Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú

Regarding the Herald Article attitude of the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú, Blair's speech sums it up perfectly, but is not even mentioned in the analyis here:

"And most contemporaneously, and in some ways most perniciously, a very large and, I fear, growing part of our opinion looks at Israel, and thinks we pay too great a price for supporting it and sympathises with Muslim opinion that condemns it. Absent from so much of the coverage, is any understanding of the Israeli predicament.

I, and any halfway sentient human being, regards the loss of civilian life in Lebanon as unacceptable, grieves for that nation, is sickened by its plight and wants the war to stop now. But just for a moment, put yourself in Israel's place. It has a crisis in Gaza, sparked by the kidnap of a soldier by Hamas. Suddenly, without warning, Hezbollah who have been continuing to operate in southern Lebanon for two years in defiance of UN Resolution 1559, cross the UN blue line, kill eight Israeli soldiers and kidnap two more. They then fire rockets indiscriminately at the civilian population in northern Israel.

Hezbollah gets their weapons from Iran. Iran are now also financing militant elements in Hamas. Iran's president has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map". And he's trying to acquire a nuclear weapon. Just to complete the picture, Israel's main neighbour along its eastern flank is Syria who support Hezbollah and house the hardline leaders of Hamas.

It's not exactly a situation conducive to a feeling of security, is it?"

I think reports like those by Fergal Keane are as important as those that focus on the "big picture". Granted, the Herald's columnist seems to argue more for subtlety rather than for the total repudiation of such pieces.

But conflict is ultimately about the suffering it generates in the lives of individuals and families caught in its midst. Today's television news isn't like what it was even 10 years ago, and neither are its viewers. Sometimes, just sometimes, more direct images and stories that point out the elemental destruction that a war zone exacts on its victims are the only way to draw the attention of the viewers.

It is when people see the confusion of the survivors, the chaos of their lives and the seeming pointlessness of their suffering that they may sit up and take notice of what's happening in another part of the world. It is when they see families being torn apart and mothers crying for their lost children that they relate to them.

It is not about "tears or credit cards" but about affinity and understanding. Some stories have to be told, and I certainly hope that they will continue to be told by the likes of Fergal Keane and other journalists.

Melanie Reid (Herald article) really does have a point. The type of reporting indulged in by Fergil Keane and his colleagues does not INFORM is any objective way, or lead to greater public understanding of the Middle East - it simply inflames public opinion in a particularly unconstructive way.
This behaviour - grandstanding by proxy, effectively - (often linked with jounalists' desires to become stars in their own rights) is self serving and is inappropriate for an organization which was founded on the basis of objectivity. Editors would do well to return to basics, i.e. information without personal spin. It may not be so exciting, but it might go some way to regaing some of the respect that the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is losing among people who need a reliable and unbiased source of news.

Perspectives differ depending on where one thinks the chain of events starts from. Yes, Israel withdrew from Gaza which was long overdue, and it keeps about 1.4 million people locked up in there and decides whether they have a port or an airport and how goods come in and go out. It continues to effectively rule their destiny. It then continued to send planes and drones to kill what it describes as terrorists but which are illegal extra-judicial killings. And shrugged everytime some civilians were also killed in the operation - I did'nt hear anything about an International force being deployed although the Palestinians have asked for one for years. Is it really surprising that there would eventually be a reaction ?