Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, May 09, 2006

Diplomacy of Fear - the Muslim way

Many liberals like to decry conservatives for what they call the "politics of fear." This means that neocons like to use fear as a battering ram of sorts to spook people into voting for them, specifically fear of terror.

There may or may not be merit in this argument, but I have hardly anyone talk about the flip-side of this concept, one that liberals wholeheartedly embrace, usually without realizing it.

I call it the diplomacy of fear.

For decades, the Arab world specifically and the Muslim world in general has used threats as its main leverage to get the West to bend to its will. The threats aren't usually direct; most often they take the form of "if you don't do what we want, the Arab street will erupt" or "the terrorists will have an excuse." In other words, if Arab thugocracies do not get what they desire from the West, then they will be powerless to stop the irrational forces within their borders from damaging Western interests.

I touched upon an early example of this in this recent posting about Arab sympathies with the Nazis, and the British reaction:

“If war were to break out, no trouble that the Jews could occasion us, in Palestine or elsewhere, could weigh for a moment against the importance of winning Muslim opinion to our side,” Britain’s Minister for Coordination of Defence, Lord Chatfield, told the British cabinet in 1939, shortly before Britain reversed its decision to partition its mandate, promising instead all of the land to the Palestinian Arabs.

Think about this for a minute - the British are saying that since Jews are not troublemakers and the Arabs are, it is in the British self-interest to appease the Arabs (at the expense of thousands of Jewish lives).

And this theme is so widespread, so much a part of the fabric of the way the world thinks today, that it is unthinkable that there could be an alternative.

European Mideast policy is almost wholly driven by fear of upsetting Arabs and Muslims. Those who claim to be seeking "peace" make the assumption that asking Arabs for concessions is useless and could ignite some sort of negative response - so is makes more sense to pressure Israel into making even more concessions.

How many times have we seen a variant of this recent pronouncement from Mahmoud Abbas:

Mr Abbas said the freeze was causing hardship to ordinary people and would lead to further instability.

"Instability?" We all know what he means by that - he means violence and terror, which is apparently a natural reaction in the rules of Arab physics. If the West doesn't give Palestinian Arabs more and more money, well, hey, he sure can't control his people from the spontaneous inevitable violence (remarkably similar to the violence they seem to have perfected when they had a billion dollars a year coming into their coffers.)

Mahmoud Abbas threatens the Western world and no one bothers to call him on it.

Similarly, a Canadian imam threatened Canada with similar unspecified terror last year. Iran threatens the West daily with implied terror and eventual nuclear bombs. It is the main leverage the Saudis have when lobbying Europe and America - they are more "moderate" and if the royals don't get their request taken care of, they might fall and those "militants" will take over.

This climate of fear is so endemic that fundamentally irrational and immoral acts by the Muslim world are accepted by the West with little question - to challenge it could put you in the same category as a Salman Rushdie or a Danish cartoonist, and who needs that hassle?

Maybe it is pure bigotry that causes Saudi Arabia to not allow Christian bibles or any Jews altogether to be on holy Saudi soil - but you won't see any EU inquiries into that matter. By any objective measure, the Arab world is the center for terror and human rights abuses today. But it is much easier to concentrate on supposed Koran abuse at Guantanamo. Much safer to call Israel with its million Arab citizens "an apartheid state."

Because the US and Israel don't threaten the EU with terror the way the Arabs do.

So, the diplomacy of fear has an excellent record since the first part of the twentieth century, and there is no indication that it will slow down any time soon. After all, it works.

Humanitarian crisis, part 7

Once again, the poor starving Palestinian Arabs are forced to go to great lengths just to acquire the bare necessities of life.

Israel last week seized a large cargo of high-grade explosives which an Egyptian boat tried to transfer to two Palestinian boats from the Gaza Strip, the army told AFP.

According to a military source on Tuesday, an Israeli navy patrol off the Mediterranean coast of Sinai last Wednesday spotted "an Egyptian boat trasferring a cargo to two Palestinian boats".

The suspicious cargo was dropped off by the Palestinian boats once their crews noticed the Israeli ship, the source told AFP.

"Navy divers later retrieved the cargo from the seabed and found it contained 550 kilograms (1,200 pounds) of full-grade TNT (trinitrotoluene) explosives," he said.

Part 6 and links to the others of the series here.

Abu Marzouk: Hamas will never recognize Israel

Since Jimmy Carter is so convinced that Hamas fully intends to recognize Israel and renounce terror if only Israel would abandon all the post 1967 territories, to the point that the world should throw money to Hamas now, perhaps he should read the Muslim Brotherhood website - in English! An interesting interview with Hamas' "deputy chief" Abu Marzouk:

Ikhwanweb: There are statements attributed to Mr. Khaled Mesha’al indicating that Hamas will recognize Israel if it withdraws to the 1967 borders. Your comments.

Abu Marzouk: One of Hamas founding principals [sic] is that it does not recognize Israel. We ran in elections and the people voted for us based on this platform. Therefore, the question to recognize Israel is definitely not on the table unless if it withdraws from ALL Palestinian lands, not only to 1967 borders. How can we be expected to recognize an occupying entity when there are millions of our people refugees and thousands others prisoners! Why must we recognize them when they do not recognize us as a sovereign state with full independence.

Ikhwanweb: what is the future ahead of Hamas amidst the mounting international pressure?

