Thursday, July 17, 2008

Poisoned Oranges (1978)

Please forward the following message:
Note: Remember to use the BCC option.

Poisoned Oranges (1978):
http://drybonesblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/poisoned-oranges-1978.html

Today's Golden Oldie Cartoon (featuring PLO chairman Yasser Arafat in his signature sunglasses and two day-old beard) was published on February 2, 1978. It was done in reaction to the announcement that had just been made by Palestinian "spokesmen" that they had injected exported Israel oranges in Europe with mercury. Five Dutch children fell ill, having eaten the poisoned fruit. Within days, mercury-injected oranges and lemons turned up in West Germany, the Netherlands, and Belgium. The poisoning by the Palestinians was done in Rotterdam where the oranges and lemons were being repackaged for sale in European stores. No children were killed in the Palestinian "action".

It would be in the following year (1979) that Samir Kuntar (what the press would call a Palestinian "activist" or perhaps "fighter") kidnapped an Israeli and his 4-year old daughter. He dragged them to the beach where he shot and killed the father in front of the little girl so that it "would be the last thing she ever saw". He then "smashed the child's head on a rock with the butt of his rifle".

The story is retold by an Egyptian Blogger. You can read it here.
http://www.sandmonkey.org/2006/08/13/on-samir-kuntar/

Yesterday, Samir Kuntar was released from prison ...in return for the remains of murdered Israeli soldiers.

Kuntar is now being turned into a hero across the Arab World ...and was referred to by the Western Media as "Israel's longest-held prisoner".

--
http://drybonesblog.blogspot.com/


Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Zionist plot? Saudis offer Russia billions to break with Tehran

Supporters of Iran like to create the impression that only Zionists want to isolate the Iranian regime. It is not so. Iran is perceived as a clear and present danger by most of the Gulf (Arabian Gulf or Persian Gulf) countries.
 
Ami Isseroff
 
Saudis offer Moscow billions to break with Tehran: report
Agence France-Presse - 16 July, 2008

Saudi Arabia has offered to buy Russian arms worth 2.4 billion dollars (1.5 billion euros) if Moscow stops supporting Iran, a Russian newspaper reported Tuesday, citing diplomatic sources.

"The kingdom's government advised Moscow to cut back its cooperation with Tehran, and in exchange it held out the prospect of profitable contracts with Saudi Arabia," the daily business newspaper Kommersant wrote.

A spokesman for Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin denied the report.

"Any claims that military-technical cooperation between Russia and Saudi
Arabia is in any way linked to Russian-Iranian dialogue are inappropriate and do not correspond to reality," the Interfax news agency quoted Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying.

The newspaper report came one day after Putin met with the general secretary of Saudi Arabia's Security Council, Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

Citing sources in Russia's defence industry, the newspaper said Saudi Arabia was ready to buy at least 100 BMP-3 combat vehicles, 150 T-90 tanks and 160 Mi-17, Mi-26 and Mi-35 helicopters.

Kommersant put the total value of the equipment at about 2.4 billion dollars.

Moscow has opposed stiffer international sanctions on Iran for its nuclear programme, which Tehran says is civilian in nature.

Relations between Russia and Saudi Arabia -- a traditional US ally -- have warmed considerably in recent years.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Mona: A Bahai Martyr

For more about the hanging of the Bahai school teachers, and a picture of Mona and the other victims, see Persecution of the Bahai in Iran.
 
 
 
Thursday, 10 July 2008 
She is called the Angel of Iran, because she lived her short life angelically. The demonic Islamist Mullahs, true to their nature, couldn't bear an angel in their midst. On June 18, 1983, they hanged the young woman, barely past childhood, for refusing to renounce her belief: the belief in love, justice, and equality for all children of God.
 
Her name was Mona, a 17-year old Baha'i Character School (Sunday school) teacher. Her pupils loved the indescribably gentle loving teacher who taught them to grow up as exemplary humans with hearts brimming with the love of God, all his people and his creation.
 
One day the Mullahs' agents came to her house while the young school-girl was studying for her next day English exam. The savage Islamists had another much tougher exam in mind for her to be administered in the horrific prison of the Mullahs. They were certain that they could break the frail young woman under pressure and torture; that they could make her recant her faith and adopt their bigoted creed.
 
Our great Zoroaster, the luminous ancient prophet of Persia, spoke of the ongoing battle between the forces of good under Ahuramazda—God, and the forces of evil directed by Ahriman—the Satan. Zoroaster warned us not to fall for the enticements or be deceived by the machinations of Ahriman. He further informed us that evil can be recognized by the deeds of its people; people who would oppose the precepts of Ahuramazda.
 
