Responding to some comments

Wally asked, "please let us have your opinion as to why Hamas chooses the most populated areas from which to launch their rockets?"

Matt said I don't need to defend Hamas.

So somehow the media is so genius that straight-up carnage is shown on television. Raw #'s 430 Palestinian, 4 Israelis dead. And yet they talk their way out of the reality.

Self-defense against Hamas terrorism. People shouldn't have to live with the constant threat of rockets.

No, no one should live with the constant threat of rockets.

And no one should have to live with no electricity, no medicine, now no food, no freedom of movement, no ability to work, no way to pursue any kind of future, constant surveillance, constant humiliation, illegal occupation, and NOW this kind of bombardment. This is the worst kind of terror. You can see it with your own eyes.

And yet, it gets spinned. Don't empathize with the Palestinians. Empathize with the Israelis. How does this happen?

1) Israelis are Americans. Arabs are not Americans.

2) Palestinians are terrorists. The media and Israelis keep saying the target is Hamas. Hamas is a bad government. Hamas is terrorists. But Hamas is the democratically elected government of a people who are contending with a peace process that has done nothing for them. Gaza is the area of Detroit. Everyone is related to someone or knows someone in Hamas. To some extent there are weapons anywhere, and most of the people would have no idea.

Israel can say they are going after military, terrorist, Hamas targets. But when you ask them what it is. It's the whole of Gaza. Those guys in New York told me that the women are terrorists, and those "children" want them dead. So therefore Israel doesn't have to answer for the numbers of 80 children and 30 women dead. Though the rest of the world would define them as civilians (though of course women can be whatever).

The only way this works is to make a distinction between Hamas and Palestinians. The Israeli/U.S. defenders of these atrocities say that they're targeting Hamas, not Palestinians. But if you really ask them, to them it is all the same. Or in reality, there is no way to make the distinction.

Everyone who asks me to empathize with an Israeli living with the threat of rockets must be able to empathize with a Palestinian living under illegal Israeli occupation.

Neither is right. I'm not justifying Hamas. But I'll justify the right of a Palestinian to live as a human being. Anyone who looks at the TV and keeps empathizing for those people who live where 4 people died, and at the same time refuses to empathize with the people who have to live where 400 have died has no moral ground to stand on.

The cease-fire calls for everyone to stop.

How Media Bias Works

When I woke up this morning, this Washington Post article was the first article listed under the Top Stories in my Google News aggregator.

Let’s look at the structure of this article and some quotes to see the media bias and how people who just read American sources will come out in favor of Israel.

1) The article opens by saying that Israel rejected the cease-fire because it needs a guarantee that Hamas will stop firing rockets into Israel.

All the quotes in this entire article come from Israel, or the EU or the White House spokesman who are supporting Israel's position.

2) "By Wednesday afternoon local time a barrage of more than 20 rockets and mortar shells had struck southern Israel, including five that crashed in and around the city of Beersheba, about 25 miles from Gaza. There were no serious casualties reported."

Nowhere in the article does it describe the kinds of terror the entire population of Gaza is living with. They cannot leave; they are imprisoned. But we know that the Israelis have to live with the terror of rockets being fired upon them, that most of the time do not kill anyone. By including three numbers, the writer give us a sense of immediacy and factuality which makes it easier for the reader to relate to a distant place.

3) "Israel continued to pound the Gaza Strip for the fifth day from the air and from the sea, targeting Hamas outposts and the network of tunnels along the Gaza-Egypt border used by the militant group to smuggle weapons, the Israeli military said. "

It does not say they have killed more that 370 people or any of the other extensive damage, especially to non-military targets. There is one number (fifth day). Many other very important numbers are noticeably missing.

The reason for the Israeli violence is made clear: targeting military installations. A justification is made clear. It says nothing of non-military casualties and damage.

4) Israel "consider[ed]" and "publicly weighed" a ceasefire. "Hamas, meanwhile, vowed to continue firing rockets."

So Israelis are very rational and civilized, but Hamas is just violent and shoots rockets for no reason. This source does not go into any of the reasons for Hamas's behavior or actions, but as noted, the article shows how Israel's (seemingly indefensible) actions are justified.

