The Mechanisms of Media Bias in the I/P Conflict

[Mithrae]

There is also, as yet unmentioned, the racist element to this settler colonialist endeavour that was found in the others and is still supported today , often seen right here in this subforum. That is the idea that the Jews should have their homeland at the expense of the indigenous Arabs simply because they were able to develop it. You can see the same excuses for all of the other settler colonialist examples. We same the same " savage " natives that are not presented as civilized in the I/P conflict as we saw in the propaganda justifications for the other settler colonialist systems. " A land without a people" ? ring any bells?

Again, for Jewish immigration and autonomy to come at the expense of local Arabs was never necessary and by all appearances never even desired by most Jewish people and leaders; that it turned out that way was a result of the conflict of which Arabs were probably the earliest and certainly the main instigators. Trying to draw a parallel with European colonialism seems rather strained from this angle, as from others, because it requires ignoring various inconvenient facts which put Jews' right to immigrate and self-govern on much better standing against Palestinians' right to exclude and deny them. You're trying to create an equivalency between on the one hand Europeans coming over to (for them) brand new lands with no justification to migrate and claim them against the obvious sovereignty of the local inhabitants, and on the other Jews returning often under the duress of persecution or genocide to a historical and cultural homeland from which their people had been repeatedly unjustly expelled over the millennia and over which local inhabitants did not have sovereignty.

In the case of Australia or America or the like, one could argue that since the native peoples 'owned' the land and it was stolen from them, by rights that land should all be returned to the heirs/descendants of the original owners and failure to do so constitutes a crime of receiving stolen goods on a massive scale. The biggest problem I have with that argument is the question of whether it it is legitimate to/what it means to 'own' land, an uncreated, unearned, finite, vital resource. But inasmuch as we do talk about owning or administering or 'rightful' sovereignty over a land, obviously those lands belonged to the Aborigines and Native Americans and their descendants should have special rights even many generations after the land was taken from them. Judging by your contempt for colonial history I'm guessing you might agree with that? But I'm sure you already know how that principle can be applied in the case of Palestine, whose main inhabitants for most of the 1st millennium BCE were forcibly conquered and ultimately exterminated, enslaved or expelled in large numbers. Claiming 'ownership' of the land for 19th or early 20th century Palestinian Arabs is problematic enough in itself; outright denying any legitimacy to Jewish migration and autonomy is even more problematic.

As is often the case I think the more reasonable perspective lies between the extremes, namely that both Palestinian nationalists and Zionists had a legitimate case, and given the historically-proven population capacity of the region both groups could and should have been able to reach a satisfactory compromise. Unfortunately the leaders and many people of one of those groups were seemingly far less willing to reach a peaceful compromise and considerably more inclined towards overt hostility and violence, leading to this ongoing cycle of conflict down to the present.

 

[Evilroddy]

Here is a case study in the kind of media bias and self-censorship which the I/P Conflict causes in the American media. Scientific American ran a generally pro-Palestinian article on the challenges of delivering good medical support to a people under attack during the last Israeli military intervention into Gaza and immediately faced a storm of blowback from American and some international pro-Israeli groups running a massive campaign to punish Scientific American for running such an article. About two weeks the article was pulled and retracted by the publication despite being found to be completely factually correct and accurate by an investigation into the authors' report. It is a good bet that after this debacle, Scientific American will be gun-shy if any other writers bring the publication a similar and equally accurate article.

Scientific American Retracted Pro-Palestine Article Without Any Factual Errors

The journal Scientific American, after extensive fact-checking, retracted the article expressing solidarity with Palestinians during Israel’s bombardment.

theintercept.com

The links in this article are particularly enlightening.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Valaisee]

Here is a case study in the kind of media bias and self-censorship which the I/P Conflict causes in the American media. Scientific American ran a generally pro-Palestinian article on the challenges of delivering good medical support to a people under attack during the last Israeli military intervention into Gaza and immediately faced a storm of blowback from American and some international pro-Israeli groups running a massive campaign to punish Scientific American for running such an article. About two weeks the article was pulled and retracted by the publication despite being found to be completely factually correct and accurate by an investigation into the authors' report. It is a good bet that after this debacle, Scientific American will be gun-shy if any other writers bring the publication a similar and equally accurate article.