And the child-woman Mona was seen by the Islamist clergy as a threat to their very demonic precepts and practices. They felt compelled to either convert her to their creed of darkness or extinguish her young life.
 
Mona, the young teacher, deeply loved children and believed that they had to be brought up as champion workers for Ahuramazda.
 
Baha'is claim that the founder of their religion, Baha'u'llah , is the reappearance of the spirit of Zoroaster; that Zoroaster's triad teachings of Good Thoughts, Good Speech, and Good Behavior are elaborated in greater details by Baha'u'llah.
 
Mona's lessons for the children, a detailed exposition of Zoroaster's teachings, are summarized in the passage below by Baha'u'llah.
 
"Be generous in prosperity, and thankful in adversity. Be worthy of the trust of thy neighbor, and look upon him with a bright and friendly face. Be a treasure to the poor, an admonisher to the rich, an answerer to the cry of the needy, a preserver of the sanctity of thy pledge. Be fair in thy judgment, and guarded in thy speech. Be unjust to no man, and show all meekness to all men. Be as a lamp unto them that walk in darkness, a joy to the sorrowful, a sea for the thirsty, a haven for the distressed, an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression. Let integrity and uprightness distinguish all thine acts. Be a home for the stranger, a balm to the suffering, and a tower of strength for the fugitive. Be eyes to the blind, and a guiding light unto the feet of the erring. Be an ornament to the countenance of truth, a crown to the brow of fidelity, a pillar of the temple of righteousness, a breath of life to the body of mankind, an ensign of the hosts of justice, a luminary above the horizon of virtue, a dew to the soil of the human heart, an ark on the ocean of knowledge, a sun in the heaven of bounty, a gem on the diadem of wisdom, a shining light in the firmament of thy generation, a fruit upon the tree of humility."
 
Ten Baha'i women of Shiraz, Iran were among the many Baha'is who were arrested by the Islamists for their faith. The young Mona was one of them. These women endured months of endless abuse in the prison of the Mullahs, yet every one of them refused under threat of death to recant their faith of love.
 
The heartless Mullahs finally decided to make good on their threat and hanged these magnificent human beings, one-by-one. The Angel of Iran was the last to be hanged for she wished to pray for each woman as she was hanged. When Mona's turn came, she kissed the noose and placed it around her own neck with prayers on her lips.
 
The savage Islamists hanged the magnificent child-woman Mona after a long period of tortuous imprisonment. By killing her, the agents of Ahriman aimed to kill love. But assuredly they can never kill love. They only kill the lover.
 
Oh, you earthly angels!
You immigrating birds,
Whose only adornment
Is a bed of white feathers!
The innocent children of Iran,
Are wearing your white glowing robe,
And have left the memories of life,
To others! 
 
I see the poor black swallows,
Flying over the ruins of our city!
I see overflowing pain,
Intertwined,
With the hearts of every Persian!
 

My heart stops palpitating!
My breath starts to dry up!
My faith simply fades away,
And my bed falls silent.
 

Monday, July 14, 2008

Lebanon Needs A Peace Treaty With Israel

Lebanon Needs A Peace Treaty With Israel
By: Elias Bejjani

http://www.10452lccc.com/elias.english08/elias.peace14.7.08.htm

July/14/08

On Wednesday July 9th of this year, national news agencies reported that the Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Saniora had refused without any declared justifications, an Italian peace initiative presented to him by Italy's Ambassador to Lebanon, Mr. Gabriel Kekya. News reports stated that the Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, who was on an official visit to Israel, had asked his country's ambassador in Beirut to inform Mr. Saniora that he is willing to seriously mediate peace talks between Lebanon and Israel.

Mr. Saniora, bizarrely and for unexplained reasons, had also rejected on the tenth of last June, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's call for bilateral peace negotiations with Lebanon. Saniora rationalized his refusal by alleging that the outstanding issues between Lebanon and Israel are all governed by UN Resolutions including that of the Sheba Farms and in such, there is nothing to talk about. Olmert's call came a month after unveiling the ongoing indirect negotiations between Syria and Israel under Turkish auspices.

Lebanon's emotional and ignorant stance of stubbornly refusing peace talks with Israel is no longer acceptable, nor logical or justifiable.

One wonders why or what prevents Lebanon from doing what every other major Arabic country has done in initiating contact for purposes of peace with Israel. What could be especially said of Baathist Syria'?

