Robert Fisk wrote a great op-ed for the Los Angeles Times on the abuse of terminology by American (and Western) journalists when reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This disturbing trend is noticeable in almost every article or news report on the main stream media. I’ve even noticed it on NPR (a good report on this preceived balance) and the BBC, two media sources which many of us hold in higher regard than the average mainstream media outlet. In this FAIR report, the author writes:

“During the six-month period studied, NPR reported the deaths of 62 Israelis and 51 Palestinians. While on the surface that may not appear to be hugely lopsided, during the same time period 77 Israelis and 148 Palestinians were killed in the conflict. That means there was an 81 percent likelihood that an Israeli death would be reported on NPR, but only a 34 percent likelihood that a Palestinian death would be.”

Back to Fisk, who writes that the intent of these misnomers is to continuously obscure the truth of the conflict, especially with regards to the Palestinian side, and to make the actions of Palestinians appear barbaric, irrational, and without justification.

“Illegal Jewish settlements for Jews and Jews only on Arab land are clearly “colonies,” and we used to call them that …Similarly, “occupied” Palestinian land was softened in many American media reports into “disputed” Palestinian land …For Palestinians to object violently to any of these phenomena thus marks them as a generically vicious people. By our use of language, we condemn them.”

If Americans Knew has a few excellent studies of US and European media and their reporting of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The findings are disturbing, to say the least. They conducted a study of the major news networks ABC, NBC, and CBS and another on the New York Times, among others.

This problem these days is lack of reporting at all on the current situation, except when an issue like Hamas’ participation in the January elections attracts the attention of some journalists. However, the day to day struggles of Palestinians going through Israeli checkpoints, being caged into enclaves as a result of the contruction of the wall, curfews, economic suppression, and settler violence are easily overlooked, until a suicide bomber blows himself up in an Israeli town…

A radio news commentator said today, if the president thinks he can spy on people without permission, then why does he need the Patriot Act?!

Well, even if Bush doesn’t need the Patriot Act, he still need some legitimacy because, well, he is the president… fortunately, he got a few nice blows today:

U.S. District Judge James Robertson resigned in protest over the president’s domestic spying program.

The Senate also refused to re-authorize some provisions of the soon-to-expire “anti-terror” law because of controversy over some key provisions which many believe are violating civil liberties, causing Bush to continue whining in front of cameras.

Finally, someone is standing up to Bush, including senators. It’s really about time. I know that the Patriot Act will be passed again, but this filibuster and serious debate on the issue is really overdue now. The US Congress has been stalling for the past 4 years on various issues, and it has continuously yielded power to the White House on major policy issues including the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, among others. It about time that the “representatives” of the American people actually represent their constituents…but I won’t hold my breath on this one.

Soon after his recovery from a mild stroke caused by his insatiable appetite for food among other things (occupation, settlements, oppression, torture, and the like), Israeli PM Ariel Sharon was back to working on making Palestinian lives miserable, what he does best. The Israeli prime minister’s spokesman Raanan Gissin announced that Palestinians living in Jerusalem would not be allowed to vote in the upcoming January parliamentary elections because of fears that Hamas is gaining more power through such elections.

On the same topic, the US and EU announced that

Interestingly enough, 50% of Israelis said they would support talks with Hamas if the need arose.

Any party should be allowed to participate if the elections are to be considered free and fair. If Hamas makes significant gains, then they will concentrate their efforts on bringing change through the political process, rather than armed resistance. This will be more effective for them, and will make their image more favorable in the eyes of the US and EU as long as they stay active within the system rather than resorting to violence. Preventing them from participating will only alienate them and encourage them to use other means to get their message across.

Secret CIA prisons in Europe were investigated by the Swiss on behalf of the Council of Europe. Nothing new here, secret detentions, rumors of torture, no oversight, prisoners in legal black holes…all administered by the US.
President Bush’s PR team is just amazing. Can’t wait for more info to emerge on this through the EU’s investigation.

Did I ever mention how much I love the media? of course, the US media has a special place in my heart, but the international media is getting close too. I love the way they twist things around and use vague or absolutely inaccurate language to portray events related to Muslims and Arabs. The dispicable attacks in Sydney on anyone who looks remotely Arab are being portrayed as a “reaction to” or “revenge for” an alleged attack of two lifeguards by Arabs in the area. Whether the riots were directly in response to that, or they were just waiting to explode and this gave them an excuse for it, there is no proportionality in this issue, and I hate when things are taken out of context and called retaliations.
i would like to see how far the affects of this drunken racist mob go around Australia and if this is a sign of simmering tensions, despite government rejections of that claim. an investigation on who is inciting this should reveal more information about the origins of this violence.

I found the story about the bi-polar man who was shot to death by a federal air marshall because he claimed to have a bomb very disturbing today. I realize and fully understand that these individuals are there to protect passengers, however, I cannot help but wonder if there are certain regulations that guide their actions in such circumstances… are they supposed to fire at anyone who claims they have a bomb? do they attempt to debilitate the person by shooting at his feet or any other location that might not be immediately fatal? I can only judge the situation based on what I am hearing from the news, and it’s probably a much different situation when you are in charge of security and some man runs around saying he has a bomb. However, even this claim has not been independently corroborated by other passengers… they said his wife was running after him saying that he needed medication and was mentally ill. Should the marshalls have listened to her and risk that this could be some sort of fake scenario? But then again, assuming that they were terrorists who really had bombs, why would they act out something like that? I would assume they would just blow themselves up, without warning.

A “routine” investigation is being conducted, the White House said today. This even should be an eye opener for air marshalls and their trainers. A similar situation occurred in the summer when British police forces shot and killed a Brazilian man in the subway system after the 7/11 attacks in London. When this involves the loss of an innocent and sick man’s life, I believe more than a “routine” investigation should be conducted, and one that is independent of government influence.