Scientific American Retracted Pro-Palestine Article Without Any Factual Errors

The journal Scientific American, after extensive fact-checking, retracted the article expressing solidarity with Palestinians during Israel’s bombardment.

theintercept.com

The links in this article are particularly enlightening.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

I'm not familiar with "Scientific American", but if they are a science focused platform it is expected that political non-science related articles as this would be removed from it. If they allow Pro-Israel non-science related articles then they are really biased.

 

[Chagos]

Here is a case study in the kind of media bias and self-censorship which the I/P Conflict causes in the American media. Scientific American ran a generally pro-Palestinian article on the challenges of delivering good medical support to a people under attack during the last Israeli military intervention into Gaza and immediately faced a storm of blowback from American and some international pro-Israeli groups running a massive campaign to punish Scientific American for running such an article. About two weeks the article was pulled and retracted by the publication despite being found to be completely factually correct and accurate by an investigation into the authors' report. It is a good bet that after this debacle, Scientific American will be gun-shy if any other writers bring the publication a similar and equally accurate article.

Scientific American Retracted Pro-Palestine Article Without Any Factual Errors

The journal Scientific American, after extensive fact-checking, retracted the article expressing solidarity with Palestinians during Israel’s bombardment.

theintercept.com

The links in this article are particularly enlightening.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

If indeed the article was pulled on account of whatever interest group exerted pressure on Scientific American, that would be not only a darn shame but also reflect badly on the journal's reputation of objective publishing.

In this case, however, Scientific's explanation of what is essentially an opinion piece falling outside its scope of publications seems credible. Especially when taking into account the journal's overall nature and subsequent publication modus.

As to the factual accuracy of claims in the opinion piece (as "intercept" states), that has nothing to do with anything there, be the claims themselves true or not, either totally, partially or not at all.

When reading the opinion piece itself, one might as well go straight to the Palliwood textbook from which posters like OW2 clearly feed to the exclusion of most everything else.

Where Scientific American truly failed in my opinion, was to publish that rant in the first place. Just as they would have failed by publishing an equally un-evidenced anti-Palestinian rant, had they done so.

In fact they'd have been well advised to refrain from publishing any sort of politically biased rant (or, for that matter, any rant at all) and, thankfully, appear to have realized that with time.

 

[Evilroddy]

I'm not familiar with "Scientific American", but if they are a science focused platform it is expected that political non-science related articles as this would be removed from it. If they allow Pro-Israel non-science related articles then they are really biased.

If indeed the article was pulled on account of whatever interest group exerted pressure on Scientific American, that would be not only a darn shame but also reflect badly on the journal's reputation of objective publishing.

In this case, however, Scientific's explanation of what is essentially an opinion piece falling outside its scope of publications seems credible. Especially when taking into account the journal's overall nature and subsequent publication modus.

As to the factual accuracy of claims in the opinion piece (as "intercept" states), that has nothing to do with anything there, be the claims themselves true or not, either totally, partially or not at all.

When reading the opinion piece itself, one might as well go straight to the Palliwood textbook from which posters like OW2 clearly feed to the exclusion of most everything else.

Where Scientific American truly failed in my opinion, was to publish that rant in the first place. Just as they would have failed by publishing an equally un-evidenced anti-Palestinian rant, had they done so.

In fact they'd have been well advised to refrain from publishing any sort of politically biased rant (or, for that matter, any rant at all) and, thankfully, appear to have realized that with time.

Valaisee and @Chagos

The article in question was published in the magazine's Policy and Ethics section as an editorial. This is the section of the magazine which frequently deals with political issues rather than purely scientific ones. The article was approved for publication after a very intensive vetting and fact-checking process by the editorial staff of the magazine and it was deemed fit to print.

It was up for several days before the campaign led by CAMERA to intimidate Scientific American began and got real traction. It was only after that campaign was well underway by right-wing, pro-Israeli political groups and influential "friends of the State of Israel" that the article was summarily removed from the digital version of the magazine. A retrospective investigation found that the article was completely accurate and factual. It was the bias of the article which was unacceptable but this was deemed to be the case only after the campaign to suppress the article was under way. All editorials are biased.

