“While the United States held the Palestinians responsible for the collapse of the Oslo process, the resumed violence, and the failure of new peace initiatives, the Europeans continued to see Israel as the party most to blame, because of the continued occupation and settlement building.” On December 18th, 2008, the half-year ceasefire between Palestinian political factions inside the Gaza Strip and Israeli Defense Forces ended abruptly as a volley of missiles launched from inside Gaza, supposedly set off my Hamas, into southern Israel. As the international community once again turned its eyes and ears towards the region, news reports flowed from all major outputs, relaying the news as seen by the press organizations. Naturally, regional biases develop amongst certain news agencies, and this is evident in the coverage of the January 2009 Gaza Invasion. Looking at both the American-based Washington Post and London’s The Independent newspapers for a week» long period between January 1‘ through January 7″‘, it is clear that the liberal slant changes across the Atlantic.
On the first day of 2009, several days into the escalating military conflict in Gaza, Ephraim Sneh wrote an article in the Washington Post titled “Why Israel is Bombing Gaza”. Without even reading the article, it is easy to guess what bias this piece might take. Ephraim Sneh, an Israeli elected official, is the current Deputy Defense Minister and the very fact that his piece is published gives a strong pro-Israeli bias to the Post. He starts the paper off describing the Israeli departure from Gaza in late 2005 and the “brutal and bloody” rise to power and “coup” by Hamas within the same region‘. Throughout the article, as one would expect from a prominent Israeli politician, Hamas is attacked as nothing more than an organization of terror, not only showering Israeli citizens with bombings but acting as an insufficient political leadership for Gaza Palestinians.
Sneh brings up the idea of a cease-fire, but acknowledges that Hamas will never accept, and the only solution will be a “largeescale ground campaign” to bring the “collapse of the Hamas regime”. Concluding the article stating Israel has no reason to end the conflict, it is more than apparent that this piece is one»sided favoring Israel. On the same day, the 2009 New Year, The Independent presented a different side of the issue, Focusing on the media, the article “Propaganda war rages behind bombs and rockets” highlights the Israeli Supreme Court ruling forcing the Israeli government to allow journalists into Gaza to cover the conflict{ With a slight lean against Israeli policy, the article seems to hint that lsraei is blocking free journalism in hopes that they will be able to control any potential propaganda spread by Hamas, much like that spread by Hezbollah in the Israeli- Lebanese War.
127 our experts are availableright now
The first line, with no mention of I—Iamas whatsoever, and a clearly negative implication against free-speech and movement by the Israeli government shows a stark difference from the Washington Post article of the same day. 2 days later, on the 3’‘1 of January, the coverage of Gaza events in both papers showed a difference between the liberal thoughts of America and England The Post’s It is fairly clear after reading a single week selection of articles from these papers that the American paper, The Washington Post, has a slightly more apparent pro-Israeli bias compared to the UK’s The Independent. But when looking at the policy of British (and the EU) compared with American policy in the Middle East, specifically the Arab-Israeli peace conflict, it makes sense that this division appears.
Rosemary Hollis stated “the Europeans have championed the view that the Iand-for—peace formula that underpinned the Egypt—Israeli Peace Treaty of 1979 is the appropriate formula for a comprehensive peace deal”), This principle, at its most basic level, is aimed at eliminating Israeli political and military presence from occupied land, currently the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in Israel. The hope of the “land»forepeace formula” is once the land is controlled solely by political agents from within the Palestinian Arab community, and with access to necessary economic aids, the Arab side (in this case Hamas) will deescalate their light missile Iaunchings and move toward a lasting peace agreement.
Additionally, many Europeans see the occupation as “counterproductive to the longeterm security of both sides”, a statement whose obvious truth only resonates in the articles presented earlier in this paper. Hamas attacks are directly because of the involvement of Israel in Gaza, specifically including the economic blockade Israel has used in an attempt to show Hamas as an insufficient provider to its Arab population. Hamas, however, has presented a problem to the international community as to the proper way to involve a legitimate Palestinian representative in the peace process Because the European Union has coded Hamas as a terrorist organization, EU law forbids funding and has excluded Hamas leadership from attending international meetings on the Arab-Israeli conflict. “European opinion was shocked by television coverage of Israel‘s military response to stone- throwing Palestinians.“
