Words: 2603
Hams operatives, the rest of the points made throughout the article work to undermine Israel’s claims and show that those journalists were just innocent reporters who are brave enough to keep on fighting for the freedom to speak despite Israel’s threats. A quarter of the way down the page, a heading reads: “the voice of the people. ” This section gives one journalist’s account of Israel’s brutality and quotes a member of the CAP as agreeing with him that Israeli airstrip’s continue to endanger Palestinian journalists. The final section’s heading reads “my weapon is my pen.
This paragraph gives several journalists’ accounts of their experiences when 6 missiles blew through the roof of the al- Suds TV office building dismembering one journalists’ leg. This paragraph also goes into great depth about the heroism of one journalist who did not care about his own security, and was only concerned about helping his friends and coworkers. The article includes the stories of various Palestinian journalists, a very brief defense from the side of Israel and some emotionally-charged stories from victims of Israel’s various attacks on Palestinian news channels.
It is clear hat these innocent Palestinians only want to share the “truth” with the world and that Israel is willing to go to any lengths to prevent them from doing so. The author is very opinionated and portrays Israelis in a very negative light as the aggressors and oppressors of the “truth” and its representative – the Palestinian press. The photograph used in the beginning of this article depicts a journalist’s jacket labeled “press” with what appears to be a bullet hole in it, lying on an old mattress in a ravaged building. The caption states that an innocent, sleeping journalist was severely wounded by an attack on his office.
The picture and its description reflect the article’s message that the innocent and peaceful Palestinian press is being relentlessly targeted and attacked, and the rest of the article makes it clear that Israel is the source of the destruction shown in the image. The article presents Israel negatively using a couple techniques. It describes Israel as the victimizer of innocent reporters and manages to severely weaken Israel’s attempts to justify its own actions by placing the words “Hams operatives” in quotations as if it is not a legitimate claim and by providing very limited evidence on Israel’s side.
In fact, Israel’s claims that the journalists were affiliated with Hams and denied outright by the emotional account of Mohammad Thruway, a poor, victimized journalist. The article uses the personal and tragic account of Thruway to fully develop the image of the Palestinians as helpless innocents, in the face of Israeli aggression. This use of pathos pushes the reader to pity the journalists, while the cold and impersonal tone of Israel’s defensive arguments only encourage the reader to empathic more with the Palestinians and feel emotional distance towards Israel.
The poor Palestinian ruinations gain the readers sympathy since they are shown to be courageous and heroic as they continue to fight for truth and justice despite the fear, the danger, and the constant threat of Israeli violence. The article depicts them as martyrs for truth, who fight for what is right. Thus the article shows the innocence of the Palestinian people, placing them in a positive light, as well as the oppression of Israel, placing it in a very negative light.
The author of this article is clearly attempting to promote the side of the Palestinians and sway the public by using pathos, by only fleshing out one side of the argument and by retorting the Palestinian journalists as heroes and martyrs and the Israelis as violent aggressors. Article 2 Source: Washington post (editorial) This article is titled: ‘Why was there a war in Gaza? ” It begins by asking how the war with Gaza started and by giving the response shared by Hams and the international media – that it started with Israel’s occupation of Gaza.
The author, however, responds by asking, “what occupation? ” and proceeds to argue that Israel pulled out of Gaza seven years ago, renouncing any claim to it and giving Palestinians independence, something Egypt did not do when Gaza was in the ands of the Egyptians. He explains how Israel has done more for Palestinian independence than all other Arab countries and even the Ottoman Empire. This is a very strong statement to show the humanity of Israel and how it has always turned the other cheek and always taken the high road when it came to Palestinians.
The world insisted that Israel give up land for peace, Israel gave up the land and in return got no peace. He states his opinion strongly by saying that Gaza Palestinians did not have any hopes for peace with Israel, because they elected Hams which turned Gaza into a “camp from to wage war with Israel”. This statement is merely an opinion and it is a generalization, we do not know what the Palestinian people of Gaza think because Hams have controlled them oppressively ever since they were brought into power.
Khartoum quotes the Iranian leaders (who are the main suppliers of weaponry to Gaza) who call Israel “occupied, illegitimate, a cancer, a crime against humanity”. Israeli Jews were first attacked by Hams with campaigns of suicide bombing, in response Israel built a nearly impenetrable fence to which Hams took to firing rockets at Israeli citizens indiscriminately. Hams objective is to destroy Tell-Aviva and all of pre 1 967 Israel; Khartoum says that it is Hams’ “raisin deter” (reason for existence); this statement shows the extreme bias against the leaders of Gaza.
He asks the question: “what does Hams intend to gain from this recent round of fighting”? He explains that Hams only wanted to guarantee no more attacks on their leaders so they could ensure protection of the building newer and more deadly missiles, as well to lift the blockade so a flood of weapons could come through into Gaza allowing for the killing of Israeli citizens. This is merely an assumption ND he states that as a fact rather than his own opinion. It is explained that a cease fire to Hams is not as we know it to be, it is in fact just a way to build up strength until the next round of fighting.
Khartoum concludes by stating that Israel has successfully defended itself but only until the next round of fighting when Hams once again decides to break the cease fire and attempt to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible. We have no proof to any of these allegations and we only know that this has happened in the past, although it is a fair assumption we cannot say that it is the neither truth nor guarantee that it will ended happen. The article addresses the general conflict between Israel and Hams.
It is clear from the report that the goal of the author was to support the bias in favor of Israel and portray Israel positively. When the author talks about the occupation of Gaza by Egypt and Israel giving it independence he phrases it as such, “in effect, Israel had created the first Palestinians state ever, something never granted by fellow Muslims – neither the Ottoman Turks nor the Egyptians who brutally occupied Gaza for two decades before being driven out by Israel in the 1967 six day war”.
