The following analysis examines a typical news report on Palestine by the corporate media. In the report, a Reuters reporter, Eli Berelzon, writes a story of a Palestinian soldier attacking the Israeli army and killing two Israeli soldiers. It is a story of what appears to be a successful Palestinian military operation against the Israeli Army ... but it’s not presented that way - not at all. You may think, “But Eli only reported the facts!”. Ah, but how were they presented?

“It’s not enough for journalists to see themselves as mere messengers without understanding the hidden agendas of the message and the myths that surround it” - John Pilger.

The story analyzed below can be found intact and in its entirety at:

Reuters story

The Headline

Eli Berelzon, a Reuters reporter, headlines this story: Ambush Kills Two Israelis Amid Push for Cease-Fire.

First -The headline calls the victims of this Palestinian operation "Israelis" - rather than calling them what they really were: Israeli soldiers in occupation of Palestinian land.

Second - The "Israelis" were "ambushed". Now any good American connoisseur of the old Western films knows that it's a low-down, bottom-feeding sidewinder who will "ambush" and shoot in the back a cowboy who is jus' mindin' his own bizness!

Third - The headline attempts to turn the reader against the Palestinian soldier by couching the news story in the context of "Amid Push for Cease-Fire". Such a context implies that this attack - and others like it undermine peace in the Middle East - but more about that later.

The Story

Following the headlines is the story, replete with reference and nuance that suggests blame to even the casual reader:

1. In a “stand-alone-item”, Eli author repeats the headline assertion that the "Israelis" were killed by a "Palestinian sniper" - and in of all places - Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus himself! - and just before Christmas to boot! - surely raising the ire of Christian Zionists in the U.S.

2. In his opening paragraph, Eli stated:

"Despite the violence that splintered a relative calm, Israel told the United States at talks in Brussels that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would meet Palestinian counterpart Ahmed Qurie next week to help revive a U.S.-guided peace plan."

Analysis: Eli implies that "Prime Minister", Ariel Sharon, is committed to peace despite the continuing occupation, continuing building of settlements and the ongoing, daily attacks on Palestinians. The subtext is that Sharon is a patient man, willing to continue the talks even while his army is under attack. Are we to understand that if the so-called "U.S. guided peace plan" fails - it will surely be due to the violence of the Palestinians? Why does Eli leave for the end of the story - the fact that Sharon had his army invade Rafah, after agreeing to meet with Qurie? How many readers endure to the end of this oft-repeated story of more strife in Palestine?

3. Eli dutifully explains that "Egyptian mediators" will "go ahead with talks with militant factions in Gaza".

Subtext: Egyptian mediators are not talking with the Palestinian people. They are talking with “militant factions”.

What does “militant factions” mean in the mind of the Western reader of the news? Does it not bespeak “gangs, thugs and out-of-control-terrorists”? It also reminds one of the references to the Iraqi resistance as "Baathists, insurgents, gunmen, guerillas and of course, "terrorists".

4. Eli states, "The only people he hit were two soldiers who were killed. The gunman managed to escape ..., probably to (nearby village of) al-Khader," said Brigadier General Gadi Aizenkot in remarks released by the army spokesman.

Analysis: For this we give Eli a point. But where was the mention of these “soldiers” in the headline? There they were called “Israelis”. “Picky” you say? Don’t we all know how many Western readers - weary of reading of these unending battles in the Middle East - read only the headlines? Don’t we know the impact that headlines have? How many readers burrow this deeply into another report of another attack in Palestine? How many western readers left this article believing that this “gunman”, who “escaped” killed two “innocent Israeli citizens”? And this statement from no less than a “Brigadier General”. Does the Palestinian military have the equivalent of “General” among their ranks? - Or are Palestinian military leaders simply “Terrorists”?

5. In the next paragraph of the report, the lone soldier who attacked the Israeli soldiers is called “the Palestinian”. But the PR respondent quoted is “The Commander of Israeli forces”. Eli provides the “Commander’s” explanation of how a single Palestinian soldier accomplished this attack on the well-armed Israeli soldiers - apparently an explanation was needed for this, another embarrassing loss, by the “legendary” IDF ...