Chagos:

OW2? Synthetic oil, video game, corporate software? You've lost me here.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Chagos]

~..................... It was the bias of the article which was unacceptable but this was deemed to be the case only after the campaign to suppress the article was under way...............~

So does that make the opinion piece's bias less unacceptable? I'd think not but what I think matters far less here than what "Scientific" eventually decided (to do).

Chagos:

OW2? Synthetic oil, video game, corporate software? You've lost me here.

Yes, all of those and then some.

 

[Valaisee]

Valaisee and @Chagos

The article in question was published in the magazine's Policy and Ethics section as an editorial. This is the section of the magazine which frequently deals with political issues rather than purely scientific ones. The article was approved for publication after a very intensive vetting and fact-checking process by the editorial staff of the magazine and it was deemed fit to print.

It was up for several days before the campaign led by CAMERA to intimidate Scientific American began and got real traction. It was only after that campaign was well underway by right-wing, pro-Israeli political groups and influential "friends of the State of Israel" that the article was summarily removed from the digital version of the magazine. A retrospective investigation found that the article was completely accurate and factual. It was the bias of the article which was unacceptable but this was deemed to be the case only after the campaign to suppress the article was under way. All editorials are biased.

Chagos:

OW2? Synthetic oil, video game, corporate software? You've lost me here.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

Were non-scientific pro-Israel articles published in this section?

 

[Evilroddy]

So does that make the opinion piece's bias less unacceptable? I'd think not but what I think matters far less here than what "Scientific" eventually decided (to do).


Yes, all of those and then some.

Chagos:

Clearly I'm not the sharpest tool on the shed, but I finally sussed to your meaning. OW2 is a poster here. Duh! I hate the proliferation of acronyms in modern communications.

Cheers and be well.
Stupidroddy.

 

[Chagos]

Chagos:

Clearly I'm not the sharpest tool on the shed, but I finally sussed to your meaning. OW2 is a poster here. Duh! I hate the proliferation of acronyms in modern communications.

Cheers and be well.
Stupidroddy.

Don't worry about not being TSTOTS, it can happen to all of us.

 

[Evilroddy]

Were non-scientific pro-Israel articles published in this section?

Valaisee:

Not in this section, no. But in another section there was an article singing the praises of the State of Israel's vaccination programme which made no mention of Israel's neglect and interference with Palestinian authorities trying to get and have delivered vaccines for the Occupied Territories through the COVAX programme. Nobody complained about that article and its bias and Scientific American did not pull that article down, even though it only told half the story vaccination in areas under the State of Israel's control.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

Although not a media act of proactive self-censorship in the face of criticism from interested parties, this academic example shows well the process at work to assure that one set of biases dominates others.

Search for new director of U of T law faculty’s International Human Rights Program leads to resignations, allegations of interference

After the dean is accused of rescinding an offer to a prominent international academic under pressure over her views, the university says no offers were revoked.

www.thestar.com

I include this non-media example as it illustrates well the sub rosa mechanisms of bowing to special interests and moving to limit the terms of debate in public spaces by North American institutions with regards to the I/P debate.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Valaisee]

Not in this section, no. But in another section there was an article singing the praises of the State of Israel's vaccination programme which made no mention of Israel's neglect and interference with Palestinian authorities trying to get and have delivered vaccines for the Occupied Territories through the COVAX programme. Nobody complained about that article and its bias and Scientific American did not pull that article down, even though it only told half the story vaccination in areas under the State of Israel's control.

I don't think Israel neglected or interfered with the Palestinian authorities, but if you do - I understand why you think they are biased.
Although it may be unrelated - I am interested to know why you think that - given that according the Oslo accords the health treatment of Palestinians is the responsibility of the Palestinian authorities.

 

[Evilroddy]

I don't think Israel neglected or interfered with the Palestinian authorities, but if you do - I understand why you think they are biased.
Although it may be unrelated - I am interested to know why you think that - given that according the Oslo accords the health treatment of Palestinians is the responsibility of the Palestinian authorities.