He attempts to portray Muslims and any Muslim country as negative and unwilling to support their fellow Muslims. In the beginning of the article he talks about the occupation as if it is fact, and given as fact by Hams and “many in the international media”. He then responds with “what occupation’? Then goes on to explain that Israel had only wanted peace and Hams only wanted war, he provides two options, either to side with the brutal, dictatorial Hams or Israel who only wants to defend themselves. The author is only providing two alternatives to believe.
This is called a black and white fallacy, here only two options are available and one seems very undesirable, when in reality the conflict is much more complicated. In addition the author also presents half-truths and only states facts in support of Israel. He portrays Israel as the victims with the entire world against them, forcing Israel to give up land. He goes on to give an explanation of the situation in his own words of why Hams decided to go to war with Israel, using the words; “it works like this” clearly stating that it is not fact at all and in in reality just a what the article is labeled under, an opinion.
Article #3 Source: National Post March 9 2012. The article titled “Israeli air strikes kill 12 after Gaza rocket attacks” begins with saying the aftermath of the Israeli airstrip’s and the amount killed and wounded, as well how “most” of them were militant. The article states that this is a result of missiles being fired into Israel. One of the people killed was the head of the Popular Resistance Committee. Members of the PRE threatened to retaliate and subsequently fired 40 rockets into southern Israel.
The author quotes the WAFT new agency which is a Fatal dominated Palestinian authority which condemned s Israel for retaliating and creating “negative environment” that would “escalate the circle of violence in the region. ” The author then quotes one of the Israeli spokespersons who states that Quasi – the man killed in the airstrips – was one of the orchestrates of terrorist attacks against civilians on route 12 (a cross border road with Egypt). A terrorist attack in 2008 on a pipeline was also one of Sais’s crimes.
The author describes the truce in which Israel and Hams are a part of, but the PRE is not, which can result with rockets fired into Israel triggering an airstrips in some situations. The members of the PRE are committed to avenging the deaths of their brother and will not “let their blood be wasted”. The author concludes the article by quoting Israeli officials who say the Israeli army “will not allow the firing to continue”. This report brings in a few different groups such as the Israelis, the government of Gaza – Hams, and the Popular Resistance Committee in addition to other Gaza militant groups.
It is clear from the article that many of the Palestinian groups in Gaza are very intent on spreading terror among the Israeli people and will fire rockets into Israel with any chance they get. Israel is shown to only want to defend itself and once attacked will do what is necessary to defend its people. The picture at the top of this article displays a car mangled by an Israeli air strike. The message that this conveys is that of a cause and effect, written at the bottom of the picture; is that this is the result of an Israeli airstrips which killed the leader of the PRE which is a militant group in Gaza.
Also saying this happened two hours after they had fired rockets into Israel. While the opinions of the Gaza militants are heavily stated, the article also states the crimes of the accusers which allow s to question the validity of the claims by the Gaza Palestinian militant groups. The article talks about cause and effect, gives quotes and states both sides of the dispute with fairly equal attention. The author does not seem to take sides or portray any particular group as positive or negative but rather quotes them and further explains what have been the characteristics of these groups in the past.
The author talks about Quasi and how he became a martyr to some of the people of Gaza, he continues to explain that Quasi took part in various terrorist attacks and this leads us to believe that he does not deserve this title of martyr. The author may possibly intend to promote looking at the conflict objectively and try to understand the goals of each side. Through my research I found myself favoring articles that supported my point of view on the subject.
I found myself taking sides while the goal was to be objective. This taught me how easy it is to manipulate the masses into believing what may not necessarily be the truth or even complete lies. One problem I noticed when researching the Hams missile attacks on southern Israel, was the sheer complexity of the situation itself, there is no black and white. It is not Seibel just solve the problem with little effort; the conflict has many religious, cultural and political issues complicating the situation.
For example many of the citizens of Gaza are accused of launching rockets against Israel although these are people who are under constant suppression by their government, and are not capable of doing such things. These people receive a very limited education and do not know the reasons behind the conflict and are brainwashed from a very young age to hate Israel. When Israel is condemned for launching airstrip’s and killing civilians, the media neglects to mention that the reason civilians are ailed is because the terrorists use them as human shields, or rather they are not civilians at all, that is only what Hams may claim them to be.
It is a goal for Hams to make Israel kill as many civilians as possible. Gold Meir said ‘We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us. ” I think this quote expresses the true nature of the conflict. Israel will always do what it has to in order to defend itself despite he constant harassment by Islamic extremists who exploit innocent Palestinians for PR and target Israel at large. I have noticed that when Israel is accused of an act of killing, it is often true.
The main problem with this is most of the time that information alone is compelling enough to convince ignorant readers. When researched in further depth almost always it is the truth that the killings were not of innocent civilians but rather that of terrorists posing as such, or the result of Hams hiding behind families or children to protect themselves. Through these findings I have concluded that much of the pro-Hams accounts are in act more times than not pure propaganda employing many techniques such as half-truths, managing the news, cooperating and stereotyping.
After learning the methods that Hams uses to sway public opinion that, I am able to see through the opinions and biases of the authors and that of the Palestinians, who although are within the area of the violence, are in reality are just as uneducated about the reasons for the conflict as an isolated reader of AY Jazzier Many times are unaware as to the party responsible for provoking the attacks. This taught me that even though I am aware of the conflict and the reasons behind it, many people are not and these people are also very susceptible to media bias and Hams propaganda.