It is a solid fact that Operation Pillar of Defense did not come out of the blue. It came as a response to a massive, continuous attack on Israeli cities, fired from the Hamas terror organization sitting in Gaza. I know it, because I live in Israel. You know it, because you read the Jewish Journal, which provides a full scan on everything that's going on. But what does the rest of the world know? An overview of popular news websites in English, presents the readers several versions of the past week in Israel. When I browsed the web to see how my reality looks to foreign readers, I was shocked to see articles that were very far from presenting what journalists swore to present: a balanced, objective story.
In case you forgot, last Saturday, a missile fired from Gaza hit an IDF vehicle, and wounded four soldiers. As a response, the IDF fired back at facilities owned by the Hamas, from which the attack came. The response was carefully aimed. Hamas refused to let go, and started a massive attack on Israeli southern cities. For a week, missiles were fired to civilian places, meant to hurt as many Israelis as possible. In this time, more than 1 million Israelis” target=”_blank”>article describing what happened was published on November 10th. The headline, which is the very first thing readers see, and what sets the tone of the article, is saying: “Violence flares as Israelis, Palestinians trade fire.” This immediately makes the reader sympathize with the terrorists, who, for some reason, are presented here as “Palestinians,” and not as what they really are, which is a small, extreme group within them. Then, the article presents the course of events which led to the fire exchange, where the IDF vehicle was involved. However, with the use of numbers, they present a touching David and Goliath story, in which a small occasion, where only four Israelis were injured, dragged a massive attack on unprotected Palestinians, who gathered in a funeral.
After Operation Pillar of Defense started, CNN posted an ” target=”_blank”>first cover also appeared on November 10th, with an article titled: “After attack on jeep, Israeli army kills 4 in Gaza.” – this also presents the readers with what might be a wrong picture. It doesn't say who attacked whom, and leaves the readers with a blur. Many versions of the story can pop up to the head of the reader, before starting to read. One of them is that the IDF had no idea who attacked the vehicle, and decided to kill civilians in Gaza, “just in case.” Later on, the picture clears up, and presents the versions of both the Israeli side and the Palestinian side. It seems like they made this perfect journalistic work, but a closer look reveals a trick which is almost unnoticeable, but easily enters the sub-conscious of every reader: the Palestinian version if described as one coming from “Officials and eye witnesses,” while the Israeli version is coming from “Israel's military.” You tell me which one sounds more reliable and less biased….Moreover, there is a long description of the Palestinians killed, “civilians between the ages of 16 and 18 and that among the 25 wounded were some children.” It also mentioned that there were no Israelis killed, thanks to the protection of Iron Dome, but doesn't say that Iron Dome did not block all missiles, not even most of them, and did not say a word on the Israeli life in the shadow of death.