"... the Palestinian approached the checkpoint at a highway junction near Bethlehem after daybreak and opened fire with an AK-47 rifle concealed in a rolled-up Muslim prayer mat".

The subtext: “How unfair! How low can you go - concealing a weapon in a Muslim prayer mat!" We told you this is a violent religion! He tricked the Israeli soldiers! He’s a coward! He could never have done it “mano y mano”. How were the soldiers to know? Their only crime was that they trusted a Muslim with a prayer mat!

6. Then Eli writes,

"In Gaza, Israeli forces swept into the volatile Palestinian refugee camp of Rafah before dawn, sparking gunbattles with militants in which at least eight Palestinians were wounded"

Analysis: Again, it seems the term "militants" is preferred over Palestinian "soldiers". Other times the terms "gunmen" and "terrorists" better fit the spin. Calling them "soldiers" which is precisely what members of the Palestinian resistance forces are, would put them on-par with the IDF, U.S. soldiers, etc.

7. Eli writes,

"They said Israeli forces demolished at least three houses. Israel has razed more than 1,200 homes in what it calls operations against arms-smuggling tunnels from nearby Egypt, which are used by militants waging a three-year-old uprising."

Analysis: This is an apparent attempt to explain - perhaps even justify - the destruction of Palestinian homes. It’s more reliable than the law of gravity: The human mind is capable of justifying anything. How well some of us remember the rationalization used during the Viet Nam war: “Destroy a village to save a village”. How well we remember U.S. soldiers killing Vietnamese women and children - because they sometimes carry hand grenades!

8. Buried deep in the article is a reference to Israeli soldiers - this time actually calling them "soldiers" rather than "Israelis", killed 3 weeks ago:

"There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the ambush, the first deadly militant attack since three soldiers were gunned down at a Jewish settlement in Gaza three weeks ago."

Analysis: These three soldiers were “gunned down”. Subtext: “Gunned down in cold blood!” What kind of animal would “gun down” a helpless, unsuspecting soldier in cold blood?

Eli stated, "There was no immediate claim of responsibility" for this dastardly act. Why is a “claim of responsibility” needed? It was the Palestinian military that carried out the operation. What could be more clear? By referring to “this faction” or “that terrorist group" - the reader is moved to believe that the Palestinian resistance is a fragmented bunch of thugs, gangs, and - "terrorists" if you will.

9. Eli continues to use this successful Palestinian military operation as springboard for more propaganda:

"Violence had abated as a new Palestinian cabinet under Qurie took office last week with a truce vow and Sharon seemed to heed calls for easing military pressure on West Bank towns that has bred bitterness boosting radicals hostile to peacemaking."

Analysis: “A truce vow” - The implication is that the Palestinians have broken their vow, broken their word. Subtext: They are untrustworthy! They are liars! You cannot believe them! On the other hand, as you will read later, this Palestinian military operation was preceded by Israel’s “incursion” into Rafah - also after the “truce vow” was made.

Fact: "Violence has abated ... as Qurie took office"

Rhetoric: "Sharon seemed to heed calls for easing military pressure on West Bank towns".

... But we note that both are given more-or-less equal weight.

10. Next: “Sharon said during a visit to Italy Monday that Israel would eschew military action as long as there were no more Palestinian suicide bombings or other attacks, his aides said."

Analysis: This is a simple, mindless repetition of the position taken by Sharon for years. Either he stops the violence against the Palestinians or he doesn't. Just what does “Israel would eschew” mean? Did Sharon stop “military action” following his visit to Italy? Read about the “incursion” into Rafah, below. Using a single attack by the Palestinian military as a pretext for the ongoing oppression is transparent on it's face. But Eli reinforces this position as justification for Israel's agression .... again.

