Fair and Balanced

Just for fun I did a Google news search of “Israel”. These are the top results, not including blog posts and videos. I also excluded three Haaretz articles, which could have easily been for or against Israel, because Haaretz only has teaser articles and wants you to pay for a subscription to read the rest. I think that is stupid.

After Failed Peace Talks, Pushing to Label Israel as Occupier of Palestine
New York Times

This is about the Palestinian Authority plan to join the International Criminal Court in the Hague. Most of the article tows the Palestinian line that if they were part of the court then Israel would be punished for crimes against humanity for building settlements. The article only hints at what might happen to the leaders of Palestine if they were members of a court that investigates genocide, ethnic cleansing, torture and any number of crimes the Palestinian Authority practice on a regular basis.

If you read this article and knew nothing about Palestine’s crimes then you might assume that PA leaders never do anything bad.

Israel, Kerry is one of your best friends
CNN

This article tells us that “no U.S. leader has done more to help Israel gain acceptance in the international community and ensure its long-term peace and security” than Secretary of State John Kerry. I am not sure how that is at all true. But like most articles it repeats the mantra that Judea and Samaria are occupied territory without acknowledging why it was taken from Jordan, why they had it in the first place and who had it before they invaded.

Assi Dayan, a Celebrated Actor and Filmmaker in Israel, Dies at 68
New York Times

This is about the death of the actor and is neither for nor against Israel.

Candidates with impressive backgrounds to face off in Israel presidential race
New York Daily News

This is about the upcoming presidential election and Shimon Peres’ retirement. This could be seen as favouring Israel but it is mostly neutral.

Pink Floyd to Rolling Stones: Boycott Israel
The Washington Post

This is mostly about Roger Waters being Roger Waters. He has a lot of emotional opinions that have little to do with reason. And his indignation always seems to come at the most fashionable times. I do not remember him speaking out against the Chinese government before Tiananmen Square or about Wall Street during all that occupy business.

Since he has been very pro-Arab for a long time you would think he would support Israel since it is the only country in the vicinity that gives Arabs basic human rights. But he jumped on that whole boycott Israel bandwagon, probably without realising just how much he would really have to boycott.

Despite the title, David Gilmour is not involved. Though I suppose that means little to Roger Waters.

Israel's drone dealers
Al Jazeera

Nobody expects Al Jazeera to be unbiased but this article blames Israel for American drone attacks in Pakistan. The reasoning is that since Israel created the UAV technology it is responsible for how everybody uses it. Does that make Arab states responsible when anybody straps on a suicide vest? The article does not say.

Israeli PM Netanyahu: No peace talks if Abbas is backed by Hamas
CNN

This begins as an article about Netanyahu rejecting the terrorists in charge of Hamas but it quickly goes into a revisionist history of Gaza. According to the article Fatah and Hamas had a coalition before a falling out led them to go their separate ways. There is no mention of the bloodbath in Gaza when Hamas took control.

If you read this article and knew nothing about Hamas’ crimes then you might assume that Hamas leaders never do anything bad.

An interesting point about CNN is that every article about Arab states that have nothing to do with Israel are about Arabs killing Arabs. If Arabs kill Arabs in the name of killing Jews then it is Israel’s fault. But when Arabs kill Arabs in the name of whichever sect they favour then it is an unfortunate frailty of man. According to CNN.

Abbas, Hamas chief to hold first talks since unity deal
AFP

This article goes further than most, telling readers that “Hamas forcibly took over the Gaza Strip in 2007, ousting forces loyal to the president”. But there is no mention that more than a few people were tortured or murdered, including many of those who were “ousted”.

Israeli settlers launch enclave in Palestinian business hub
Reuters

This is about how evil Jews are for living in Jerusalem. It reminds us that Israel captured Jerusalem “in a 1967 war” and “most of the world views Israeli enclaves there as illegal settlements”. There is no mention of why it was taken from Jordan, why Jordan had it in the first place and who had it before Jordan invaded.

Israel approved record 14,000 settlements during peace talks with Palestine – report
Reuters

Another article about “illegal” houses on “occupied” land without any mention of who occupied the land before Israel took it back and how absolutely nobody did anything to make it a country while it was “free”.

Israeli troops destroy mosque in Palestinian village
AP

This is my favourite article of the lot. It is about how the evil Jews tore down a few houses and a mosque. That sure sounds evil. After all, no Muslims would ever damage a synagogue.

It tries to sound like an entire village was demolished, “leaving up to 30 people homeless” but fails to mention that three houses were torn down. That is not so great for those three families but hardly an act of genocide.

But a fairly important point that the article completely ignores is that these houses were built on an active live fire military test range. Imagine what would happen if the houses were not torn down and the people living in them were injured or killed the next time weapons were tested on the range. Would the International Community say that those people should not have built houses there? Would anybody point out that building your house on a military test range is probably not a great idea? For some reason I doubt it.

Why it is hypocritical to boycott Israel
The Telegraph

This is an unusual article in that it favours Israel and actually makes some pretty good points. The writer went on a bit much about British crimes but he is British and writing to a British audience.

He asks why he should have to explain a trip to Israel when he never has to explain trips to China, Saudi Arabia or the United States. I know the answer to that, and the writer probably does as well, but it is still a good question.

Of these 12 articles, 1 favours Israel and 2 are neutral. The other 9 are very much against Israel and leave out pertinent information that might otherwise cause the reader to question the author’s position. The one pro-Israel article mentions negatives against Israel in an effort to appear fair and balanced. None of the anti-Israel articles do the same in reverse.

I have never questioned why people who live in Arab dictatorships blindly follow what they are told. They have little choice. I used to always question why people in democracies with free information blindly follow what they are told. But the more people only see one narrative the more they accept it as absolute.