Lebanon needs to remove its hesitation and relieve itself from the yoke of the 'Jamal Abdel Nasser Complex' and bury once and for all the stigmatizing Arab anti-Israeli phobia. Like it or not, Israel is a reality like the rest of the Middle East countries, and will remain so for many years to come.

While Lebanon's leadership is obviously afraid from Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and other Fundamentalist Arab regimes and Islamic armed militias, and accordingly keeps on avoiding any kind of peace talks with the Israelis, we find that those same countries and organizations are actively talking with the Israelis on many levels and on numerous issues!

The foremost runner in this context is Syria who adopts two completely contradicting stances. Overtly, and of course rhetorically, Syria tells its people and the Arabs that Israel is the enemy and should be dealt with accordingly, while covertly it is begging the Israelis for a peace treaty. During the past thirty years and without any sort of fear or embarrassment, Syria has never retreated from negotiating with the Jewish state either directly or through mediators. The latest series of talks are still ongoing via Turkey.

Many Syrian officials are even bragging about the extensive progress they have made in their negotiations with the Israelis and are calling on the US, the 'Great Satan' (as they and their allies the Iranians like to call it), and France to sponsor the whole process and assume full partnership in it.

Yesterday Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who side by side with the Israelis attended the 43-nation Union for the Mediterranean summit in Paris, told Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera that Damascus would establish "normal" relations with the Jewish state, including the opening of embassies.

It is worth mentioning that last year in April, Syrian-American negotiator Ibrahim Suleiman, who is a very close friend to the Syrian ruling Al Assad Family visited Israel and gave a speech publicly in its Knesset. He called on the Israelis to engage with the Baathist Syrians into a negotiating process in a bid to sign a peace treaty between the two countries. Reports that came from Israel during his visit stated that he offered the Israelis Syrian promises and guarantees that once the peace treaty is reached Syria will disarm and dismantle all the terrorist and fundamentalist Islamic organizations including Hezbollah and Hamas. In return, Syria was asking for Israeli, and American guarantees that the Assad ruling Family and its Baath Party will be helped and supported to remain in powe

We can not fail to point out that the assassination of the notorious Hezbollah terrorist, Imad Mughniyeh on February 13th of 2008 in the centre of the Syrian capital had been considered by many respected international observers as a Syrian blood message to both USA and Israel that said: Secure our control and ruling powers over Syria and in return we shall eliminate all the organizations and elements that bothers you.

The Lebanese people have the right to know why their government is refusing to talk peace with the Israelis while keeping a blind eye on Hezbollah's on going negotiations with the Jewish State under the German and UN auspices. Hezbollah's Secretary General admitted in one his fiery speeches last month that his group is negotiating with the Israelis through the UN who assigned a German mediator for this task.

It is also worth mentioning that a deal for exchanging body remains and prisoners between Hezbollah and Israel was sealed a few days ago and will be implemented later this week. The Lebanese government did not have any role in this deal and all its negotiating authorities were bluntly confiscated by Hezbollah.

The Lebanese people have the right to know why their government is refusing to talk with the Israelis, while the Palestinians themselves became full partners with the Israelis after the "Oslo Accord" and had accepted the right of Israeli's existence and renounced their armed struggle against it.

The Lebanese people have the right to know whether the rulers of Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Tunisia, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, the Arab Gulf states and other members of the Arab League are all traitors because they have either forged peace accords with Israel or have established diplomatic, trade and intelligence relations with its government.

The Lebanese people have the right to know why Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinians, all the Arab and Muslim countries, the Iranians and every other country and individual on this earth are allowed to talk with the Israelis while the legitimate Lebanese authorities are singled out and forbidden from doing so.

The painful and shocking reality is that Lebanon is to remain the final battle ground and an attractive arena for all Arab armed extremists, terrorists and fundamentalist groups as is the situation now with Hezbollah, the armed Iranian militia that has erected a state inside the Lebanese state and is on its way to topple the whole Lebanese regime and erect an Iranian one in its place. It has been devouring Lebanese institutions day after day while the whole world is watching and doing nothing.

No, this official Lebanese position is not more acceptable under any pretext, and there must be an immediate end put to it!

Lebanon's officials and its sovereign religious and political leaders have a legal and national obligation towards their fellow Lebanese citizens. They ought to put on the table all the reasons and elements that force them to keep Lebanon alienated from the Middle East process.

In case they are all helpless and threatened by Iran, Syria and Hezbollah they have to publicly admit these intimidating obstacles and officially call on the UN, the Arab League and free world countries to take over and face militarily the axis of evil powers as was the situation in Afghanistan, East Timor, Iraq and other African countries.