11. Finally! Eli says it:

"It was not clear what prompted the latest army incursion into Rafah, which preceded the roadside ambush by several hours."

The "incursion" into Rafah preceded this military operation against the Israeli army. "It was not clear what prompted the incursion" ? How can anything be more clear? The so-called "incursions" into Palestinian towns and cities are simply a continuation of Israeli policy that began 50 years ago."

12. In the end, Eli presents the often repeated two sides of the war in Palestine with Israel saying they cannot take Qurie seriously because of this military operation - and the Palestinians allegedly saying they cannot stop "the militants" because of the occupation.

Analysis: The "two sides" of the crisis in Palestine are often included in news reports like this, adding a "back-door defense", giving the reader an illusion of objectivity and fairness. Such reporting is clever, but in the long term, patently unwise.

Conclusion: The corporate, western media never confronts a simple reality that lies deeply imbedded in 50 years of history: Foreigners, largely from Eastern Europe came to Palestine 50 years ago, razed 300 to 600 Palestinian villages, terrorized and expelled their inhabitants, stole their lands, forced them to live in the squalor of "refugee camps" and have oppressed them ever since their arrival. The corporate media can attempt to obscure that simple reality with layers upon layers of mindless rhetoric, bickering argument and truisms ad nauseum. But they can never, never change that simple reality.

Native Americans and the Bedouins of the Negev Desert: The Europeans (my ancestors) did the same thing with Native Americans. Their success at committing genocide was largely due to the invention of gunpowder and the use of unconscionable tactics like intentionally infecting Native Americans with small pox. Not so with Palestine - at least not yet. Israel hopes that somehow, some way, the Palestinians will be defeated - not only in body, but more importantly, in spirit. They hope that Palestinians will finally say “enough” and go the way of the Bedouins who are in servitude to Israel today. Israel stole and killed the Bedouins' only means of livelihood - their sheep herds, stole their land and destroyed their precious tents that allowed them a nomadic way of life. - The Bedouins whose lost future generations of children who acquired addictions to drugs introduced by Israel. The Bedouins, who lost their nomadic way of life and were made dependent on Israeli currency and relegated to squalid towns outside Israel’s rich resorts. See Donald Neff's well researched article: Nearly All Bedouins Driven by Israel From Their Grazing Grounds where Neff writes:

"When Israel came into being in 1948, there were 108 Bedouin villages and localities with a population of about 135,000. By 1961, only 22,578 Bedouins remained inside Israel in 41 villages and localities. Today there are only a few thousand scattered Bedouins left in the Negev. In their place are 280,000 Jews living in 11 villages and towns. Before 1948, there were at most around 4,000 Jews in the large Beersheva-Negev southern districts. Israel’s campaign to rid the Negev of the Bedouins began the same year the Jewish state came into being."

Israel is and has been the aggressor in Palestine for more than 50 years - and the corporate media in the West is arguably the most powerful weapon in their arsenal. Without the corporate media in America, Israel would lose it's financial and military support from the U.S. government and it's "state" would be dismantled - as it should be. An oft-heard cry in pro-Palestinian rallies in the U.S. is, "Long live the Intifada!". I'd rather say, "Let the Intifada continue until Israel ends its occupation and destruction of Palestine". Let the intifada continue until Israelis come to understand that there can be no peace unless their is fairness and justice - that there can be no peace until Zionism and racism and apartheid are defeated. One Palestine for Jews and Muslims to share as brothers and sisters! One Palestine for Israelis and Palestinians to build a future together! A major tool for achieving that victory for peace is the Internet - used responsibly - to overwhelm the deadly weapons of the The Boston Globe, it's parent corporation - the New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angelos Times and the media moguls that influence the thinking of millions of Americans who, often unwittingly, support Israel's military machine with their tax dollars.

Les Blough is an editor at Axis of Logic - a webiste committed to publishing news and commentary that is often not presented in the major news outlets. The website can be visited at www.axisoflogic.com

http://albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=263836&lang=e&dir=news