World media's reaction to bulldozer terrorist: Moral relativism
Friday's Jerusalem Post editorial is up online and it examines the moral relativism in the world media's reaction to Wednesday's 'bulldozer terror attack' in Jerusalem. Here's a sample:WHY DID Husam Taysir Dwayat do it? The hasty and erroneous answer offered by an overwhelming number of news outlets amounted to: "It's the occupation, stupid."Read the whole thing. If enough people do, maybe the world will begin to understand that this isn't about 'occupation' or fines for illegal building. It's about Israel's right to exist.
That is the type of "context" one would expect from Al-Jazeera, which described the rampage as an "operation."
Yet even the otherwise fine coverage provided by The New York Times was marred, apparently by editors, who inserted a tendentious paragraph about... bulldozers: "Caterpillar equipment has a special resonance among Palestinians. Human rights activists have lobbied the company to stop selling its heavy vehicles to the Israeli military out of concern that they have been used to demolish Palestinian homes, uproot orchards and construct Jewish settlements in occupied land."
Reuters unhelpfully contrasted Israel's supposed oppression of Palestinians generally with its maltreatment of Jerusalem Arabs: "Unlike Palestinians in the blockaded Gaza Strip and in the occupied West Bank, those living in occupied east Jerusalem have free access to the Jewish west of the city and to Israel." The wire service added that it found no evidence that Dwayat was a "guerrilla."
As for the Associated Press, it was almost as if the world's leading content provider sought, under the guise of uncovering a motive for the rampage, to provide justification for it: Dwayat had been fined for building his house without a permit, and a demolition order was on file.
"In contrast to West Bank Palestinians," AP noted, "Arab residents of Jerusalem have full freedom to work and travel throughout Israel," begging the question of why Israelis restrict the movement of West Bankers.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:21 PM
3 Comments:
So, let me get this straight: The Arab murderer had _never_ been beaten senseless by the police, but he went out and started crushing people with a front-loader, and they're making excuses for him.
Moshe Plesser _had_ been beaten senseless by the police of his own country, but nobody has to make excuses for him, because he continued to be a good guy and to save people from being murdered rather than becoming a murderer.
Hmm.
Such is the difference between a Jew and an Arab in Israel, I guess.
Carl - you're a Jew. Now what do you call people who want you dead? It doesn't get any more black and white than that. I keep thinking of the mother who was murdered. The Arabs' desire to murder Jews won't be changed by giving them a reichlet. The world doesn't really get it!
As I mentioned yesterday - Bradley Burston of Haaretz made the same point as you did - its not about the "occupation," its not about "settlements" or even "illegal building." Attempts to explain away Arab violence directed at Jews as attribute to "root causes" overlook the fact the violence is exclusively directed at Jewish civilians. What did a Jewish mother named Bat-Sheva Unterman do to deserve being run over and crushed to death senselessly by an Arab who wanted to murder Jews? Nothing in the world can justify evil. Its as simple as comprehending the Arabs don't want to compromise or live together with the Jews and they all want them gone from the Land. Without an acknowledgment from them Jews are human beings who also have rights, the prospects of peace between the two peoples are exactly zero.
Post a Comment
<< Home