We call on the Lebanese officials and religious and political leadership in general especially President Michel Suleiman and Prime Minister Fouad Saniora in particular, to stop squawking like parrots their "Dhimmitude" rhetorical and humiliating slogan that says: Lebanon will be the last Arab country to negotiate with Israel and sign a peace treaty with it, because in fact Lebanon is the only country in the entire Middle East that is still holding itself hostage in this bizarre and unrealistic anti-Israel futile position.

Elias Bejjani
Chairman for the Canadian Lebanese Coordinating Council (LCCC)
Human Rights activist, journalist & political commentator.
Spokesman for the Canadian Lebanese Human Rights Federation (CLHRF)
E.Mail
phoenicia@hotmail.com

LCCC Web Site http://www.10452lccc.com
CLHRF Website http://www.clhrf.com

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Iran: bluffing or not?

It’s not just that he Iranians were faking photos. American experts have now concluded that they may well have fired only one rocket (and multiplied the shot) and that it may have been a Shahab II, about ten years out of date and capable of reaching only about 750 miles. Iranian society is still one in which exaggeration, bluff, and subterfuge go a long way. It’s hard to speak in standard Farsi without using all manner of honorifics and polite phrases (chashm-e shoma, may I be your eye; qurban-e shoma, may I be your sacrifice, Jenab-e ali, your excellency etc.). Ahmadinezhad is a master of cirumlocution. I don’t doubt his intentions when he says they will wipe Iran off the face of the map (echoing, as that does, Ayatollah Khomeini); but I’m very unsure of the immediacy of that, particularly if they don’t really have the capacity even to try.

All the same, I am really sceptical about either the US or Israel starting a war. Iran is too big, too varied in terrain (mountains, desert, poor road and rail infrastructure, unstable borders) to make it a safe place for a ground war. The country has a large population of over 70,000,000, much of it concentrated in and around Tehran, and a standing army, navy, and air force of 420,000, with pasdaran contingents of around 125,000. However, the voluntary militias of the Basij have a claimed membership of over 12 million, with some 3 million combat ready. In addition, they can call on the Lebanese Hizbullah, Iraqi Shi’i forces including the Jaysh al-Mahdi, and volunteers from the jihadi world, including many with combat experience from Chechnya, Bosnia, and Afghanistan.

If I were a commander, I would not want to take troops into that situation, especially since Iraq and Afghanistan are still undecided. The result would be disaster with not even a WMD to show for it.

An air war would be easier to fight, especially since the Iranian Air Force has never recovered in materiel or personnel from the purge that took place in 1979. They would not offer any real resistance to combined US and Israeli forces. But bombing nuclear installations would leave the Iranian armed forces intact (but for the IRIAF), and the consequences could be just as bad if they retaliated in Iraq or cut through northern Iraq (the Kurdish part) and across Syria to attack Israel.

At the same time, stopping them with diplomacy won’t work either. If the world community can’t get its act together to remove Robert Mugabe from his stolen presidency, how much harder it will be to act against a country that has some of the world’s largest oil resources, at a time when shortages of oil are having severe domestic effects in the West.

Some very good compromises have been offered, to allow Iran to build nuclear facilities to be used for internal energy applications, but they have all been turned down. Their talk about centrifuges may just be more bluff (some say they may only have 900, not the 3000 they claim. I still believe they intend to have a nuclear bomb of some kind and that, if they thought they could get away with it, they would nuke Israel (probably just Tel Aviv and maybe Haifa, but not Jerusalem, which would lose them Muslim support) and use Hizbullah to finish off what remained with rockets or even a ground assault.

None of us has a crystal ball, which means any decision about what to do to prevent this eventuality has to be based on very careful thinking about outcomes. But that is the situation as I now see it. Can anyone see a way to move forward?

Joint Communique with Mr. Bashar Al Assad, President of the Syrian Arab Republic

Published on 12-07-08 at 20:34
Joint Communique with Mr. Bashar Al Assad, President of the Syrian Arab Republic
Original in French

The President of the French Republic, Mr. Nicolas SARKOZY, and the President of the Syrian Arab Republic, Mr. Bashar Al Assad, carried out a wide-ranging review, referring to bilateral issues of regional and international interest.

In the light of positive regional developments, the two Presidents agreed on a work plan to ensure the revival of bilateral relations, with a common goal of strengthening political, economic and cultural ties between the two countries, particularly in the liguistic, education and  academic domains. .

In this context, the French President will visit Syria at the invitation of President Bashar Al Assad, before mid-September 2008.

This visit will be prepared by a trip to Paris of  Deputy Prime Minister DARDARI, 21 and 22 July and a visit to Damascus of the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Bernard Kouchner.

