Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, Moderators, protect
28,074
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 68:
Line 68: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
"We are sorry that the Israel Police closed the case at the time and did not immediately act to prosecute Abu Elkien for incitement. On the other hand, we welcome the correction of the accident and call on the State Attorney's Office to amend the indictment soon "It should be emphasized that this is a public figure who, in his actions, encouraged and incited the crowd in wall-guard incidents. The rioters and their senders must be brought to justice."</i></ref>
"We are sorry that the Israel Police closed the case at the time and did not immediately act to prosecute Abu Elkien for incitement. On the other hand, we welcome the correction of the accident and call on the State Attorney's Office to amend the indictment soon "It should be emphasized that this is a public figure who, in his actions, encouraged and incited the crowd in wall-guard incidents. The rioters and their senders must be brought to justice."</i></ref>
<font size=1>(Lack of proportionality.<ref>Hanan Amior: "The false symmetry in the coverage of the events of 5781." 18.05.21 ''In order to create a symmetry between Arab and Jewish violence in the coverage of the events, the media presents negative records of embezzlement in trust and unprofessionalism. This is how it does it.'' [https://presspectiva.org.il/%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%AA%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%90/ Presspectiva]</ref><ref name=iz>Ilan Zion - Lawyer Tweeted (May 23, 2021):<blockquote>
<font size=1>(Lack of proportionality.<ref name=maariv-1may2021>Kalman Liebskind, [https://www.maariv.co.il/journalists/Article-837391 Coverage of the events of Arab violence remind us that something in our media is distorted], ''Maariv'', May 1, 2021. <blockquote><font size=1>
For the Israeli press, if Arabs attack Jews, throw Molotov cocktails, or shout slogans in support of Hamas - it's probably because some Jew did something wrong.
Is violence a bad thing? Is it something to be condemned to? Is a behavior that should be condemned? Seemingly, the answer is simple. of course. Why only ostensibly? Because the events of the last two weeks have reminded us - not for the first time, and probably not for the last time either - that in the Israeli media the reference to violence stems first and foremost from the question of who uses it. As in any round of Arab violence, the simple journalistic rule states that there is no bad Arab, there is a bad Arab for him. And if an Arab attacks Jews in Jaffa, throws Molotov cocktails in Jerusalem, or shouts in support of Hamas in Umm al-Fahm, it is likely that some Jew did something wrong. And the more this Jew differs in his appearance and worldview from the mainstream media - and Rabbi Eliyahu Mali, the Rosh Yeshiva in Jaffa, is just one example - the greater the understanding of violence against him. This is the formula. She works almost always.
Muhammad Deif's Soldiers
Take the recent violent riots in Jerusalem. Who is responsible for them, according to the average of reports and interviews in the media? The rioting Arabs? No way. Those responsible are fences set by the police on the steps at the Nablus Gate. Guilt settings. For a whole week, the media has been inflating this nonsense. Already left the fact that the Arabs riot here once in a while, and the previous times they did it - there were no fences on the agenda. They also abandoned the fact that even after definitions were removed, videos and testimonies of groups of Arabs who continued to attack Jews continued to be published.
But in what world can someone's allegations of misconduct by the police put him off well when he uses violence? In what world can journalists see pictures of hundreds of people standing in the center of the capital, singing hymns to a terrorist organization, attacking policemen and shouting "We are Muhammad Deif's soldiers", interviewing them with understanding for their plight, and giving what they do the romantic nickname "Battle on the Stairs"?
Do you think the police were wrong when they put up fences at the Nablus gate? Maybe you're right, well, so what? I once received a report from a police officer, who thought he saw me talking on the phone while driving, and I declare to you here that things were not and were not created. Would anyone understand if I threw a Molotov cocktail at him, in response to his wrong decision? But when it comes to the media and the evenings, everything goes wrong.
You do not have a violent Arab, who does not have a defense attorney with a journalist certificate. Arab violence always has explanations. Once it's settings, once it's Benzi Gupstein, once it's the magnetometers. Remember what happened here after ... Muhammad Abu Khadir? This murder was shocked, permeated, and deserved Israeli-Jewish condemnation, but all this did not stop the Arabs from rioting and raging and trying to murder Jews and damage the state's infrastructure, from the Negev to the Galilee, from the Triangle to Jerusalem. As if all of us, all Jews, were complicit in this murder. Even then, just like today, our media managed to understand the "rage". Something in our media, and this is not new, is morally distorted from the root.
Lies and cutting corners
And because the media is uncomfortable portraying the Arabs as haters, violent, or anti-Semites, it chooses to lie, hide, round corners, to take the very simple story for reporting - and distort it as much as possible. The most common journalistic way of protecting the soft soul of the media consumer from reality, usually goes through self-censorship of the facts. Or in other words, through the decision not to call the child by his name.