Valaisee:

https://www.alhaq.org/cached_uploads/download/2020/07/14/covid-19-ver1-4-interactrive-1594716699.pdf

Palestinians excluded from Israeli Covid vaccine rollout as jabs go to settlers

Human rights groups accuse Israel of dodging obligations to millions in occupied territories who may wait months for vaccination

www.theguardian.com

and:

Palestinians call off 1 million COVID-19 vaccine doses exchange with Israel

The Palestinian Authority called off an agreement whereby Israel would transfer 1 million doses of coronavirus vaccines to it in exchange for a similar number later this year, hours after the deal was announced on Friday.

www.ctvnews.ca

Read beyond the title in the third source to see how the State of Israel attempted to pass off nearly expired Pfizer-Biontech vaccines for a swap of fresh ones from deliveries later destined for the PA.

The first article focuses on the medical plight of 370,000 Palestinians living in illegally annexed East Jerusalem where there is no Palestinian Authority to protect their medical interests.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

Here is an example of one of the US-based organisations trying to shape the I/P debate by stifling one side of the discussion.

Canary Mission - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

https://mesana.org/pdf/Exposing_Canary_Mission.pdf

Against Canary Mission

As university faculty, we condemn Canary Mission as an effort to intimidate and blacklist students and faculty who stand for justice for Palestinians.

jewishvoiceforpeace.org

Canary Mission, like CAMERA make interesting case studies for understanding the mechanisms of media bias (in these cases social media bias) with regards to the I/P conflict.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Chagos]

Valaisee:

https://www.alhaq.org/cached_uploads/download/2020/07/14/covid-19-ver1-4-interactrive-1594716699.pdf

Palestinians excluded from Israeli Covid vaccine rollout as jabs go to settlers

Human rights groups accuse Israel of dodging obligations to millions in occupied territories who may wait months for vaccination

www.theguardian.com

and:

Palestinians call off 1 million COVID-19 vaccine doses exchange with Israel

The Palestinian Authority called off an agreement whereby Israel would transfer 1 million doses of coronavirus vaccines to it in exchange for a similar number later this year, hours after the deal was announced on Friday.

www.ctvnews.ca

Read beyond the title in the third source to see how the State of Israel attempted to pass off nearly expired Pfizer-Biontech vaccines for a swap of fresh ones from deliveries later destined for the PA.

The first article focuses on the medical plight of 370,000 Palestinians living in illegally annexed East Jerusalem where there is no Palestinian Authority to protect their medical interests.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

For a more objective assessment of the vagaries encountered, read up and please do it for the entirety of the article:

It's not that simple

 

[Evilroddy]

For a more objective assessment of the vagaries encountered, read up and please do it for the entirety of the article:

It's not that simple

Chagos:

Yes it pretty much is that simple. Article 56 of the Fourth Geneva Convention overrides the Oslo Accords which the State of Israel is hiding behind. As the occupying military power it must:

ART. 56. — To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the co-operation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.

It really boils down to the last sentence of the article you linked to. In the State of Israel

Right now, at least, it would appear that the decision-makers have other priorities.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Mithrae]

Here is a case study in the kind of media bias and self-censorship which the I/P Conflict causes in the American media. Scientific American ran a generally pro-Palestinian article on the challenges of delivering good medical support to a people under attack during the last Israeli military intervention into Gaza and immediately faced a storm of blowback from American and some international pro-Israeli groups running a massive campaign to punish Scientific American for running such an article.

From the third paragraph of the Scientific American article, when it first begins to get into specifics:

At the time of this letter, we are aware of at least 257 Palestinian deaths at the hands of the Israeli military since May 10, 2021—70 of whom were children, compared to 12 total Israeli deaths. While every one of these deaths is a tragedy, the stark disproportionality should be unacceptable to everyone. It is impossible to account for all the morbidity and mortality caused by the structural violence of the Israeli occupation. For Palestinians living under the yoke of Israeli settler colonial rule, the violence, human rights violations, and poor health outcomes they endure have been prevalent for over seven decades, since 1948, the year of the Nakba, when the Palestinian people were initially dispossessed.​