Both Presidents emphasized the importance of the Syrian-Israeli peace process and noted the progress already made in the indirect talks held between Syria and Israel under the auspices of Turkey.

The Syrian President said that he hoped that France, with the USA, can make its full contribution to a future peace agreement between Israel and Syria in the phase of direct negotiation as in the implementation of the agreement, including security arrangements as may be necessary. The French President  noted the availability of France to respond to any request to that effect, if the parties were interest.

The two presidents reiterated their full support for the Doha agreement. The French President welcomed the strong determination of the President of Syria to establish diplomatic relations with Lebanon, after the formation of a Lebanese government of national unity .

The French President, on behalf of the Presidency of the European Council,
will initiate the appropriate procedures for signing the association agreement between the EU and Syria, and the launch of the ratification process as soon as possible.

The two countries will cooperate in an active manner to ensure the success of the Mediterranean Union.
 

Friday, July 11, 2008

British media bias in coverage of Israel at 60

Following is a summary of the main points of this important analysis (Israel at 60 in the UK media – an analysis). Not surprisingly, it shows that BBC and journals such as the Guardian and Independent were consistently biased against Israel, and included gratuitous conclusions that indicate an active anti-Israel slant rather than opinions based on fact: Israel doesn't want peace, Israel was created at the expense of the Palestinians...  This is a good study, but we always want more. We would like to see (wouldn't we?):

1. An analysis of television broadcasts. Television and radio are more difficult to analyze for many reasons - images and tone are hard to quantify.  

2. A comparison of the coverage of Israel at 60 to the coverage of Israel at 50. Is anti-Israel bias getting worse or is it receding?

3. A tabulation of specific factual errors and omissions in op-ed articles. Opinion pieces are "allowed" to get the facts wrong. When they are always wrong in a specific direction they point to bias.

4. Did accounts of 1948 mention that it was the Arabs that attacked Israel?

5. How much of this British coverage included criticism of Britain's own role in creating the conflict, in reneging on its role as the British mandatory, and in attempting itself to ignore or violate UN Resolution 181, which called for partition? A mass of evidence indicates that the British wanted to ensure that the Negev would be part of Jordan. British failed to cooperate with UN officials and allowed Arab infiltrators to enter Palestine. It would be interesting to find out if any of this was mentioned in British commentary.

Ami Isseroff

 

Israel at 60 in the UK media – an analysis

http://www.justjournalism.com/plugins/p1999_media_special_articles/pdf/1504_Israel60Booklet_05.pdf

Just Journalism

contact@justjournalism.com

INTRODUCTION

In May 2008, Israel celebrated 60 years of independence since its inception in 1948. Just Journalism carried out a thematic and statistical analysis of coverage of this event in the UK media, during April and May 2008.

Scope of coverage

Our monitoring covered nine national daily newspapers, eight Sunday newspapers, one London daily and three weekly current affairs magazines. We also monitored the BBC News Website and six BBC Radio 4 rogrammes as well as a BBC2 documentary. (See Appendix A for a complete list of outlets and programmes monitored.)

Methodology

Our report has three objectives:

1 To summarise and evaluate the volume and depth of the coverage devoted to this event.

2 To identify the key messages that came through from the coverage as a whole.

3 To conclude at a macro level whether the coverage was broadly favourable, unfavourable or neutral.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Scope:

Israel's 60th anniversary was an event which received wide coverage in the UK media.

Seventy articles appeared in the print media, BBC Radio 4 aired 12 segments in the programmes we monitored, while the BBC News website featured over 40 articles related to this event. The Guardian carried the most coverage, followed by The Independent.

Themes:

A number of themes emerged from the coverage:

A key theme to emerge from the UK media coverage was that Israel does not seek peace. Eighty-three per cent of all press coverage which took a position on the issue contained the message that Israel does not seek peace.

Seventeen per cent of all press coverage which took a position on Israel's stance on peace contained the message that Israel seeks peace.

Only 16% of articles conveyed that Israel is a homeland for the Jews.

Just Journalism found that across all the coverage as a whole, the strongest theme to emerge was that Israel was created at the expense of the Palestinians. While Israel's anniversary celebrations received extensive coverage, this was generally offset by reporting on what the Palestinians call the "Nakba" or catastrophe.

A snapshot of the overall newspaper coverage indicates that 44 % of articles contained the message that Israel was created at the expense of the Palestinians, and this rises to 54% when looking at the broadsheets.

This message is particularly prominent in The Guardian and The Independent. Sixty-seven per cent of articles in The Guardian contained this message.