And so, a report of an Arab hurting a Jew, something that should be simple and easy to understand, somehow becomes a quiz. Why say Arab? This can be insulting. It is better instead to report "young", "resident of the area" or "attacker", and whoever understands, will understand. Take, for example, this report, which was heard on Sunday morning in IDF waves. Appeared in this list. "Jew" and "Arab." This is how it sounds:
"At the beginning of the night, a Border Police officer was attacked with a blow to his face by a resident of the east of the city at the Flower Gate. The police officer needed medical treatment, and the suspect in the act was arrested for questioning.
"At the same time, in an incident on David Street in the Old City, a man was attacked while a hat he was wearing was thrown from his head. The police arrested the suspect for questioning.
"Later, at the Rockefeller junction, a firework was fired and a stone was thrown at a police vehicle, resulting in two policemen being injured in a light condition.
"At the same time, during a procession of dozens of masked men in Issawiya, the rioters started firing fireworks.
"In addition, in the Railway Park in Jerusalem, a man was attacked by two suspects. Police officers who arrived at the scene, arrested the suspects and they were taken for questioning.
"Stones were thrown at a bus coming from the direction of Modi'in to Jerusalem near the Atarot junction. As a result, the bus driver was hit in the face and sought medical attention."
What do you mean "person" was attacked? What does it mean that the "suspects" in his attack were arrested? Who is the person? Who are the suspects? After all, there is violence here. Is it not important that we know which side is the gods and which is the victim of the violence? And that, of course, is no exception. Go to the reports of News 12, and here, and of other media outlets. So are almost everyone.
The most shameful example this week, at least in what I had time to watch, came in an article by Yossi Mizrahi on News 12. A stranger, if he had landed directly in this article, would not have understood, even with great effort, that there was a problem with what the Arabs did here this week. Let's start with the title. "Yossi Mizrahi left following the tension between Jews and Arabs in the capital." symmetry. Not violent Arabs. No Arabs are raging. Not Arabs attacking Jews. "Tensions between Jews and Arabs." Immediately afterwards the source of the problem is found. "This small amphitheater is the cause of the conflict this time. During Ramadan, the city's Arabs usually sit here as part of the ceremony, break the fast, and then go out to pray on the Temple Mount. But the police feared a gathering that would create a bottleneck, and banned the yeshiva."
From the article it was quite clear who was responsible for the riots, Aliba d'Arc 12, and who their victim was. The police are to blame, the Arabs are its victims. Then Yossi Mizrahi found another reason for the "wave of violence that befalls the capital." On the Arab side, he says, they insisted it all started two weeks ago in Silwan, "a moment after another 16 settler families moved here." It is interesting to pause here for a moment and ask the people of Channel 12 what makes a Jew who buys a house in Jerusalem, a sovereign territory of the State of Israel, a "settler." The answer is of course clear. "A settler," according to a journalist, is a man who lives in a place we do not want him to live. Further, Mizrahi interviews an Arab, who tells him how the settlers take his house, and how they take his dreams from him, and only one figure does not appear in his article, that those Jews, to whom Mizrahi referred, purchased these houses with full money. They did not expel anyone. They did not throw anyone away. They did not take anyone's dreams. But why let the facts interfere with the narrative?
By the way, it would be nice if Yossi Mizrahi would take a moment to wonder why Arabs can buy an apartment in Pisgat Ze'ev or Rehavia, and Jews can not buy an apartment anywhere they want in Jerusalem. In general, if Mizrahi was less empathetic to violence and violence, he would find that against the Jews living in the area of the Arab whom he interviewed terrorism is perpetrated on a regular basis. But, as mentioned, the facts did not have much place in this article.
In any case, after concluding an interview with another representative of a left-wing organization who told him that "Israel's war is a demographic war against the Palestinians in Jerusalem," Mizrahi concluded that "the land dispute here also contributes to unrest in other parts of the city." So what did we have here? Did we hear in this article what "on the Arab side claimed", did we hear in it what "on the Jewish side claimed", and News 12? They probably have no position on which of the parties is right. They have not seen violence, they have not seen riots, and if they have seen - they can understand them.
Do not come from love
Why is it amazing to me to accept this violence as a legitimate and obvious thing? Because over the weekend, Arabs in Jerusalem attacked the Ministry of Justice building and the district court building opposite it. Security cameras were broken, the entrance floor to the office - which houses the offices of the Attorney General, the State Attorney and the Minister of Justice - was strewn with large stones. The windows of vehicles that were in the closed office parking lot, surrounded by a fence and secured, were smashed to pieces.
There is no way to see it but as an attack on a governmental institution, one of the central ones. Now try to remember how broad the journalistic preoccupation was with this issue, if you have ever encountered such a preoccupation. What did you encounter? While blaming the police, while imposing responsibility on fences, while trying to explain that without the march of the Lehavah organization there would have been peace and quiet here.