5) “Since Israel withdrew its soldiers and settlements from Gaza in 2005, rockets launched from the strip into Israel have killed 13 civilians, according to the Israeli government.”

It gives the numbers of Israeli casualties. It doesn’t say how many people the Israelis have killed. I can guarantee it’s a lot more than 13. Nowhere in the article does it say how many people in Gaza have died or the extent of the damage.

6) "Israel allowed 93 trucks into Gaza -- 50 with humanitarian supplies and the rest with commercial goods. The humanitarian shipments included flour, rice, sugar, lentils and medication -- all donated by aid groups."

Great details, and absolutely no details about the extent of the humanitarian disaster and chaos. How many people don't have electricity or water or food or basic sanitary conditions or even houses?

7) " Israel has not allowed foreign reporters into Gaza since its operation began Saturday. "

So then what kind of information is coming out? Is the Washington Post saying this to cover its ass, for not getting quotes from the other side? There are plenty of journalists and bloggers and photographers inside who are selling all kinds of information. This is the only economy right now in the Occupied Territories. If they wanted to, they could present some details and numbers and even justifications from the other side.

The New York Times article (now listed as #1 in the Google News aggregator) is essentially the same, emphasizing the diplomatic measures Israel is considering and how much humanitarian aid they're allowing in. It includes many details of rockets being fired into Israel, and hitting an "empty school". No description at all of the situation in Gaza. I have no picture what it is like there. But they do say "punishing air attacks". But they are punishing, since Gazans clearly brought it upon themselves. Again, absolutely no way of explaining their rational reasons for engaging in the actions that they do.

But they do include "Palestinian officials say that more than 370 people have been killed, among them, the United Nations says, at least 62 women and children and an unknown number of civilian men. Two sisters, ages 4 and 11, were killed in a strike in the north as concern was growing around the world that the assault was taking a terrible toll on civilians."

And then in the second page, they include the details I'm looking for: quotes from the Gazans and images. They're joking about the specific way they will be incinerated as they wait in lines for four hours to purchase necessities that are in short supply. There is no electricity, but this is "for the first time." I beg to differ with that.

And of course, they put in this quote, "When asked his view of the situation, Yousef took an unusual stand for someone in Gaza, where Israel is being cursed by most everyone. 'I blame Hamas. It doesn’t want to recognize Israel. If they did so there could be peace,' he said." That quote was in the article before the NYT found someone to give it to them. I know how that works. During the July War in Lebanon, I talked on the phone with a reporter from Fox who needed a foreign student who was really scared and thankful that their government was giving them a free ride. They already had the article written; they just needed a name to fill in.

In the New York Times, the #4 most popular e-mailed article right now is an Op-Ed entitled "Why Israel Feels Threatened". As if we need to hear the same things again and again: painting themselves as a victim. "The Holocaust is increasingly becoming a faint and ineffectual memory and the Arab states are increasingly powerful and assertive." Where does it talk about what it's like to live as an Arab in the Occupied Territories? It would be so hard to believe. Americans would say it's a lie. They wouldn't understand. They wouldn't want to be implicated in the extent of the human rights abuses. Check out alternative sources of media, like Electronic Intifada. Look at the other side. It is shocking.

The Western Media's Love Affair with the Chador

"At the same time, the Western press once again started to attack the 'fanaticism' of Islamic movements. An enthusiastic campaign was launched in defence of Iranian women condemned to the dark walls of the chador. Iran overnight became peopled by hundreds of thousands of women, impressive yet chilling as they stood clothed in their long black robes, while the incessant click of Western cameras carried this medieval sight to millions of readers all over the world. Yet this enthusiasm for women's rights, or even human rights, was sadly lacking when thousands of Iranian men and women were being shot to death by army guns, or assassinated or tortured in the underground cells of the Savak, or when a whole people--men, women and children-was forced to flee its land to settle in the tents of refugee camps, or when peaceful populations were being burnt to death with napalm or torn to pieces by cluster bombs."

Nawal El Saadawi, The Hidden Face of Eve: Women in the Arab World (London: Zed Press, 1979), pp. vii-viii.