By: Lisa Fiorilli
After the absolutely horrific murders of a family of Israeli settlers in Itamar, it would seem to the casual observer that the story has been almost forgotten in the Western media. Obviously, with Gaddafi's brutal crushing of the revolt in Libya and the tragic Japanese earthquake/tsunami, not much else is being discussed.
That being said, there has been a robust dialogue within the Israeli media about the implications of this event, and there has been mention in the last day or so of the revenge-related attacks on Palestinians.
In Haaretz, there was a slightly less inflammatory report on the attack. They simply state that two Palestinian construction workers in Shiloh, West Bank were hurt by six unknown Israeli attackers who fled the scene. They make note of rising tensions in the area because of the increasing settlement activity, and offer a slight mention that this can be interpreted in light of the Itamar attack earlier this week. Interestingly, and especially within the context of other news reports on this attack, they do not draw any direct causality between the events.
However, the Jerusalem Post puts an entirely different spin on the same event. They call it a "price tag" attack by settlers, The article itself is only a few lines, mainly about the fact that Israeli police are looking into the matter. However, they make a direct causal link between the Itamar attacks and this one, assuming that there 5-7 Israeli's were exacting revenge for the attacks. Also, they make mention that the suspects, though they have nobody arrested, were in fact suspected to be settlers. This is also absent in the Haaretz report.
A third article that appeared in Ynet News corroborates the Jerusalem Post interpretation of events. They describe the event as a "price tag policy" on the part of settlers, and attribute this interpretation as coming from the police in charge of investigating. However, Ynet seems to do a bit more research, with interviews with hospital employees as well as people who were at the construction site. They note that the attackers were unmasked before the attack and arrived in a car, meaning that they were not residents of the nearby settlement. Though at the beginning they seem to imply that it was an act of revenge, they quote a Binyamin Regional Security officer as saying that they weren't sure if the motivations were criminal or otherwise.
Obviously, this story should develop further in the next few days as the suspects are caught and their motivations can be elaborated on. One can't help but think that this is symptomatic of the broader cyclical nature of the conflict: one act, perpetuated by an act of violence, which will then incite reprisals. Obviously, the attack on the family in Itamar was a horrific act, but so was attacking construction workers. This is obviously working under the assumption that these events were related, which both Ynet News and JPost seem to assume as the underlying theme of their reports. What is interesting is that they make mention of this 'price tag policy', which has come to be an integral ideological basis of violence in settlement areas, and something that has been condemned by leaders on both sides. If you take into account the movie we saw in class yesterday, Encounter Point, what comes to mind is the segment where the Palestinian woman is talking about settlers coming and smashing the windows to her house with bats. Her response is ultimately that they will not leave, and her husband adds that this notion of forcing the Palestinians to leave is an integral part of what settler violence in motivated by. This 'price tag policy' would seemingly be a part of this cyclical process of violence and revenge that has characterized the conflict seemingly since the beginning. The violence inflicted on settlers by Palestinians, a deplorable act by most moral standards, then becomes inflicted on Palestinians in an equally deplorable way. This ensures that both sides remain locked in a vicious cycle of conflict.
Finally, one more article in Ynet caught my attention because it is seemingly doing what our blog is intended to do. The author, Yedioth Ahronoth, is criticizing the lack of attention by Western media on the attacks at Itamar. Specifically, the Israeli government made some pictures of the event available in order to underscore the violence of the attack. He analyzes the coverage of the event in England, France, Scandinavia, Italy and Spain, and states the respective news agencies' objections to carrying quite graphic pictures of the crime, as well as their perceived biases and underreporting. Obviously, he states at the very beginning that there are other world events that are dominating international airwaves, but he makes the point that these media sources demonstrate that Israel has not "won the west": most of these newspapers make statements about the illegality of the settlements under international law in the same articles about the settlers being murdered (Italy), and a real and/or perceived bias towards the Palestinians (Britain). Obviously, this is a pretty controversial stance, and he is essentially accusing the Western media of either at best not caring, and at worst taking a pro-Palestinian stance. The article is an interesting example of the Israeli-victim narrative that develops throughout the history of the conflict, it is assumed that Israel is not receiving its fair share of positive media attention and this contributes to the "world is against us" narrative.
I will end this discussion with some food for thought. What can we make of the following paragraph that appears in this article. Justified or not justified? What do you make of his interpretation of the dichotomy between the bombing citizens/coming into a house with a knife?
"In response to the question of when did you see an Israeli come into a Palestinian house and butcher a child with a knife, the reporter answered: Is bombing citizens more ethical than stabbing children in their beds? To me the two are equally atrocious."
The reporter's statements indicate clearly that a majority of the European public sees no difference between a legitimate act of self-defense and a terror attack. When this is the popular view in the European media and public, it is naïve to think that a series of pictures, as shocking as they may be, would bring about a change in public opinion."
Links:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/palestinians-attacked-at-west-bank-settlement-as-tensions-rise-1.349779
http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=212555
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4043664,00.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4043490,00.html