Avishai Grinzig revealed this week in "Globes" that against the background of this Arab violence, Ministry of Justice employees were instructed not to come to work by public transport, and not to stay in the building after seven o'clock in the evening. Do you understand? Employees of the Ministry of Justice of the State of Israel were banned from staying in their offices after 19:00 due to fear of the Arab rioters, and entire media dealt with the question of whether the commissioner was right or wrong in deciding to put some fences at the entrance to the Old City.
A few days before the start of the Jerusalem round of violence, the head of the yeshiva in Jaffa and the administration were attacked by two Arabs. One of them, as revealed by Yishai Friedman in Makor Rishon, is a big fan of Hitler and Osama bin Laden, and the tune is back again. That same evening, Arabs took to the streets raging, smashing windows, firing fireworks, throwing stones and lynching a Jewish driver. And what does the media do? Looking for a proper explanation for their actions. After all, it is impossible for Arabs to harm Jews if there is no good reason for it. Hence, the road was short for a media discussion on the question of whether it was good or not good to have a Torah center in Jaffa, and exactly what land Rabbi Eliyahu Mali wanted to purchase (Jewish-owned land). As if it changes something, and as if it is a given that can perhaps explain the violence against it. I do not at all want to imagine what our media would have done to Joshua Hankin, who lived in Jaffa in his youth, and from what I understand - bought here and there some Western lands.
I saw some left-wing spokesmen in the media, who tried to explain that the fact that there were no casualties on the Jewish side indicates that proportions should be maintained. After all, no one has paid here in his life, and we have been through more difficult things. It seems to me that the opposite is true. These events are serious and difficult precisely because they are popular. Precisely because behind them is not a trained terrorist cell of Islamic Jihad. Precisely because of the masses, the daring, the impudence and the antisemitic nature. Yes, antisemitic. Bands of Arabs roamed Jerusalem seeking to beat people with a Jewish-ultra-Orthodox appearance.
If we were to see in Austria a video of a neo-Nazi photographing himself stepping on Jewish gravestones, like the Arab who did it this week on the Mount of Olives, we would be shocked. If we were to see videos documenting the attack on ultra-Orthodox Jews in France, we would be talking about a wave of anti-Semitism. Only when this happens to us can the media emotionally connect to the motive of the attackers, crowning such anti-Semitic incidents with cute and harmless names, like the "Tiktok Intifada." Journalist Gideon Dokov examined and found that almost every time the media uses the term "hate crime," it refers to Jewish actions against Arabs. When Arabs attack Jews, Dokov concluded, it probably comes from love.
And if you're looking for another example to illustrate what is written here, go to the words of MK Ayman Odeh - the moderate Arab, as the media likes to refer to him. And the gates of liberated Jerusalem, "he wrote on his Facebook page, adding:" Congratulations from the coastal plain, the Galilee, the triangle and the Negev to the young people of Jerusalem who are revolting against the occupation. "
Now, close your eyes and imagine what would happen if hundreds or thousands of price tag boys were to break, and hit, and throw Molotov cocktails, and smash windshields, and Bezalel Smotrich would greet them for that on Facebook. What a commotion God would have raised here. But for Arab Knesset members, it passes without a blink of an eye. Without a single news release feeling like it's a crossing of all the red lines. In fact, if we are not interested in Arab Knesset members embracing terrorists who murdered Jews, why should we be intimidated by their words when they praise the rioters in Jerusalem?
There is no lie and truth
This story, about violence on both sides, is a false story that the press has been cultivating for years. A story where there are no bad and good, no attackers and victims, no lies and truth. Each has its own narrative. At best we do not take a clear stand on the question of who is right. In the least good case, we connect to the wrong side. All media coverage comes from this place, and anyone who does not want to be a victim of this propaganda - certainly on "hot" days between Arabs and Jews - is better off not turning on the radio.</font></blockquote></ref><ref>Hanan Amior: "The false symmetry in the coverage of the events of 5781." 18.05.21 ''In order to create a symmetry between Arab and Jewish violence in the coverage of the events, the media presents negative records of embezzlement in trust and unprofessionalism. This is how it does it.'' [https://presspectiva.org.il/%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%AA%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%90/ Presspectiva]</ref><ref name=iz>Ilan Zion - Lawyer Tweeted (May 23, 2021):<blockquote>
The exclusion of a "racist motive" in the indictments against Arabs stems from the prosecution's distorted perception that the Arabs are doing so against the background of "discrimination" or against a "nationalist" background.
The exclusion of a "racist motive" in the indictments against Arabs stems from the prosecution's distorted perception that the Arabs are doing so against the background of "discrimination" or against a "nationalist" background.