There was a noticeable lack of coverage of domestic issues in Israel, of concessions Israel has made for peace and of the existential threat to Israel posed by Iran.

Nevertheless, there were divergences in messages across media outlets:

Eighty per cent of the coverage in the Daily Telegraph, for instance, contained the message that Israel faces existential threats.

On BBC Radio 4, the strongest message was that Israel is a homeland for the Jews – a message appearing in 42% of items.

By contrast, the strongest message on the BBC News website was that Israel was created at the expense of the Palestinians – a message appearing in 45% of web articles

....

The purpose of extracting the key messages from each item of coverage was specifically to focus on the main

impression that was being conveyed to the reader or listener. We extracted the key messages from each individual

news item or article and then aggregated all the individual messages into common categories.

The messages we identified fall into eleven main categories, described below. Each article may contain one or more

of the following messages:

1. Israel was created at the expense of the Palestinians

This message came through from pieces that implied that Israel's 60th anniversary should necessarily be seen alongside Palestinian displacement and dispossession in 1948. These pieces usually refer to what is often described as the "Nakba" or "catastrophe".

2. Israel does not seek peace

Coverage in this category conveyed the sense that Israel is not seeking peace.

3. Israel is an entirely negative phenomenon

Coverage in this message category portrayed Israel in a fundamentally negative way, occasionally questioning the legitimacy of the Jewish State.

4. The Palestinian refugee problem is the fault of Israel

Coverage in this category referred exclusively to the events of 1948, but suggested that Israel is chiefly to blame for the Palestinian problem.

5. Israel has lost its ideals

This message was derived from coverage relating to an erosion of Israel's founding ideals and values.

6. Israel's future is uncertain

This message came through from pieces raising questions over Israel's future existence as a result of demographic trends, regional conditions or its policies.

7. Israel faces existential threats

Coverage in this message category highlighted the existential threats facing Israel, most commonly the threat from Iran.

8. Israel is a homeland for the Jews

This included pieces conveying the sense that Israel is a focal point for Jewish identity or that Israel is a haven for Jews around the world.

9. Israel is a successful country

Coverage containing this message conveyed admiration for Israel's accomplishments or recognised that Israel has excelled in key areas such as democracy, economy, social diversity and the high-tech industry.

10. Israel seeks peace

Coverage in this category conveyed the sense that Israel is seeking peace.

11. The Palestinian refugee problem is the fault of the Arab world

This covered pieces that referred exclusively to the events of 1948, and suggested that the Arab world is chiefly to blame for the Palestinian problem.

MESSAGING IN NEWSPAPERS

The section below summarises the key messages within the printed publications. A full discussion of the messaging in individual newspapers and magazines can be found in Part 5 – Analysis of Individual Media Outlets.

The broadsheets and tabloids are addressed separately.

Key messages across all newspapers

Eighty-three per cent of articles which took a position on Israel's stance on peace contained the message that

Israel did not seek peace.

Sixty-two per cent of articles which blamed one party for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem

blamed Israel.

Forty-four per cent of articles contained the message that Israel was created at the expense of the Palestinians.

Twenty-seven per cent of articles contained the message that Israel is a successful country.

Twenty-four per cent of articles contained the message that Israel faces existential threats.

Sixteen per cent of articles contained the message that Israel is a homeland for the Jews.

Sixteen per cent of articles contained the message that Israel has lost its ideals.

Fourteen per cent of articles carried the message that Israel's future is uncertain.

Ten per cent of coverage contained the message that Israel is an entirely negative phenomenon.

...

Key messages in broadsheets

Fifty-four per cent of articles contained the message that Israel was created at the expense of the Palestinians.

Eighty-eight per cent of articles which took a position on Israel's stance on peace contained the message that

Israel does not seek peace.

Ninety per cent of articles which blamed one party for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem

blamed Israel.

Twelve per cent of articles contained the message that Israel is an entirely negative phenomenon.

Twenty-two per cent of articles contained the message that Israel faces existential threats.

Twenty-six per cent of articles contained the message that Israel is a successful country.

Sixteen per cent of articles contained the message that Israel is a homeland for the Jews.

ISRAEL WAS CREATED AT THE EXPENSE OF THE PALESTINIANS

[Figure omitted]

.... For instance, out of 15 articles on Israel's 60th anniversary published in The Guardian, 10 (67%) contained the message that Israel was created at the expense of the Palestinians, whereas neither of the two articles in The Independent on Sunday contained that message.

Overall, 54% of articles in the broadsheets carried the message that Israel was created at the expense of the Palestinians.

