[hbt]

Though global populations show a larger anti-Israel sentiment, Western media and internet forums don't reflect this balance.

Western media often aligns with Israeli perspectives due to strategic alliances, lobbying influence, and media ownership dynamics, framing Israel’s actions as defensive while sidelining broader Arab or Palestinian views.

Online, pro-Israel narratives are reinforced by organized digital campaigns and moderation practices that shape public discourse. Meanwhile, pro-Palestinian voices lack comparable resources and organization in Western spaces, limiting their visibility. This creates a media and digital environment where Western audiences are exposed to narratives that don’t fully represent the global spectrum of perspectives.

[edanm]

> Though global populations show a larger anti-Israel sentiment, Western media and internet forums don't reflect this balance.

I'm not sure you're right. Isn't this a bit hard to judge without first deciding what is true and what constitutes bias? I'm fairly certain we don't agree with on either of these.

Most Israelis consider things like the BBC and the NYT to be biased against Israel. Are you sure they're wrong?

[CapricornNoble]

The NYT insisted that a veteran of the Israeli air force, with no prior reporting experience, conduct on the ground research for a massively-significant piece on Hamas sexual abuse allegations.

https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schw... The fear among Times staffers who have been critical of the paper’s Gaza coverage is that Schwartz will become a scapegoat for what is a much deeper failure. She may harbor animosity toward Palestinians, lack the experience with investigative journalism, and feel conflicting pressures between being a supporter of Israel’s war effort and a Times reporter, but Schwartz did not commission herself and Sella to report one of the most consequential stories of the war. Senior leadership at the New York Times did.

Why would you consider the NYT biased against Israel?

[nielsbot]

I’d say the media’s attitude towards Israel and Palestine is conveniently summarized in the Ta-Nehisi Coates interview with Tony Dokupil.

[edanm]

1. That's just one interview, I'm not sure it's actually representative.

2. Even if you think it is, that's just the US media specifically. I agree that they tend to be relatively pro-Israel, especially compared to other countries, but there are other countries.

3. If we accept that this is representative, can we also consider Ta-Nehisi Coates's book itself to be representative of the attitude of "intellectuals" in the US on Israel? As he himself said, he came into the topic biased against Israel, went to the West Bank to "study" the issue for 10 days only, chose not to talk to any Israeli at all to get any other side of the issue, and wrote what is likely to be the highest-selling book this year about the topic.

Not exactly a great example of journalistic rigor, IMO.

[nielsbot]

Sorry—I was focusing on bias in US media. (I live in the US)

> As he himself said, he came into the topic biased against Israel, went to the West Bank to "study" the issue for 10 days only, chose not to talk to any Israeli at all to get any other side of the issue

What is the other side of the issue? He and actually experts who study Israel call it apartheid. Is it not? If it is, is there a justification for implementing it? Or maybe I’m missing your point.

[edanm]

Some experts call it apartheid, most Israelis disagree (and Israel officially disagrees). [1]

> If it is, is there a justification for implementing it? Or maybe I’m missing your point.

Well, yes. That's exactly the other side of the issue, and is exactly what a real journalist talking about the Israel/Palestine situation should ideally explore.

This is an HN comment, not exactly the place for the history of the relations between the West Bank and Israel, but the short version is - most of the measures taking place in the WB are a direct result of terror attacks committed by the Palestinians, as a means of securing Israel from future attacks. You can see that relations were much better 40 years ago, it's not like Israel set out to have some kind of apartheid regime over the WB - people from Israel used to go far more freely into the WB, Palestinians used to work far more freely in Israel.

But as more and more attacks happened, Israel implemented various measures to stop terror - including the infamous checkpoints, including various border walls, including limiting work permits for Palestinians.

Looking at a snapshot of the WB now is looking at the end result of worsening relations over many years, with many of the things that seem "cruel" being direct measures to prevent terror attacks; and to prevent things like October 7th happening on a far larger scale, as would happen if it happened from the WB.

Most Israelis believe, probably correctly, that without these security measures, tens of thousands of Israelis would be killed. That would cause almost any country to do whatever it can to secure its "border".

[1] I personally don't care much for battles over semantics; if people agree on what is actually happening in the WB, then whether to call it apartheid or not seems irrelevant to me. There are lots of differences from the situation in South Africa, and lots of similarities.

I think it's worth keeping in mind that Palestinians are not Israeli citizens, and ostensibly the leadership of the Palestinians, which has a limited government role over the WB, is aiming to become a separate state; those circumstances make it seem, to me, that wondering why Palestinians don't have the same rights as Israelis is a category error, like wondering why Mexicans don't have the same rights as Americans.

Then again, it's also worth keeping in mind that whatever the goals of the Palestinians, in some respects Israel does, in fact, have control over the people of the WB, so in practice there are real problems here.

[runarberg]

Finding justifications for apartheid will only be an exercise in racism.

Apartheid is a crime against humanity, illegal under international law, and countries have an obligation to prevent apartheid policies from persisting.

Israel’s policies in the West Bank has been ruled to be an apartheid by the ICJ, and Israel has been ordered (non-binding though) to stop apartheid practices, reverse the damage and pay reparations.

[cutler]

> Looking at a snapshot of the WB now is looking at the end result of worsening relations over many years

Including the Nakba?