By: Lisa Fiorilli
In the Jerusalem Post, emphasis is put on the fact that the 2 individuals who were injured were "terrorists", despite having no confirmation of their identity, while hinting that the invasion may have been in retaliation for an earlier incident where Gazaans were reportedly firing shells at the IDF. In the same vein, Haaretz (another Israeli newspaper) categorized the injured as members of an Al-Qaeda affiliated group, quoting a Shin Bet chief as its source. However, this article specifies that the victims were fired upon as they approached the fence on the border between Israel and Gaza, while alluding to the militants being armed with explosives.
As we can tell, these articles seem to condemn the Palestinians injured without ever having a confirmation as to their identity or affiliation. In addition, it is rather lacking in its substantive argument about the reason for Israeli tanks to enter Gaza. The closest these two Israeli sources come to an explanation allude to retribution attacks on earlier militant activities, which is often the justification cited by Israel.
This is a sharp contrast from the portrayal of events from Palestinian and Arab media sources. The three Arab based media accounts paint a very different portrait of what transpired when Israeli troops entered Gaza. Within the Palestine Telegraph, they quote a spokesman from the Medical Emergency Unit, Adham Abu Silmya who specified that the victims were in fact youths and not adults. In addition, they make a sort of vague statement that Israeli tanks have left some unspecified objects that may present a danger to children and youth in the area. Similarly, the article that appeared in the Arab News specified that the Israeli tanks entered Gaza refugee camps with bulldozers and began to raze civilian homes, which prompted resistance from local militants. Clearly, this introduces a different type of element into the consideration of what exactly transpired in Gaza. A third report, that appeared in Ahram Online (an Egyptian daily), corroborates the claims made above by the Arab News and the Palestine Telegraph. They also mention the presence of a bulldozer, while specifying that a recent Save the Children report has accused Israel of intentionally targeting Gazaan children, which would shed light on the comment in the Palestine Telegraph about unspecified objects being a threat to Gazaan youth.
Clearly, the Israeli media has portrayed the situation as simply a retaliation towards militants who posed a security risk for their citizens, while the Palestinian-Arab portray the attack as part of a systematic attempt to infringe on the livelihoods and safety of the residents of the region, which prompted a response.
This is an example of the powerful tool that framing has become. By framing the Israeli incursion as a defensive one, the Israeli media has painted Israel as simply protecting its citizens from militant attacks. On the other hand, by emphasizing the youth of the victims and the fact that Israeli forces entered with bulldozers, it is apparent that the incursion can be construed as more of an attack than self-defense.
So which one is it? Is Israel justified in protecting its borders from an apparent terrorist operation? Or was it a concerted attempt on the part of Gaza residents to protect their homes and livelihood that ended in tragedy?
Image from: TopNews
0 comments:
Post a Comment