3 ms·
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
by 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.
- wolverine876 5y ago> 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. I don't know why you think that was the topic, but U.S. monetary aid (and voluminous other support) is hard factual evidence of opinion in the U.S. > When the media does report it totally lacks any context ... That's not my experience. The media I read, such as the NY Times, generally (I perceive - subjectively, sans data) provides context when it supports Israel, and omits it when it's critical of Israel. In fact, I think it's the NY Times' biggest flaw by far. > here we have one side being heard Israel's side isn't heard in American news media? Seriously? That's laughable. Look at the NY Times op-ed page, any day (or any day there is something in the news about Israel). And Murdoch publications Fox and the WSJ also support Israel. What major opinion source does not?
- YZF 5y agoI'm not really talking about American news media specifically. I don't read the NYT or the WSJ or watch Fox News. These are all anecdotes. I respect your perception but the news I consume don't seem to behave the same way. Naturally I have my own biases here. This seems to be a fairly decent article on the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Arab%E2%... No conclusion. This is interesting: https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2012/02/03/american-coverage-of-israel https://www.economist.com/lexingtons-notebook/2012/02/03/ame... "A random check carried out this week showed that there is one citation on Google News for every 50,000 Chinese or Indians, 20,000 Bangladeshis, 8,000 Pakistanis, 5,000 Russians, 3,400 Egyptians (in the midst of horrific soccer riots) or 1200 Syrians (although the regime in Damascus is doing its best to improve its rankings by steadily decreasing the number of living Syrians). But it takes only 300 Israelis for each Google News item on Israel, clear proof that the country is being singled out for disproportionate coverage." EDIT: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/how-the-media-makes-the-israel-story/383262/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/ho...
- wolverine876 5y ago