All the daily broadsheets published at least one article containing the message.

Two out of four Sunday broadsheets published articles with the same message.

An example of this message:

"That is why today – the anniversary of the end of the British mandate in Palestine and the declaration of Israeli

statehood – is also a day of mourning for 10 million Palestinians and their supporters: the commemoration of

the nakba, or catastrophe, that led to the destruction of their society and expulsion from their homeland."

(Seamus Milne, Expulsion and dispossession can't be cause for celebration, The Guardian, May 15, 2008)

ISRAEL IS AN ENTIRELY NEGATIVE PHENOMENON

[Figure omitted - only the Guardian and the Independent carried this message]

Overall, 12% of articles in the broadsheets carried the message that Israel is an entirely negative phenomenon.

This message was only carried in The Guardian and The Independent.

An example of this message:

"Sixty years after the creation of Israel, there could not be a wider gap between the cruel reality of Israel today and Herzl's dream." (Jacqueline Rose, Israeli fiction – the nation's conscience, The Guardian, May 10, 2008)

ISRAEL DOES NOT SEEK PEACE

[Figure omitted]

Forty per cent of articles carried the message that Israel does not seek peace. All the daily broadsheets published articles containing the message.

Of the Sunday broadsheets, only The Observer published an article with this message.

An example of this message is the following:

"there has always been a strain of Israeli society that preferred violently setting its own borders, on its own terms, to talk and compromise. This weekend, the elected Hamas government offered a six-month truce that could have led to talks. The Israeli government responded within hours by blowing up a senior Hamas leader and killing a 14-year-old girl." (Johann Hari, Israel is suppressing a secret it must face, The Independent, April 28, 2008).

ISRAEL HAS LOST ITS IDEALS

[Figure omitted]

Overall, 14% of articles in the broadsheets carried the message that Israel has lost its ideals. Of the daily broadsheets, The Guardian, Financial Times and The Times carried the message. Of the Sunday broadsheets, only The Observer published an article with this message.

An example of this message is the following: "Today, with the 60th anniversary of independence fast approaching, there are a significant number of Israelis on both left and right asking whether in the intervening period the Israel declared by its founding fathers as a largely secular, communitarian project has not somehow lost the plot.." (Sam Kiley, Israel: 60 years of hope and despair,

The Observer, April 20, 2008)

ISRAEL IS A SUCCESSFUL COUNTRY

[Figure omitted]

Overall, only 26% of articles in the broadsheets carried the message that Israel is a successful country. All the daily broadsheets published at least one article containing the message.

Three out of four of the Sunday broadsheets published articles with the same message.

An example of this message:

"…60 years after its creation the very existence of the state of Israel remains nothing short of a miracle: a miracle of human will, determination and ultimately of hope. In less than three generations and in spite of extremely difficult conditions, Israelis have managed not only to survive but also to create a rich and original culture; to achieve spectacular results in science and medicine; and to create a technological hub in the region." (Dominique Moisi,

Israel's Pride and Prejudice at 60, Financial Times, April 30, 2008)

ISRAEL IS A HOMELAND FOR THE JEWS

Overall, 16% of articles in the broadsheets carried the message that Israel is a homeland for the Jews.All the daily broadsheets except The Times published at least one article containing this message. Three out of four of the Sunday broadsheets published articles with the same message.

An example of this message:

" …This Zionist anthem articulates something very deep in Israelis' sense of themselves: they are a nation formed by those who had no other place to live. The Holocaust, inevitably, looms large in this: the establishment of a Jewish state just three years after the liberation of Auschwitz was no coincidence. After 2,000 years, the world was finally persuaded that the Jews deserved what every other people regarded as a basic right: a place of their own." (Jonathan Freedland, As it turns 60, the fear is Israel has decided it can get by without peace,

The Guardian, May 7, 2008)

ISRAEL SEEKS PEACE

[Figure omitted]

Overall, only 6% of articles carried the message that Israel seeks peace. This message was only contained in three articles in The Daily Telegraph, The Independent and The Sunday Telegraph. An example of this message:

"Mr Rabin, who won the Nobel peace prize for negotiating the Oslo Accords with the Palestinian leader Yasser

Arafat in 1993, showed that the Jewish state could also make painful concessions in the interests of peaceful

coexistence with its Arab neighbours". (Con Coughlin, As Israel remembers horrors of the past, the future

looms dark, The Daily Telegraph, May 2, 2008)

ISRAEL'S FUTURE IS UNCERTAIN

[Figure omitted]

Overall, 18% of articles carried the message that Israel's future is uncertain.

