[arkades]

I lost my respect for the Guardian a while back. They were reporting on hostilities in Israel.

They had a side-bar for "Related Articles", which were one after the other - critical of Israel as being an unprovoked aggressor. Fine, if that's the truth, except:

Every article I opened had a long lead-in about Israeli aggression, its consequences, etc. Every article had buried in the last paragraph, practically mumbling under its breath, "The IDF moved in because they were repeatedly being attacked by RPGs &tc." Nothing was provided to suggest the IDF was lying or incorrect about being provoked - so why was one headline after the other all about characterizing unprovoked unilateral aggression?

I was done. It's fine to be critical of Israeli policies and military posturing; it's another to essentially lie through your teeth and then cover your ass in postscript.

[hibikir]

I was born and raised in Spain, and now live in the US. In my experience, the coverage of news about Israel in the US and Spain are about as different as black and white. What you describe about The Guardian seems like normal coverage in Spain.

The experience mase me understand that, in practice, all sources have major amounts of spin where you might not expect it, and that it is very difficult to figure out which spin, if any, is closer to reality. It's not about fake news, but about how wide the journalist's sources are, and how much did they care about digging for what is real.

[quirkafleeg]

> why was one headline after the other all about characterizing unprovoked unilateral aggression?

That's hard to say, since you haven't provided any examples of it.

[markdown]

Israel is occupying Palestine. When Palestinians fight back, Israelis can't claim to have been provoked, when their occupation is the original provocation.

It's like claiming Hitler just justified in killing 6 million jews because after he killed 1 million, a few jews tried to fight back, and he had to kill another 5 million because he was provoked.

[angry_octet]

I think "original provocation" is a little hard to claim when we are talking about Jerusalem. Even in recent history, the '48 Arab-Israeli war, pan-Arab forces attempted to crush the nascent Jewish enclave.

Also, I find your Holocaust allusion extremely tasteless.

[markdown]

> Even in recent history, the '48 Arab-Israeli war, pan-Arab forces attempted to crush the nascent Jewish enclave.

If you're going that far back, why not just a handful of years earlier? Palestine getting flooded with immigrants whose sole purpose was to replace the incumbent population and establish their own state.

The American far right is terrified that muslims are going to take over an establish sharia law... all based on nonsense. The Palestinians actually had that happen to them, and you don't think they were justified in feeling invaded?

> Also, I find your Holocaust allusion extremely tasteless.

Of course it was. That was why it was said. I find your defence of the Israeli apartheid and their continued occupation of Palestine and brutal oppression of a hopeless people to be just as tasteless.

EDIT: In any case, thank you for explaining the original downvote, unlike the others.

[angry_octet]

The Jewish flight from Europe and concurrent Zionism is significantly different is character to the current Israeli behaviour, which is undoubtedly seeking to illegally expel Palestinians from the West Bank. But to say that the Palestinians and their allies had no role in this process is also absurd. The plight of the Palestinians is dire, but their actions must also be weighted. In many ways they have the Israelis they deserve, and the Israelis have the Hamas they deserve.

The American far right is so disconnected from reality and humanity as to render their arguments null and void. I am not arguing their positions.

I don't think though that any mass migration of a persecuted people is an invasion, no matter how much the current inhabitants don't like them.

When the state of Israel was attacked by an existential threat it defended itself, and it now occupies the terrain required to defend itself. The continual threat from Syria more than justifies holding the Golan Heights. The rocket attacks from Gaza on heavily populated areas (and control by Hamas) certainly justify some blockade. The West Bank territory squeezes so close to Tel Aviv that ceding it to a regime that might rocket them is impossible.

The Israelis use of heavy weapons on Gaza is indefensible, as are the continued growth of West Bank settlements. But they fall short of being comparable in any way with the Holocaust.

[markdown]

Well argued. Thank you for sharing your opinions on what is obviously a very complex issue.