On May 10th Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad escalated Israel's civil disorder into an international conflict; over the next two weeks they indiscriminately fired over 4300 rockets towards Israel with roughly 8% of fatalities being 'viable' combatant targets. In response Israel conducted some 1500 strikes into the Gaza Strip with roughly 48% of fatalities being combatants, high not only by comparison but particularly surprising given the documented human shield tactics of those militant groups. Does this constitute "stark disproportionality"? Apparently so according to the authors, not because of the actual scale of operations or proportion of 'viable' targets affected, but purely because too many terrorists died (along with those they kept beside them)... or perhaps because not enough Israelis did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Israel–Palestine_crisis#Casualties_and_damage

But what really caught my eye was the not-so-subtle suggestion that Israel itself is the fundamental problem; not the current right-wing government or even a 'conflict paradigm' gaining undue weight in Israeli politics during decades of hostilities, but the very fact that Israel managed to scrape out a victory in the initial, would-be war of extermination by surrounding Arab states after they and the Palestinian leadership had rejected both the UN and any other prospect of a peaceful partition plan!

Omar Barghouti, the co-founder of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement championed by the article, expressed his views plainly:
"Just as we would oppose a 'Muslim state' or a 'Christian state' or any kind of exclusionary state, definitely, most definitely, we oppose a Jewish state in any part of Palestine. No Palestinian, rational Palestinian, not a sell-out Palestinian, will ever accept a Jewish state in Palestine."
The core, non-negotiable principles of the BDS movement are therefore explicitly tailored towards that end, namely a 'right of return' with full citizenship for the supposed 7+ million 'refugees' whose ~700,000 ancestors were forced by Israel or encouraged by their leaders and surrounding Arab states to leave in 1948. Not only is this deemed a non-negotiable demand of the BDS movement, but it's actually positioned as being fundamentally more important than the statehood and wellbeing of the Palestinian people themselves; movements pressing for a two-state solution without insisting on demands such as this reportedly are actively denounced by BDS as serving the interests of 'normalization.'

Now, whatever (hopefully more nuanced!) perspective our members may hold regarding these subjects, it seems to me that re-assessing the appropriateness of publishing an article indirectly calling for the abolition of the Jewish state was a fairly reasonable decision by the magazine. It seems to me that this can only be considered a case of media bias/self-censorship if one considers it not only wrong, but totally and irrationally wrong to make that re-assessment; as in, it's one thing to think "I guess they re-assessed and reached a conclusion I personally wouldn't share," but quite another to think "The only possible reason they could have reached this conclusion was the conspiracy of pressure and influence levied against them."

 

[Evilroddy]

From the third paragraph of the Scientific American article, when it first begins to get into specifics:

At the time of this letter, we are aware of at least 257 Palestinian deaths at the hands of the Israeli military since May 10, 2021—70 of whom were children, compared to 12 total Israeli deaths. While every one of these deaths is a tragedy, the stark disproportionality should be unacceptable to everyone. It is impossible to account for all the morbidity and mortality caused by the structural violence of the Israeli occupation. For Palestinians living under the yoke of Israeli settler colonial rule, the violence, human rights violations, and poor health outcomes they endure have been prevalent for over seven decades, since 1948, the year of the Nakba, when the Palestinian people were initially dispossessed.​

On May 10th Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad escalated Israel's civil disorder into an international conflict; over the next two weeks they indiscriminately fired over 4300 rockets towards Israel with roughly 8% of fatalities being 'viable' combatant targets. In response Israel conducted some 1500 strikes into the Gaza Strip with roughly 48% of fatalities being combatants, high not only by comparison but particularly surprising given the documented human shield tactics of those militant groups. Does this constitute "stark disproportionality"? Apparently so according to the authors, not because of the actual scale of operations or proportion of 'viable' targets affected, but purely because too many terrorists died (along with those they kept beside them)... or perhaps because not enough Israelis did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Israel–Palestine_crisis#Casualties_and_damage

....

