Nasrallah's Victims Rejoice at His Demise, While Western Media Outlets Display Their Distorted Moral Compasses

Israel used their elite military intelligence to locate Hezbollah chieftain Hassan Nasrallah, and then killed Nasrallah along with other high-ranking Hezbollah officials who were meeting in a residential area--a standard Hezbollah human shield tactic with the twin goals of (1) dissuading military action by Israel because Israel takes great pains to minimize civilian casualties, and (2) complaining about civilian casualties if Israel attacks. All civilian casualties in this war--on both sides of the Israel-Lebanon border--are the responsibility of Hezbollah for committing the dual war crimes of intentionally targeting Israeli civilians and using their own civilians as human shields. To be even more specific, all civilian casualties in this war are the responsibility of Iran, which directs and funds the wars of annihilation that Hamas and Hezbollah are waging against Israel (and will continue to wage until either they destroy Israel or Israel eliminates their capacity to destroy Israel).

Nasrallah is responsible for murdering thousands of people, including U.S. citizens, so a naive but good-hearted person might assume that the world would congratulate Israel for finally bringing Nasrallah to justice. Iranian dissidents, Lebanese Christians, and Sunni Muslims in Lebanon--people directly impacted by Nasrallah's horrific deeds--cheered his demise. In contrast, the usual suspects--mainstream media outlets, delusional "peace" groups, and "useful idiots" on American college campuses--expressed dismay that one of the most evil people on Earth can no longer terrorize anyone. In the ultimate example of the perversion of language that George Orwell termed "Newspeak," The Washington Post praised Nasrallah's "folksy yet articulate manner," while The New York Times emphasized Nasrallah's "roly-poly figure," his "slight lisp," and his "propensity to crack jokes," and the AP noted that Nasrallah "often paused in his speeches to make jokes or break into local dialect." Would you expect a profile of Adolf Hitler to focus on such details while glossing over his war crimes? Many mainstream media outlets are worse than useless, because it is not simply that the information they provide has no value; they are engaged in a pattern of deliberating crafting inaccurate narratives to serve their notion of a "higher truth" that matters more to them than producing objective reporting free of bias.

Meanwhile, President Biden continues to speak with a forked tongue, first praising Israel for taking out a person who has much American blood on his hands but then immediately repeating his demand for a ceasefire. In case you--like Biden--are unaware, it must be emphasized that Hezbollah has clearly articulated their position on ceasefires with Israel: "We recognize no treaty with it, no ceasefire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated. We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine." It should also be noted that there is already a ceasefire in place in Lebanon, and Hezbollah has been violating that ceasefire for almost a year.

When then-Senator Biden tried to bully then-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin more than 40 years ago, Begin declared to Biden, "Don't threaten us with cutting off your aid. It will not work. I am not a Jew with trembling knees. I am a proud Jew with 3,700 years of civilized history. Nobody came to our aid when we were dying in the gas chambers and ovens. Nobody came to our aid when we were striving to create our country. We paid for it. We fought for it. We died for it. We will stand by our principles. We will defend them. And, when necessary, we will die for them again, with or without your aid."

Much of America's "aid" to Israel is spent buying American arms, so the "aid" is as much a government subsidy to American companies as anything else--and Israel's military is doing great work that America is either unwilling or unable to do in terms of eliminating wanted terrorists who have eluded justice for decades. 

Israel must remain steadfast and strong, and fight this war to its natural conclusion regardless of the pressure exerted by Biden and biased media outlets.

Why is Media Coverage of Israel Disproportionate and Distorted?

Israel is a tiny country, smaller than San Bernardino County, California and less populous than New Jersey--but Israel receives a disproportionate amount of media coverage relative to her size and population and that media coverage is very distorted. Former AP writer Matti Friedman (no relation to this author) explains how and why reporters get Israel so wrong, and why it matters:

While global mania about Israeli actions has come to be taken for granted, it is actually the result of decisions made by individual human beings in positions of responsibility--in this case, journalists and editors. The world is not responding to events in this country, but rather to the description of these events by news organizations. The key to understanding the strange nature of the response is thus to be found in the practice of journalism, and specifically in a severe malfunction that is occurring in that profession--my profession--here in Israel.