The Guardian, The Independent, Financial Times and The Observer published articles carrying this message.

An example of this message:

"..Hopefully I will not live to see the day when it becomes possible that the State of Israel might no longer exist" (Daniel Barenboim, Israel and me, The Guardian, May 14, 2008)

ISRAEL FACES EXISTENTIAL THREATS

[Figure omitted]

Overall, 22% of articles carried the message that Israel faces existential threats. This message featured particularly strongly in The Daily Telegraph. The message was not carried in The Guardian, The Observer, The Times, and The Sunday Times.

An example of this message:

"For a long time Israel has been accused of crying wolf over surrounding countries that want to "drive it into the sea". Now it has a neighbour whose president has not only made that threat explicit, but who intends to develop the capacity to do it." (Martin Bright, New Statesman, The Great Betrayal, May 19, 2008)

21

BBC Radio

Key messages in BBC Radio coverage

Forty-two per cent of coverage contained the message that Israel is a homeland for the Jews.

Thirty-three per cent of coverage contained the message that Israel was created at the expense of

the Palestinians.

Twenty-five per cent of coverage contained the message that Israel faces existential threats.

Twenty-five per cent of coverage contained the message that Israel's future is uncertain.

BBC News Website

Key messages on BBC News website

Forty-five per cent of web coverage contained the message that Israel was created at the expense ofthe Palestinians.

Thirty-one per cent of coverage contained the message that Israel is a homeland for the Jews.

Twenty-six per cent of coverage contained the message that Israel is not seeking peace.

Twenty-one per cent of coverage contained the message that Israel is a successful country.

PART 3: POSITIONING ANALYSIS

In addition to categorising key messages, we also observed how Israel was presented in broad terms, by noting

whether each piece of coverage was positive, negative, or neutral, as defined below:

Positive

Israel was cast in a largely favourable light.

Negative

Israel was cast in a largely unfavourable light.

Neutral

Israel was cast neither in a favourable nor unfavourable light.

Overall Statistics For All Newspapers

Just Journalism found 70 articles across all the newspapers with relevant coverage.

Thirty-six per cent of coverage was negative.

Forty-three per cent of coverage was neutral.

Twenty-one per cent was positive.

[Figure omitted]

23

Broadsheets

Just Journalism found 50 articles across the broadsheets with relevant coverage.

Thirty-eight per cent of coverage was negative.

Forty-two per cent of coverage was neutral.

Twenty per cent of coverage was positive.

Therefore nearly twice as many broadsheet articles were negative than positive.

[Figure omitted]

... The Guardian and The Independent contained the most negative coverage while the

Telegraph titles carried the most positive coverage. None of the Sunday broadsheets carried negative articles.

BBC Radio

Just Journalism monitored 42 broadcasts on BBC Radio 4, including Sunday, Today and The World Tonight,

finding 12 pieces of relevant coverage.

Seventeen per cent of the coverage was negative.

Sixty-six per cent of the coverage was neutral.

Seventeen per cent of the coverage was positive.

BBC News Website

Just Journalism found 42 web items on the BBC News website.

Forty-three per cent of the coverage was negative.

Fifty-two per cent of the coverage was neutral.

Five per cent of the coverage was positive.

Therefore negative coverage outweighed positive coverage by almost nine to one.

Of the 42 items published, 20 were authored pieces. Interestingly, a separate study of the authored pieces

revealed the following:

Sixty per cent of the coverage was negative.

Forty per cent of the coverage was neutral.

[The detailed analysis of journals is omitted]

CONCLUSION

The 60th anniversary of Israel's creation was an event that received extensive coverage in the UK media. This coverage varied across the media outlets, but the strongest theme overall was that Israel was created at the expense of the Palestinians. The focus on this theme suggests a shift in the British media towards the Palestinian narrative on 1948.

A second theme that emerged from the UK media was that Israel does not seek peace, characterised by the focus on the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and its policy towards Gaza. In contrast, there were few references to the concessions that Israeli governments have made over recent years in order to advance peace with the Palestinians–from Oslo in 1993 through to the Camp David talks in 2000 and the Disengagement from Gaza in 2005.

Arguably, the most noticeable omission in the coverage was the lack of focus on Israel's domestic issues, such as the hi-tech industry, the impact of immigration on Israeli society or relations between the religious and secular populations. Israel's 60th anniversary provided a rare opportunity for the UK media to explore and scrutinize the diverse challenges facing the Jewish State and its society. Yet, with a few exceptions, such as the Economist, the Financial Times and BBC Radio 4, the British media missed this opportunity.