President Bush, speaking of suicide bombers:
“They’re not martyrs. They’re murderers. And they undermine the cause of the Palestinian people” —
…On Israel:
“I call on Israel to withdraw from the cities they’ve recently occupied.”
I watched the Bush press conference on ABC (the lead-in came from “GMA“) and listened to Peter Jennings and Charlie Gibson offer their “analyses” of the speech afterwards. To hear these two chowderheads tell it, Bush spent the entire 15 minutes chastising the Israelis for “imposing their will” on the victimized Palestinians.
But this was not the case at all; Bush did call for Israeli withdrawal (after granting the IDF a week to round up militants, seize weapons, and gather crucial evidence that will prove, once and for all, the link between Arafat and a host of terror groups, which Bush loudly and pointedly named during his speech) — but the bulk of the speech clearly tied the suicide bombings and other “resistance” tactics favored by the Palestinian Authority and its supporters to terrorism. Consequently, those who support such tactics — through state-sponsored subsidies, or through propoganda campaigns on T.V. and in the Arab press — are guilty of fomenting terrorism. My guess? Bush spoke today to keep the squeaking Europeans quiet for a few more days, and to give the Israelis a little more time to finish up this latest operation.
I’m not surprised, I must say, with the way ABC attempted to spin the Bush speech; after all, “Good Morning, America’s” coverage from the region featured “reports” from Charlie Gibson based on the testimony of two “witnesses” — the first, an American protester working as part of the “Human Shield” project (a “human shield,” for those of you who don’t already know, that ain’t aimed at protecting Israelis in pizza parlors, I can tell you that much), and the second, a young female Egyptian national (speaking from Egypt), who maintains a home in the West Bank. Not surprisingly, both of these, uh…disinterested (snark) spokespersons offered testimony that Israeli soldiers were firing indiscriminately on Palestinian civilians (mostly pregnant children, elderly blind women, and Christian lepers, I believe it was), while the Palestinians themselves refused to fire back — and were not, in fact, resisting at all. No food is getting in to the “occupied” cities, the two humanitarians informed GMA viewers. And no medicine is being allowed through, either.
Gibson also reported that the Israeli military had besieged the Church of the Nativity, having “blasted off one of its doors,” and was now “firing into the spot where many believe Jesus was born.” No mention of how Palestinian militants blasted their way into the church to begin with. Nor of the weapons seized from Arafat’s compound. Nor of the documents seized by the IDF linking Arafat to payments for bomb parts. Nor of the fact that culpability for the blasting off of that church door is itself under dispute.
GMA ended its broadcast with scenes of a “peace protest” — or, as several of the Arab protesters involved might classify it, an “If these signs had sharp edges, we’d be gutting Jews with them” rally.
I know, I know. What should I expect from “Good Morning, America,” right?
Well, sad as it is, I suspect millions of people each day are getting their news from these morning shows — which means that millions of people each day are coming away from these reports (the other segments from Jerusalem featured interviews with “humiliated” Palestinians at checkpoints and video of an Israeli soldier firing warning shots at people “loitering too long in their truck, for this soldier’s tastes”) with the impression that the Israeli military is engaged in a full scale offensive against the hapless and passive Palestinians (all of whom, now, are innocent civilians; the only Palestinians who aren’t, it seems, are those who’ve already blown themselves up).
Is even a semblance of neutrality too much to ask for? I mean, wasn’t it ABC News that made such a big deal out of neutrality when some of their news folk wanted to wear a flag pin…?
Oh well. This’ll all be moot by next Thursday, anyway. I mean, Colin Powell’s headin’ over to the region; a few stern words from him should end this silly fighting once and for all…
Right? Right?
This is pure lunacy. Decade after decade of violence under the same Palestinian leader and they believe that peace can be brokered…especially when you consider the 95% Camp David offer that was rejected. That should make it clear to anyone that Arafat does not want land, but the destruction of Israel.
And Colin Powell…I won’t even start complaining about this guy. His half-assed policies are only going to get more people blown up in cafes and synagogues in Israel. His foolishness and moral equivocation and appeasement are only going to get people killed.
I’ll add that I know there is a deeper chess game going on but their public statements and tactics are simply infuriating. Five US presidents and, what?, seven Israeli Prime Ministers and they really want to act as though Israel and/or the US are the problem?
I can wait but I ache for the lives that will be lost during this posturing.
It’s shocking to see the accusations being made by the US media and the similarity to those made by, say, the Arab News.
My only hope is that it’s all part of a vast conspiracy to lull the Arab street into believing that our media is really on their side, keeping them from revolt on the homefront, while we stall long enough for Sharon to finish the job.
Maybe that’s not very far-fetched, considering how anti-Israel the ‘Zionist American media’ has been.
Oh, at least a part – a significant part – of our media is on their side. The question is, whose side is the Bush administration on? If you read the rest of Bush’s speech – the part not being much reported – I think he just gave Arafat and the rest of his Arab supporters their last warning.
Of course, I thought that the last time, too.
I’m honestly not sure if much of the media would recognize neutrality, balance, or bias if it walked up and bit them anymore. It’s just stunning – not to mention infuriating – to watch some of this stuff. Ol’ Charlie “Why yes, there is a huge stick up my rectum, why do you ask?” Gibson blathers on all but adding “evil” to every time he says Israel. I honestly think that if you sat him in front of a monitor and showed him the blatant bias in his spoon-fed “reports” in slow motion he still wouldn’t see it. They think this *is* neutral reporting, which makes you wonder how bad it’d have to be before they’d even recognize bias.
Oh, I know, bias is when someone disagrees with their side of the story.
Cynical, me? Nah…
Myria
I’m with Bernard Golberg (in theory) on this one: I believe that the bias is either the result of an unintentional ignorance on the part of newsies to the way they’re coming across (and eminating from their personal political beliefs), or—more likely—an PC overcompensation, the desire to appear neutral at all costs, even when “neutrality” itself is an expression of an unwillingness to judge (itself a philosophical and political stance).