Middle East and Israeli-Palestinian Conflict -- toward a new Pravda or Truth
Why Pravda? Pravda means "truth" in Russian, and was also the name of the major Soviet newspaper.
This blog questions whether the US mainstream media presents "truth" or "pravda" -- judge for yourself with coverage that is hard or impossible to find in the American media.
This blog is formed on the belief that it takes an informed American population to demand a just settlement -- and it takes "fair and balanced" American leadership to bring the parties to a just settlement.
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
Expanding the Focus
This blog started with a focus on Israel and Palestine -- an area poorly understood by most Americans. Since then the US has invaded Iraq, seemingly implementing the neo-conservatives 1996 plan, and obviously expanding the Middle East conflict.
Sadly we now see many parallels between the US and Israel in attitude and approach ... so this blog is expanding ...
This blog started with a focus on Israel and Palestine -- an area poorly understood by most Americans. Since then the US has invaded Iraq, seemingly implementing the neo-conservatives 1996 plan, and obviously expanding the Middle East conflict.
Sadly we now see many parallels between the US and Israel in attitude and approach ... so this blog is expanding ...
Saturday, October 18, 2003
Why keep blogging? Neoconservatives
I have been running a small survey amongst my American friends to see how many know about the neoconservatives. The answer to date is--none.
Yet both my sisters in England are well aware of who they are.
It is deeply disturbing when a small group can dominate American foreign policy with so little media coverage and almost no awareness in the general public of their links to Ariel Sharon and the Israeli Likud party. Their 1996 paper for incoming Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu suggested that the recently-signed Oslo accords might be dispensed with and urged Israel to abandon any thought of trading land for peace with the Arabs. They urged the getting America to remove Saddam Hussein in Iraq, followed by action against Syria.
Sound familiar?
I have been running a small survey amongst my American friends to see how many know about the neoconservatives. The answer to date is--none.
Yet both my sisters in England are well aware of who they are.
It is deeply disturbing when a small group can dominate American foreign policy with so little media coverage and almost no awareness in the general public of their links to Ariel Sharon and the Israeli Likud party. Their 1996 paper for incoming Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu suggested that the recently-signed Oslo accords might be dispensed with and urged Israel to abandon any thought of trading land for peace with the Arabs. They urged the getting America to remove Saddam Hussein in Iraq, followed by action against Syria.
Sound familiar?
Why keep blogging?
It's a fair question but easy to answer every time you see propaganda masquerading as news or op-ed. The most recent: a piece by Cal Thomas. Daily Herald, October 18, 2003 , “Sharon makes it clear he will not back down on matters of security”
Cal reported that Sharon handed him a sheet of paper and as of Oct. 11, 884 Israelis had been murdered and 5,956 injured. Israel has a population of 5 million. In United States the comparable murder rate would be 49,150.
Cal overlooked the following analysis. Israel has a population of about 6.5 million but 23% of them are Israeli-Arabs so Sharon didn’t count them. He also didn't count the first year of the intifada, especially the year 2000, when 279 stone throwing Arabs died. He did count the 41 Israelis, half of whom were soldiers firing at the Palestinians. Sharon could not remember if he counted the 12 Israeli-Arab protesters shot by Israeli police in Israel.
As of September 2003, 2,233 Palestinians were dead with 21,360 wounded. (Palestinian Authority figures show 2,647 dead and 36,448 wounded but Cal would like prefer we use the lower numbers.)
Those Palestinian dead would be equivalent to 177,362 murders. Injuries? The US comparable numbers would be 326,758 Israelis and 1,696,580 Palestinians.
The bottom line is that Palestinians are more than three times as likely to die and five times as likely to be injured.
Cal was very busy that day in Israel because it was October 14, 2003. He had hoped to stop in Ramallah to analyze the Palestinian numbers but had a pressing 50th anniversary engagement in a small overlooked place called Qibya.
I know Cal is very proud of his reputation as a thorough and fair minded op-ed columnist. He would want you to check out www.IfAmericansKnew.org
It's a fair question but easy to answer every time you see propaganda masquerading as news or op-ed. The most recent: a piece by Cal Thomas. Daily Herald, October 18, 2003 , “Sharon makes it clear he will not back down on matters of security”
Cal reported that Sharon handed him a sheet of paper and as of Oct. 11, 884 Israelis had been murdered and 5,956 injured. Israel has a population of 5 million. In United States the comparable murder rate would be 49,150.