The world is full of big countries with big problems. There are major wars, huge refugee crises and heartbreaking humanitarian disasters that are largely ignored because the mainstream media is obsessively focused on not just covering Israel but portraying Israel in a negative light. Friedman learned about this process firsthand:

Staffing is the best measure of the importance of a story to a particular news organization. When I was a correspondent at the AP, the agency had more than 40 staffers covering Israel and the Palestinian territories. That was significantly more news staff than the AP had in China, Russia, or India, or in all of the 50 countries of sub-Saharan Africa combined. It was higher than the total number of news-gathering employees in all the countries where the uprisings of the “Arab Spring” eventually erupted.

To offer a sense of scale: Before the outbreak of the civil war in Syria, the permanent AP presence in that country consisted of a single regime-approved stringer. The AP’s editors believed, that is, that Syria’s importance was less than one-40th that of Israel. I don’t mean to pick on the AP--the agency is wholly average, which makes it useful as an example. The big players in the news business practice groupthink, and these staffing arrangements were reflected across the herd. Staffing levels in Israel have decreased somewhat since the Arab uprisings began, but remain high. And when Israel flares up, as it did this summer, reporters are often moved from deadlier conflicts. Israel still trumps nearly everything else.

The volume of press coverage that results, even when little is going on, gives this conflict a prominence compared to which its actual human toll is absurdly small. In all of 2013, for example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict claimed 42 lives--that is, roughly the monthly homicide rate in the city of Chicago. Jerusalem, internationally renowned as a city of conflict, had slightly fewer violent deaths per capita last year than Portland, Ore., one of America’s safer cities. In contrast, in three years the Syrian conflict has claimed an estimated 190,000 lives, or about 70,000 more than the number of people who have ever died in the Arab-Israeli conflict since it began a century ago.

News organizations have nonetheless decided that this conflict is more important than, for example, the more than 1,600 women murdered in Pakistan last year (271 after being raped and 193 of them burned alive), the ongoing erasure of Tibet by the Chinese Communist Party, the carnage in Congo (more than 5 million dead as of 2012) or the Central African Republic, and the drug wars in Mexico (death toll between 2006 and 2012: 60,000), let alone conflicts no one has ever heard of in obscure corners of India or Thailand. They believe Israel to be the most important story on earth, or very close.

While there is a laser focus on Israel, Friedman notes that the depravity and depredations of Hamas are ignored:

There has been much discussion recently of Hamas attempts to intimidate reporters. Any veteran of the press corps here knows the intimidation is real, and I saw it in action myself as an editor on the AP news desk. During the 2008-2009 Gaza fighting I personally erased a key detail--that Hamas fighters were dressed as civilians and being counted as civilians in the death toll--because of a threat to our reporter in Gaza. (The policy was then, and remains, not to inform readers that the story is censored unless the censorship is Israeli. Earlier this month, the AP’s Jerusalem news editor reported and submitted a story on Hamas intimidation; the story was shunted into deep freeze by his superiors and has not been published.)

But if critics imagine that journalists are clamoring to cover Hamas and are stymied by thugs and threats, it is generally not so. There are many low-risk ways to report Hamas actions, if the will is there: under bylines from Israel, under no byline, by citing Israeli sources. Reporters are resourceful when they want to be.

The fact is that Hamas intimidation is largely beside the point because the actions of Palestinians are beside the point: Most reporters in Gaza believe their job is to document violence directed by Israel at Palestinian civilians. That is the essence of the Israel story. In addition, reporters are under deadline and often at risk, and many don’t speak the language and have only the most tenuous grip on what is going on. They are dependent on Palestinian colleagues and fixers who either fear Hamas, support Hamas, or both. Reporters don’t need Hamas enforcers to shoo them away from facts that muddy the simple story they have been sent to tell.

It is not coincidence that the few journalists who have documented Hamas fighters and rocket launches in civilian areas this summer were generally not, as you might expect, from the large news organizations with big and permanent Gaza operations. They were mostly scrappy, peripheral, and newly arrived players--a Finn, an Indian crew, a few others. These poor souls didn’t get the memo.

Why should you care that the mainstream media slanders Israel, panders to Hamas and feels free to distort the truth in order to advance a particular political ideology? In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., "All men are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be and you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be." The price of the media's war against Israel is not paid just by Israelis but also by all of the downtrodden people of the world who are crying out in despair for someone to tell their stories.