top of page
Anonymous

A Rational Approach to Media Bias

Updated: Nov 26

By Anonymous


October 7th, 2023, a collective cry of sorrow was heard around the world, as members of the Palestinian Gazan terror group, Hamas, breached the Gaza border wall and launched a series of brutal and unforgiving attacks in Southern Israel. Over 1200 innocent Israelis were killed, and an estimated 236 hostages were taken back into the tunnels of Gaza. After such a harrowing ordeal, Israelis and Jews around the world expected an influx of sympathy for the hostages and support for Israel in the war against Hamas, but that was not the case. As soon as the news broke, lies and bias began seeping their way into the situation. Statements supporting Hamas in their “right to liberation” and condemning a supposed Gazan genocide found their way into political speeches, global news, and most of all, into the voices of student bodies in universities around the world. As the months went on, and the hostages suffered in silence, this media bias only continued to grow, in the process fueling global anti-Israel sentiments and antisemitism. Even on local Montreal campuses, this problem persists. As an example, several articles (which will remain unnamed for copyright purposes) were published in the McGill Tribune, unreasonably accusing Israel of genocidal acts towards the people of Gaza.


To explore these claims as part of a rational thought process, proper definitions need first to be clarified. According to the United Nations, genocide is defined as “a crime committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part.” In line with this definition, the claims of genocide in the Tribune (or in any other source of media) are simply untrue, as over the years, despite the claims that the Israeli government wishes to destroy them, the Palestinian population of Gaza has continued to grow and develop. In Gaza, from the years 2005-2024 (with 2005 being the year that Israel pulled their forces out of the Gaza Strip under the government of Ariel Sharon), the population has increased from 457.4 thousand people to 800.6 thousand people. Over that same period (more specifically between 2014 and 2020), Gaza received up to 4.5 billion dollars in aid from U.N. agencies. Throughout the history of humankind, all genocides have been marked by a clear decrease in the population of the affected group, with minimal intervention (such as financial aid) offered by the international community until after the atrocities had already been committed. To name a few, during the 1915-16 Armenian genocide at the hands of the Ottomans, their population of 1.5 million decreased by estimates of 660 thousand to 1.2 million people, and during the Rwandan Genocide in 1994, the Rwandan population dropped by 800 thousand at the hands of Hutu militia groups. While there has unfortunately and undeniably been a loss of civilian life in Gaza, through the use of a logical reasoning process, there is no basis to call it a genocide. As the measures taken by the IDF were retaliatory measures, they were not unprovoked nor were they based on any intent to destroy an ethnic, racial or religious group. 


Now, in any form of political debate involving war, it is important to acknowledge the tragedy associated with this loss of life on both sides. All rational Zionists will acknowledge the fact that the loss of civilian Palestinian life in Gaza is tragic, but it is the fault of Hamas for using their people as martyrs to fuel a jihadist cause. Israel does not actively want to kill Palestinian civilians, rather they are working towards the goal of eradicating Hamas and freeing the hostages, with the IDF systematically advancing through the territory, planning out civilian evacuation routes, and destroying terrorist tunnel networks. Despite this, many students (as shown in the Tribune) and protestors who harbor anti-Israel sentiments are entirely convinced that the Israeli government has no moral compass and a complete lack of ethics when it comes to preventing civilian casualties. An example of this ignorant stance was shown when South African advocate in the ICJ, Adila Hassim, spuriously stated she believed the Israeli government had genocidal intentions in response to their preventative evacuation order provided to northern Gazan civilians on October 13th, 2023 before the IDF offensive in northern Gaza. Clearly, regarding ethics, ignorance and denial will always be present, therefore a different approach must be used to prove this point. 


Rather than focusing on the ethical perspective, the focus can be placed on the political perspective. The fact of the matter is that Israel, a tiny country surrounded by enemies, has been subject to constant scrutiny by the United Nations since its creation in 1948. The nation has fought nine wars since its establishment, none of which they instigated, and all of which ended victoriously (albeit at the cost of innocent human life). Despite the relentless hardship and scrutiny, the Israeli government has been involved in multiple peace processes, none of which ended successfully for them. Now, using logic, any individual would realize how little political sense it would make for Israel to suddenly start willingly killing thousands of civilians, revealing an underlying genocidal scheme, only adding to the international criticism that they already face, and further destroying their image which is already unreasonably tarnished in the eyes of many Eastern countries. As a relatively newer country that associates itself with Western values, does a war that encourages the death of innocents seem like something that they would want to do?! All signs point to the contrary, and an unwillingness to acknowledge that fact signifies an unwillingness to use rational thought.


Finally, criticism of uninformed media bias does not mean that one can’t have their own opinions. If students or journalists know the full story while still disagreeing with the specifics of the IDF’s military methods (after having researched them) and have valid and logical reasons to believe they should have approached the situation differently, that’s fine. But to blindly take the side of the aggressors all the while making calls of genocide can only mean one of two things: Either the individual is misinformed, or the individual has preemptively made up their mind based on emotions, or based on hate, which is too often the case. To clarify, opinions based on facts are entirely acceptable, but in this case, the facts all point towards one conclusion – that Israel is a nation defending itself, not by choice but by necessity, against a terrorist organization that has no goals other than to destroy and to kill the Jewish people. So, as rational, informed human beings with proper deduction skills, it only makes sense for us to say… 

Am Yisrael Chai.


32 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page