The core, non-negotiable principles of the BDS movement are therefore explicitly tailored towards that end, namely a 'right of return' with full citizenship for the supposed 7+ million 'refugees' whose ~700,000 ancestors were forced by Israel or encouraged by their leaders and surrounding Arab states to leave in 1948. Not only is this deemed a non-negotiable demand of the BDS movement, but it's actually positioned as being fundamentally more important than the statehood and wellbeing of the Palestinian people themselves; movements pressing for a two-state solution without insisting on demands such as this reportedly are actively denounced by BDS as serving the interests of 'normalization. ...

Quotation edited for word count limits.

Mithrae:

If your saying that the article pulled from Scientific American deserved to be pulled because it did not present casualty figures in the context which you demand that they be presented, then I say you haven't got a leg to stand on. The article was posted in the editorial section of the magazine and was clearly marked as an editorial. The article was biased in favour of empathy for Palestinians suffering under military attacks and foreign military occupation. However all editorials are biased and thus bias is not grounds for pulling an article after approving it because an equally politically biased social media campaign attacks the publisher for that decision to print it.

The context you choose to see events and factually reported information in should not give you or any other person the right or power to force the muzzling of others' clearly demarked editorials published by third-party publishers. I would strongly support you applying to Scientific American to submit a countervailing article to push back on the biases presented in the article and to strongly critique the contents of the article. That's fine with me. But to pressure a publisher to retract an already vetted and approved editorial article because you or others don't like or agree with the biases presented and the context in which the artcle presents factual information is a bridge too far in my opinion.

As to boycotts, these are a long standing "American" political tradition going back more than 250 years, so attacking Scientific "American" for allowing an edittoriall to endorse a boycott which you don't approve of is another leg which you really can't stand on in my opinion. Scientific American should not and must not be bound by what you or any other person believes to be important. You might have strong views on abortion but if you attempt to stifle a Scientific American article or editorial on abortion, then you are reaching too far. In a free society almost all points of view must be allowed to be debated.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Mithrae]

As to boycotts, these are a long standing "American" political tradition going back more than 250 years, so attacking Scientific "American" for allowing an edittoriall to endorse a boycott which you don't approve of is another leg which you really can't stand on in my opinion. Scientific American should not and must not be bound by what you or any other person believes to be important. You might have strong views on abortion but if you attempt to stifle a Scientific American article or editorial on abortion, then you are reaching too far. In a free society almost all points of view must be allowed to be debated.

"The Jewish state as such should be abolished; Jews in the Middle East should be subject to the majoritarian governance of Arabs." Is that a point of view which should be allowed to be discussed? Sure, like pretty much all views up to and including Nazism. But is it a point of view which Scientific American should feel compelled to continue providing a platform for? No, of course not. I suspect you're running into the same problem that seems to afflict many right-wing complaints about supposed 'censorship' or the like; that having the right to express an opinion isn't the same as having the right to a prominent platform for it, nor the right to avoid any social or professional consequences of that stance, nor the right to prevent the victory of contrary opinions in the marketplace of ideas. These authors are free to call for a boycott of Israel and the magazine is free to publish it, just as other advocacy groups are free to contact or even boycott or otherwise legally pressure the magazine.

According to both its core non-negotiable principles and the co-founder's explicit words it seems the ultimate purpose of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is to abolish the Jewish state (while apparently having no qualms about the various Arab and Muslim states in the region), and this article promoting BDS likewise was not particularly subtle in its suggestion that Israel itself is fundamentally the problem from its very survival in 1948 onwards.

You may or may not agree with that stance, but hopefully you can understand that it is both reasonable to disagree with that stance, and reasonable for the magazine to reassess and decide not to grant it a platform. I have no doubt that the magazine has received all sorts of letters and complaints and pressures for editorials on everything from Biden's candidacy to abortion to evolution to Covid: Do you think that they're in the habit of caving to every single advocacy campaign? Or do you think that the pro-Israel campaigns are just so overwhelmingly powerful in the US compared to anti-abortion campaigns or the like? Both notions seem dubious if not downright laughable. So if it is at all reasonable for the magazine to reassess its platform for the "Abolish the Jewish state" opinion, then the logical conclusion must be that they reached that reasonable reassessment based on further information/arguments, rather than being 'pressured' into it.

IOW, your suggestion that this constitutes an example of external pressure driving media bias/self-censorship requires first and foremost an assumption that it is otherwise totally irrational to oppose and withdraw a platform from indirect "Abolish the Jewish state" advocacy (and secondly a rather circular assumption that pro-Israel advocacy is more powerful than advocacy on other controversial issues the magazine has editorialized).

 

[Evilroddy]

@Mithrae:

I could not fit your long post as a quote into my post. So you must make due with a general post instead.

The article was retracted BECAUSE of the coercive pressure that various right-wing and pro-Israel activist groups applied to the magazine, not because the editors thought to change their stance on the issue without coercive pressure. So this was applied coersion to suppress an editorial position rather than an attempt to counter it with counter arguments and public debate. That is never a good option in a free society.

Your hyperbole about the Jewish State of Israel being in mortal peril from its Arab neighbours might have had some teeth in 1948-1973 period, but given today's reality of diplomatic relations with Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, various Gulf States and the low-key cooperation with Saudi Arabia, the call of imminent anihilation of the Jewish State is a bit of a vestige of the past. The State of Israel is a nuclear-armed, regional superpower with the most powerful and sophisticated conventional and non-conventional military of any Middle Eastern country. It is not going anywhere.

The BDS Movement is a non-violent option to exert pressure on the State of Israel to stop its expansion at the expense of the Palestinian Arabs under its military control. The State of Israel is breaking international laws which that state signed onto and it must stop. BDS and perhaps a wider global boycott+ movement are a far better option than Palestinian militant resistance and militant terrorism. If the leaders of the State of Israel would give up their notions of Eretz Israel and begin mediated, bilateral negotiations with the Palestinian Authority and Hamas and with no preconditions, then maybe there could eventually be greater peace and a greater measure of justice for Palestinian Arabs and for the conflict-fatigued State of Israel as well. Using non-violent means to pressure both sides into a bilateral negotiation is far better than perpetuating the cycle of terrorism and state terrorism which is trapping the parties on all sides right now.

So I fully support the notion of boycotts, divestments and sanctions as a tool to bring this about. This need not be a programme with the destruction of the state of Israel as its end goal and I support a similar programme be applied to the Palestinians except for basic humanitarian aid until they agree to sit down and negotiate without preconditions. Just like it changed South Africa's Apartheid regime and White-only Rule and ended much of the systemic abuse of the majority of the population by Dutch, British and South African settler-colonialist regimes. Boycotts work without killing people in orgies of violence.

Have you considered the problem might not be the existence of the State of Israel but the militarism and expansionist history of this settler-colonial power? Also, a secular State of Israel which allowed non-Jews to live unrestrained lives might be a better option than the ethno-religious model which Israel has been following since Moshe Sharett was ousted from power in 1955(?). Jews could live a full and religiously complete life in a safe, secular State of Israel and then that state could stop holding down Arab Israelis and could carefully absorb manageable numbers of peaceful Palestinians who agreed to live peacefully in and defend the State of Israel. For those Palestinian Arabs who could not abjure resistence and who would not swear allegence to the State of Israel there would be the Occupied Territories policed and kept disarmed by international peace keepers.

But I digress. The point is that in your post you seem to have acknowledged the existence of the mechanisms and operation of American-driven, pro-Israel coercive bias in media and you seem to approve of them. So be it. I hope others who read this thread are less inclined to accept the coercive suppressing of peacefully stated views in the marketplace of ideas and the civil debate of global issues and justice issues.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Chagos]

Chagos:

Yes it pretty much is that simple. Article 56 of the Fourth Geneva Convention overrides the Oslo Accords which the State of Israel is hiding behind. As the occupying military power it must:



It really boils down to the last sentence of the article you linked to. In the State of Israel


Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

I'd posit that boiling it all down to the last sentence of the article is a bit disingenuous. As is the take of Geneva overriding Oslo, a legalistic controversy that not even most experts in international legalese can find agreement upon.

If we're going to quote from the article's opinion(s), let's at least consider:

“In the West Bank, the Palestinians prefer relatively limited cooperation,” argued Michael. “There are implications for the political leadership in terms of public opinion: ‘Look, Israel is doing what the PA is incapable of doing. Once again the PA proves it doesn’t know how to operate, that it needs Israel to deal with the health issue as well. So what do we need the PA for? Let’s dismantle it.'”

The PA, which has put great effort into delegitimizing Israel internationally, also sees benefits to its position against Israel when its neighbor faces criticism for not doing more to help,

Also, where certainly a stated opinion (merely) this is not just concocted out of thin air

“Even if Israel wants to do more, the Palestinians will limit it,” Michael posited. “In their eyes, it legitimizes the occupation.”

Note

With the logistical challenges, the PA would need significant cooperation with Israeli officials, something the Palestinian leadership would likely be uncomfortable with. The PA twice last year rejected cargoes of medical supplies from the UAE because they were flown into Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport.

Just some of the reasons why I asked you to read the article in its entirety.

Of course if you wish to support the "Israel, the ogre" stance at all cost, simplicity is indeed your friend, but it will by default leave out the address of greater complexity.

Black-Whiting never serves any other purpose than that and will thus serve no purpose at all.

 

[Mithrae]

BDS and perhaps a wider global boycott+ movement are a far better option than Palestinian militant resistance and militant terrorism.

It certainly is both morally preferrable and more likely to have some effectiveness. But that doesn't change the information in post #92 suggesting that both the core non-negotiable demands of BDS and the explicit statement of its co-founder point towards abolition of the Jewish state as such as their goal; and that (reportedly) in their denouncement of groups/movements that don't emphasize those demands as serving the interests of 'normalization,' that goal is treated as fundamentally more important than the statehood and wellbeing of Palestinians themselves. Apparently their stance is not ''statehood and wellbeing as soon as feasible even if that means swallowing our pride and accepting some real or perceived injustices,'' but rather ''no normalization, no compromise, we must have the right of return and full citizenship for 7+ million descendants of alleged refugees to demographically overwhelm the Jewish population.''

So this was applied coersion to suppress an editorial position rather than an attempt to counter it with counter arguments and public debate.

Your own original source links to a CAMERA page of "counter arguments and public debate," which despite its own biases and odious tone could easily have been an avenue for a reassessment of their platforming by the magazine's editors. You haven't substantiated the contrary opinion either directly in the form of a statement from the editors that they bowed to coercive pressure, or indirectly by even recognizing (let alone demonstrating) the two main assumptions necessary to reach that conclusion: 1) The dubious and somewhat circular assumption that pro-Israel advocacy is more powerful in the USA than advocacy on other controversial issues the magazine has editorialized on such as abortion or Biden's presidential candidacy, such that the magazine caved in this case unlike others. 2) The similarly-questionable assumption that it is otherwise totally unreasonable to reassess and withdraw a platform for indirect "abolish the Jewish state" advocacy, such that caving to this supposed pressure becomes the more plausible explanation.

The point is that in your post you seem to have acknowledged the existence of the mechanisms and operation of American-driven, pro-Israel coercive bias in media and you seem to approve of them.

I've always acknowledged the existence of pro-Israel advocacy, just as there is pro-Palestinian advocacy and (as in the case of this SciAm article) anti-Israel advocacy: What I question is the supposed conspiratorial power, scope and successes of pro-Israel advocacy, particularly relative to contrary advocacy. As I'm sure I've mentioned before, internationally the deck is ridiculously stacked against Israel such that in the first decade after formation of a UN Human Rights Council and possibly through to the present, Israel was the specific subject of condemnation more times than Iran, and China, and North Korea, and Sudan, and Saudi Arabia, and all the world's countries combined. It may be possible that in the USA and pretty much the USA alone, due to the unique combination of influences from evangelical apocalypticism, a particularly strong Jewish lobby, and geopolitical strategic interests upheld by both major parties, pro-Israel advocacy really might reach the more or less conspiracy-theory levels which you're suggesting. But even there that's obviously not an assumption to be blindly accepted, particularly since (as others have pointed out) the "Jews control the media" is a well-established anti-Semitic canard and as exemplified in the OP video a modern incarnation has apparently taken root across the Atlantic too.

So far as those I've looked at - the Twitter feed of Emily Wilder and this Scientific American editorial - it seems that our track record of compelling examples for this alleged pattern of "coercive suppression" is zero for two.