known for favoring stories with an anti-Israel angle, like the Guardian, NPR, BBC and the Huffington Post, ran with the story. Some television networks, like ABC, followed suit as well.

It was not long before the Sam Bacile story unraveled. But, the damage had been done, with little evidence of contrition in the media.

According to the AP and the Wall Street Journal, Bacile made a series of inflammatory statements, calling Islam a "cancer," insulting Islam's prophet and bizarrely asserting that the film was backed by "100 Jewish donors."

The incendiary content of Bacile's statements, especially the "100 Jewish donors" claim, should have immediately raised suspicion and prompted news outlets to use caution and skepticism in conveying his statements. If Bacile really had been an Israeli Jew who made the film to benefit his "native land," as he claimed, why would he brag to the media about Jewish and Israeli complicity? It is telling of the state of mind that exists among the media that this contradiction did not prompt these news outlets to reconsider running with the story. Unfortunately, much of the media's initial coverage of the YouTube film trailer associated with attacks on the American embassies in Egypt and Libya on Sept. 11, 2012 fell into a familiar pattern of running with a dubious story containing obvious anti-Jewish innuendo.

more...
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=2&x_article=2294

I don't know where you live, but here in the US bus stops usually have people standing there waiting for a bus...the assumption is that the target was people waiting for a bus. Likewise, the murder by knife of 3 children simply identified the weapon used...one assumes it was wielded by a human as no one, at least no sane person, believes knives just up and murder people.

So the Fogels were a family who lived where? Tel Aviv?

Article in Time magazine about the Fogels:

The murder by knife of three children, including an infant of 3 months, and both parents in a West Bank settlement late Friday night rocked Israel terribly. The news broke on Saturday morning, and the shock was somehow both muted and amplified by the enforced public silence of the Jewish Sabbath. But Shabbat ended at sundown, and freed from the strictures of enforced rest, events lurched forward with something very like vengeance.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2058660,00.html

Surprised you haven't heard of them.

Seriously,no offence but you need do some serious research before contributing to this debate in any kind of meaninful way.

I know where the Fogel family lived....Shira objects to them being called "settlers"

in text ...

if you would tell me just what is the sarcasm thingy.

e.g:

As you can see I'm fairly new to DU and I have asked several times what that n/t means

I use it so much I have to remember to erase it sometimes, because it just comes out automatically.

A number of different forms are in use, and it actually goes back to usenet, where it was more of an issue pulling up a post for nothing.

I do object to the article dehumanizing the family, as well as implying that since they were settlers, the murderers had good reason to kill them.

are usually referred to as "settlers" not Israelis unless they are killed by Palestinians then when they are killed in a manner that can be politically useful they become Israelis, one would think that in itself is offensive

It's quite an old complaint, the depersonalization of everything in the news, the replacement of dead people with absract strategic or tactical justifications for their deadness, the speaking of objects as though they had volition, etc.

To the sh*t deemed fit to print and the zealot's desire to post the fool's riposte.

You will get a substantive refutation.

We have more than you and you've got nothing.

It depends on the media source and time frame

There was a period when the us media was very to Israel, up until the mid 80s

It was at that time when things started to change

The press started turning negative toward Israel probably around the time Israel went into Lebanon

A book called double vision by Zev Chafetz's documents this.

Today I think you will not find too much objective analysis of the situation on both sides

I think you've mischaracterized it.

the media was pushing its anti-Israeli bias. It was the republican party, with such people as percy and mcclosky(sic), who were very anti-Israeli back then. Much of the U.S. press also took an anti-Isreali trend also.

It changed when bush become president from what I observed. The U.S. press started to walk in lock step with a positive bias toward Israel at that time.

I was just giving my impressions. I have seen coverage of Israel shift both ways at different periods. It was either mostly positive or mostly negative during a particular decade, but not so balanced.

In addition, my reference is mostly regarding the U.S. media. In my view the European media has always had a mostly an anti-Israeli slant. However, they also seem to have a pretty strong anti-Arab slant also.

The book gives a very different time frame and doesn't suggest that the media was previously unfairly biased in favor of Israel.

In any case, I do agree with the general thrust of your argument, regardless of my opinion about the way you characterized the book.

The BBC World Service would not dream of promoting David Duke or a member of Combat 18, even if they also happened to be rather good at tap dancing. So the question is; why can the BBC either not identify Gilad Atzmon for what he really is or justify giving him air-time if it does?

http://bbcwatch.org/2012/10/14/bbc-world-service-hosts-antisemite-gilad-atzmon/

It's a good thing there is no widespread antisemitism problem in the world. Sarcasm.

though I know that David Duke was interviewed on America's NPR after the election of Obama. BUT as regards the British media, Nick Griffin the BNP leader was on Question Time in 2009, and in 2002, the Today programme broadcast a debate which included both Nick Griffin and Abu Hamza (how much evil can you get into one room?!)

Stephen Lennon aka Tommy Robinson, the leader of the English Defence League, was interviewed by Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight not long ago.

Unfortunately, controversy - which often means plain viciousness- attracts audiences. It is not restricted to anti-Israel views - though I daresay that most of the people I've mentioned here are antisemites among other things..

http://bbcwatch.org/2012/10/26/the-bbcs-jon-donnison-and-impartiality/

Proving once again there isn't much difference between the Guardian and Hamas' official website...

http://networkedblogs.com/EOgvs

Walter Russell Mead says it best: