Kiwis for Balanced Reporting on the Middle East
August 27, 2009
Bias in a blog
The full set of comments by KBRM members follows, in reverse chronological order:
The Casual Truth is a most appropriate title. Almost without exception the so called facts listed in this article are indeed casual and as far away from reality as it is possible to get. The obsessive desire by the Palestinian Arabs to deny the historic & legal connection of the Jews to the Land of Israel lies at the root of the whole conflict. Disseminating myths and fables about a non-existent Arab Palestinian State only further fosters the illusion that the Jewish People whose connection to this land goes back 3,000 years are interlopers who only recently parachuted in to the area. The latest example of this modern version of the Arabian nights is the claim by the Palestinian Authority Mufti that there never was a Temple in Jerusalem nor were the Jews ever there! Welcome to the casual truth.
The anti-Israel tone of this article begins early. Consider the following false statements:
‘To gain Jewish favour, Britain also supported the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.’ This is an opinion stated as fact. It is more likely that Britain supported the Jewish homeland because they thought it was the right thing to do.
‘at the end of WWI, Jews began moving to Palestine.’ Jews began moving to Palestine long before WWI. In fact there was a continuous Jewish presence since Biblical times. According to Britannica.com, the Jewish population in 1914 was 85,000.
‘It was the Palestinians who had to suffer for Europe's guilt (referring to the Holocaust).’ The 1.5 million Arabs in Israel today are far from suffering; they would rather live there than in a proposed Palestinian state. Nor is it Israel's (or Britain's) fault that Arab armies chose to make war. If the Arabs had accepted Israel as a peaceful neighbour, instead of trying to destroy it, there would be a thriving Palestinian state today.
With whoppers like these at the start, the conclusions are bound to be wrong. See www.kbrm.org.nz for more illustrations of anti-Israel bias.
Given that you clearly have a good, clear writing style it is unfortunate that you didn't spend more time researching the issue before writing the article.
You have made significant historical errors in almost every paragraph. I highlighted some of the most glaring errors here: Don't let the facts get in the way
A biased presentation, apparently based on received opinion from selected sources. The ‘Occupied Territories’, so-called, were designated part of Israel by the UN [ed. This is an error] and therefore Israel is not ‘occupying’ them. No mention at all of Hamas/Fatah's threats to destroy Israel, a greater potential human rights violation than anything that can be charged to Israel. The movement of refugees in the 1940s resulted from the attacks on Israel by neighbouring Arab states, not Israel policy. Arabs live peacefully in Israel to this day. Britain did not propose a Jewish homeland in Palestine to ‘gain Jewish favour’. That's enough to start with.
Nick, if you're sourcing your information from the NZ media you're getting a thoroughly biased view. The NZ Herald quotes almost solely the UK Independent which has an avowedly anti-Israel platform (among others).
This article has errors and bias in almost every sentence, starting with the first:
‘During WWI, Britain supported independence from Turkish rule for the mainly Arab population of Palestine, who had lived in the area for thousands of years.’
Error: The Arabs invaded the area in the year 637CE — that doesn't make ‘thousands of years.’
Bias: The people with the longest connection to the area are the Jews who came first about 2000BCE and have had a continuous presence ever since. It is their historic homeland and they have no other. Not mentioned in the article.
Other egregious errors — misquoting the wording of Resolution 242; saying Israel initiated the 6-day War.
Being concise doesn't mean you have to be inaccurate, but that is what is presented in this article.
Surely this poorly researched, unbalanced and simplistic article cannot be taken seriously.
That the Guardian and The Independent are clearly sources indicates the paucity of research carried out and the lack of knowledge of the author.
In summary — substandard If this is going to be the standard of commentary on this site it will be best avoided.