Skip to main content

A Reuters article yesterday on local elections in the Palestinian West Bank demonstrated rather obvious bias in media coverage.  One article by one news agency is not all that important obviously, but the image portrayed is rather usual in mainstream commentary.  The title of the article is "West Bank vote held to help plug Palestinian democracy gap."

By itself the title is true enough, as there have not been elections in the Occupied Territories for six years, but reading the article puts everything on the shoulders of Palestinians, as if only they could get their act together then they could have democracy.  The article points out that Hamas won 2006 parliamentary elections, but then goes on to observe that Hamas' victory was "an outcome nullified by the civil war that followed a year later."

This description leaves out three obvious facts.  Immediately after Hamas won the election, the US, Israel and Europe threatenedandproceeded to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority, and encouraged Arab nations to do so.  It is disingenuous to leave out that the election results led to a call by the world's superpower for isolating the party that won.  Secondly, there was indeed a civil war between Fatah and Hamas, but the article leaves out that the US was military supporting Fatah, leading to Hamas taking preemptive action to take over Gaza.  Third, Israel launcheda massive wardesigned to punish Hamas and the Palestinians of Gaza, for which Amnesty International accused Israel (and to a lesser extent Hamas) of war crimes.    None of these facts described are controversial, but there is no threat of receiving any flak for putting the onus on Arabs rather than discuss the full context when it makes the US role seem less than magnificent to put it mildly.

Adam Weiss blogs at politicalcreativity.net

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  "Hamas boycotted elections again, (0+ / 0-)

    only half the electorate bothered to vote." could have been the headline ... and the article could have read

    Hamas spokesman: Do you thing Israel and America let us have a vote if they thought it would actually change anything?
    Gazan: I don't want democracy, last time we voted they attacked us from the sea and air and all sides!"
    PA quote: "Everything's fine, we love democracy, we have more freedom than Saudi Arabia."
    Israeli: "Yeah, let them vote, we still kill them whenever we like and we have Jerusalem :P "

    Avoiding Theocracy at Home and Neo Cons Abroad

    by UniC on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 07:17:17 AM PDT

  •  Good diary. (0+ / 0-)

    The actions of the international community, led by America, after the election victory of Hamas in 2006 was reprehensible, and led directly to the split between Hamas and Fatah that we see today.  In addition, it showed US and Israeli claims to "support democracy" to be a lie.  They only support democracy when the voters return the candidate that they choose to back, usually someone very malleable in regard to Western and Israeli wishes.

    As for the bias in journalism, it is nothing new.  Journalists have shown bias for the Zionists since 1948, and the trend has only increased in the 21st century.  Thanks for highlighting one example.

    Terror has no religion.
    لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الل

    by downsouth on Sun Oct 21, 2012 at 07:18:32 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site