3 ms·

How do we measure this sort of amplification objectively? How do we account for context? I would say that it's exactly the opposite, that through most of the

by YZF 5y ago

How do we measure this sort of amplification objectively? How do we account for context? I would say that it's exactly the opposite, that through most of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict (of which the Palestinian issue has been a sub-conflict) the Arab voice has been amplified over the Israeli. Israel has faced many boycotts, many attempts to destroy it, and generally as less than favorable in world public opinion. It is maybe true that there's been a little shift with the collapse of the soviet union and the split in the Arab world. I would still say that Israel gets more negative coverage in comparison to other world events and even within the specific conflict. Just a recent example, at some point during the Covid crisis Israel was extensively criticized for not treating Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza equitably with regard to vaccine distribution. Nobody even mentions that Israeli Palestinians are treated equitably in this regard. Nuances are lost. Recently when Israel did agree to provide Palestinians with vaccines the Palestinians rejected them: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-says-covid-19-vaccines-rejected-by-palestinians-were-safe-2021-06-19/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-says-covid-... EDIT: And forgot to add my point, that this did not receive as wide of a coverage. Lack of "censorship" also has a body count. What about all the Covid conspiracy theories? Should we give those guys a free stage on social media? Incitement to commit real violence is also common in social platforms. To give an example from the "other" side some mobs that gathered to attack Israeli Arabs during the last conflicts organized on social media. Would you be critical if those voices were suppressed? I can be really critical of Israel for many things. But I'm really not buying that the balance is set the wrong way. Keep in mind a lot of us are consuming the kind of news that amplifies our world views anyways. Which brings me back to how do we measure this in a controlled way?

wolverine876 5y ago
> through most of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict (of which the Palestinian issue has been a sub-conflict) the Arab voice has been amplified over the Israeli There is absolutely no question that Israel has more support in the West. The US doesn't give billions a year in military support to the Palestinians or Arabs - except Egypt, when signed a treaty not to attack Israel. The head of the Palestinians doesn't give speeches to join sessions of Congress. Yes, Israel gets criticized (as does everyone), and they do a lot of shit; it's laughable to portray Israel as a victim - and an old rhetorical tactic to claim victimhood when you do something wrong and take heat for it.
- YZF 5y ago
  How did we get to the question of monetary aid here? What about the UN? Security council? Also of note is that until 1985 financial aid was much lower, a lot of this aid is in the form of loans or requires Israel to only use it for purchases from the US. The US generally supported Israel to further their own interests, oil and the cold war. Jordan also gets >$1B from the US a year. Let's not forget that the US actually went to war for some of its other pals in the region. At any rate, the aid the US gives to Israel has isn't the subject at hand so I'm not sure why you're raising it. We're talking about media coverage and world (not just the US) opinion. When the media does report it totally lacks any context (honestly that applies to the all coverage, whether you may view it as positive to Israel or negative). You can't simply show a rocket hitting a building or a bomb hitting a building or people getting hurt (which they are) without context. Sure, the military aid is context, the history of the region is context, the suicide bombings of the early 2000's are context, the deportation of people from their homes are context, the withdrawal of Israel from Gaza is context, the Hamas taking over Gaza by force is context, how they use their $ aid is context, the connection of the Jewish people to Israel is context. With no context (or rather with no study of the details) this is just emotional mumbo jumbo. And sure, some things are clearly wrong even out of context, and some things are clearly right, but for the most part that determination can't be made from some 140 character tweet. No context results in shallow discussions. I stand by my opinion that Israel is portrayed more negatively and generally not enough context is given, relative to other world events, and within the specifics of the conflict. You haven't really answered my question of how you measure this, and so without measurement you are entitled to your opinion (and your use of rhetoric) and I'm entitled to mine? Israel is not (yet) a victim here. Are the Palestinians a victim? Perhaps. Israel isn't solely to blame for that. Is Israel doing some things I don't like? Absolutely. Are Palestinians doings things I don't like? Absolutely. Is the way out of this mess to shift the blame around? I don't know about that one. This shifting of the blame is just another angle of the conflict and something the sides (sure, both sides) are doing because they don't actually want a resolution. This story we're discussing, which isn't really any sort of objective reporting (to say the least) really supports my point IMO. I definitely support the right of all sides to be heard though, and here we have one side being heard.

by YZF 5y ago

wolverine876 5y ago

> through most of the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict (of which the Palestinian issue has been a sub-conflict) the Arab voice has been amplified over the Israeli There is absolutely no question that Israel has more support in the West. The US doesn't give billions a year in military support to the Palestinians or Arabs - except Egypt, when signed a treaty not to attack Israel. The head of the Palestinians doesn't give speeches to join sessions of Congress. Yes, Israel gets criticized (as does everyone), and they do a lot of shit; it's laughable to portray Israel as a victim - and an old rhetorical tactic to claim victimhood when you do something wrong and take heat for it.

YZF 5y ago
How did we get to the question of monetary aid here? What about the UN? Security council? Also of note is that until 1985 financial aid was much lower, a lot of this aid is in the form of loans or requires Israel to only use it for purchases from the US. The US generally supported Israel to further their own interests, oil and the cold war. Jordan also gets >$1B from the US a year. Let's not forget that the US actually went to war for some of its other pals in the region. At any rate, the aid the US gives to Israel has isn't the subject at hand so I'm not sure why you're raising it. We're talking about media coverage and world (not just the US) opinion. When the media does report it totally lacks any context (honestly that applies to the all coverage, whether you may view it as positive to Israel or negative). You can't simply show a rocket hitting a building or a bomb hitting a building or people getting hurt (which they are) without context. Sure, the military aid is context, the history of the region is context, the suicide bombings of the early 2000's are context, the deportation of people from their homes are context, the withdrawal of Israel from Gaza is context, the Hamas taking over Gaza by force is context, how they use their $ aid is context, the connection of the Jewish people to Israel is context. With no context (or rather with no study of the details) this is just emotional mumbo jumbo. And sure, some things are clearly wrong even out of context, and some things are clearly right, but for the most part that determination can't be made from some 140 character tweet. No context results in shallow discussions. I stand by my opinion that Israel is portrayed more negatively and generally not enough context is given, relative to other world events, and within the specifics of the conflict. You haven't really answered my question of how you measure this, and so without measurement you are entitled to your opinion (and your use of rhetoric) and I'm entitled to mine? Israel is not (yet) a victim here. Are the Palestinians a victim? Perhaps. Israel isn't solely to blame for that. Is Israel doing some things I don't like? Absolutely. Are Palestinians doings things I don't like? Absolutely. Is the way out of this mess to shift the blame around? I don't know about that one. This shifting of the blame is just another angle of the conflict and something the sides (sure, both sides) are doing because they don't actually want a resolution. This story we're discussing, which isn't really any sort of objective reporting (to say the least) really supports my point IMO. I definitely support the right of all sides to be heard though, and here we have one side being heard.