Cal overlooked the following analysis. Israel has a population of about 6.5 million but 23% of them are Israeli-Arabs so Sharon didn’t count them. He also didn't count the first year of the intifada, especially the year 2000, when 279 stone throwing Arabs died. He did count the 41 Israelis, half of whom were soldiers firing at the Palestinians. Sharon could not remember if he counted the 12 Israeli-Arab protesters shot by Israeli police in Israel.
As of September 2003, 2,233 Palestinians were dead with 21,360 wounded. (Palestinian Authority figures show 2,647 dead and 36,448 wounded but Cal would like prefer we use the lower numbers.)
Those Palestinian dead would be equivalent to 177,362 murders. Injuries? The US comparable numbers would be 326,758 Israelis and 1,696,580 Palestinians.
The bottom line is that Palestinians are more than three times as likely to die and five times as likely to be injured.
Cal was very busy that day in Israel because it was October 14, 2003. He had hoped to stop in Ramallah to analyze the Palestinian numbers but had a pressing 50th anniversary engagement in a small overlooked place called Qibya.
I know Cal is very proud of his reputation as a thorough and fair minded op-ed columnist. He would want you to check out www.IfAmericansKnew.org
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
Why did this Blog start?
At the outbreak of the intifada, I was engrossed in the Bush called presidential election like most Americans. I did see some of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on American mainstream TV and BBC America.
Over time it became apparent I needed to look elsewhere to get the whole story. ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox were only showing part of the picture, slotted in behind presidential politics. As I looked further, a much richer picture appeared in the world media, significantly different from that portrayed in American media.
At times it looked like they were reporting totally different events.
The reporting of violence is the most obvious where Palestinian deaths receive far less coverage than Israeli casualties. More than 400 Palestinians died before the first suicide bomber appeared, but there was muted coverage for such a large number. Once that first suicide owner appeared, reporting of Israeli casualties kicked into high gear. Reporting of Palestinian deaths also dwindles to a trickle whenever the US is preoccupied with another subject. The Iraq war saw some of the highest casualty rates among Palestinians in recent times, but drew little US frontline media coverage.
At other times the differences were disturbing, having overtones of selective reporting and propaganda. Complete subject areas are given short shrift or almost completely overlooked. (See Water, Neoconservatives, History, Sharon, Civil Rights and other sections of this multilevel blog.) US State Department reports of discrimination rarely reach daily papers or TV outlets.
In the US we are proud to have a free press, but do we have a "fair and balanced" press to play on the Fox News punchline? Do we really get "All the news that's fit to print" or an edited, summarized version missing critical content?
My conclusion: the US mainstream media portrays a self-censored part of the story, and simply cannot be relied upon you want an accurate picture of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
At the outbreak of the intifada, I was engrossed in the Bush called presidential election like most Americans. I did see some of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on American mainstream TV and BBC America.
Over time it became apparent I needed to look elsewhere to get the whole story. ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox were only showing part of the picture, slotted in behind presidential politics. As I looked further, a much richer picture appeared in the world media, significantly different from that portrayed in American media.
At times it looked like they were reporting totally different events.
The reporting of violence is the most obvious where Palestinian deaths receive far less coverage than Israeli casualties. More than 400 Palestinians died before the first suicide bomber appeared, but there was muted coverage for such a large number. Once that first suicide owner appeared, reporting of Israeli casualties kicked into high gear. Reporting of Palestinian deaths also dwindles to a trickle whenever the US is preoccupied with another subject. The Iraq war saw some of the highest casualty rates among Palestinians in recent times, but drew little US frontline media coverage.
At other times the differences were disturbing, having overtones of selective reporting and propaganda. Complete subject areas are given short shrift or almost completely overlooked. (See Water, Neoconservatives, History, Sharon, Civil Rights and other sections of this multilevel blog.) US State Department reports of discrimination rarely reach daily papers or TV outlets.
In the US we are proud to have a free press, but do we have a "fair and balanced" press to play on the Fox News punchline? Do we really get "All the news that's fit to print" or an edited, summarized version missing critical content?
My conclusion: the US mainstream media portrays a self-censored part of the story, and simply cannot be relied upon you want an accurate picture of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