Abu Marzouk: I believe that the formation of Hamas government in itself is a major turning point in the history of Palestinian cause. Hamas government will help transitioning the Issue of Palestine from its international framework to that of the national resistance. Palestinian people will stand resolute and will support their democratic choice. I truly believe that Hamas will succeed by the will of God in addition to the steadfastness of Palestinian people and the support our Muslim and Arab nation.

But no matter how explicitly Hamas states its goals, no matter how clearly they say that their aim is military and terroristic, there will always be useful idiots willing to believe in their make-believe world where all problems can be magically wished away with people in suits talking in conference rooms.

(Hat tip - MEMRI. But the terror apologists like Carter can't claim that MEMRI mistranslated this interview!)

"Wiping Israel off the map is just one step in Iran's attempt to create a new world order," said Brig.-Gen Yosef Kuperwasser, head of the IDF Military Intelligence's research division.
"Iran is interested not only in turning into a superpower, but also in changing the world order," Kuperwasser said at a conference on power projection at the Fisher Institute of Strategic Studies in Herzliya.
"Iran is at the forefront of global terrorism, and aids Hizbullah in Lebanon, al Qaida, and Palestinian terror organizations, and is behind attacks on US armed forces in Iraq," the general asserted.
Just hours before the UNSC votes on sanctions against Iran, Maj-Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad said that he believed Iran was vulnerable to sanctions. "Iran is Not North Korea," Gilad said. "It's a country of intelligent, intellectual people."

While it is nice to see that my own analysis is confirmed by the IDF, I can't help but worry why a solitary person reading the Internet can see things so clearly six months before an organization that presumably has much better tools at its disposal.

Gibberish in the Yemen Times

Either there's some secret message here to the mujahedeen or the Yemen Times will print whatever gibberish comes its way as long as it appears to be anti-Zionist and anti-American.

After reading it a few times, it seems that the author (getting a doctorate in the Arab world is apparently pretty easy) is saying that Jews created Al-Qaeda sometime during the Clinton administration, and tried to get him to kill all American Muslims or something like that. When he balked, the Jews created the Monica Lewinsky scandal to punish him and then convinced Bin Laden to lead their Zionist movement, deceiving him.

The upshot is, as usual, it is all the Jews' fault. As always. Those Jews are so damn smart that only an illiterate Arab PhD is capable of unscrambling their nefarious plans!

Was Bin Laden deceived?
Dr. Abdullateef Al-Adham

“But they worked their plan, and their plan was before God, and their plan was such as would move the mountains”

(Surat Abraham 14-46)

God had depicted the extent to which deception may reach at times. Mountains may diminish under its intensity; leave alone a weak creature like the human being.

We all witnessed on the 11th of September the collapse of one of the buildings of the International Trade Towers in New York, which was followed, by the second one, shortly afterwards. They became just a trace of ruins. They became a rebel that was lately removed. The site of the destroyed towers was given the name ‘ground zero’. We also witnessed the direct impact, which rocked the whole world, with the Islamic world, who was immediately accused, on top.

In fact, what happened on that day was a model to which the conspiracy might amount. What happened was the result of the theory of “civilizations conflict”, which was fabricated by the Zionists’ mind, whose leaders thought that the opportunity of dominating the world had ripened following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Yet they think that the only obstacle that hiders their plans is Islam. They attribute this to the significant populace, and civilization. They think of the necessity of directing a destructive blow to it.

The American and British decision makers were convinced with the civilizations conflict theory and its advantages was circulated. The Zionist cupidity was not understood. The Al-Qaeda organization was formed, and some Muslim youth were lured to join it, to carry out some operations that were attributed to it. This was accompanied by exaggerated media campaigns of the role of the organization and its leader Bin Laden.

However, President Clinton’s hesitation, especially in executing an immense attack inside America, hindered a great part of the Zionist project. He was punished for that with the scandals and the shameful prosecutions. Bush agreed to do what Clinton had rejected. He set out to take a number of measures, including the provocation of China and the withdrawal from Durban Human Rights Conference and others. He carried out the 11 September attack, and incidents continued. But Gods prodigy was observing their actions. He disclosed their conspiracy and the theory of conflict of civilizations failed. Yet was Bin Laden aware of the Zionist cupidity? There is a possibility that he was deceived, like the others, but the fact remains that he is a part in a serious crime, engineered by the Zionism. However, God will hinder their intrigue.

Another Nazi-Arab connection

YNet yesterday published a fascinating article about German Nazis arming Palestinian Arabs before World War II, seeing in the Arabs a natural ally:

Historical documents in Britain’s National Archives in London show that Nazi Germany attempted to ship arms to Palestinian forces in the 1930s.
A British Foreign Office report from 1939 reports of “news of a consignment of arms from Germany, sent via Turkey and addressed to Ibn Saud (king of Saudi Arabia), but really intended for the Palestine insurgents.” Britain’s chief military officer in Mandatory Palestine also noted reports “regarding import of German arms at intervals for some years now.”
British documents from the same period, and German records photographed by an American spy and sent to the British government, said that a number of Nazi agents were sent to Mandatory Palestine, in order to forge alliances with Palestinian leaders, and urge them to reject a partition of the land between the Jewish and Arab populations.
German documents photographed and sent to Whitehall by an American spy revealed that in 1937, German officials had calculated that “Palestine under Arab rule would… become one of the few countries where we could count on a strong sympathy for the new Germany.”
“The Palestinian Arabs show on all levels a great sympathy for the new Germany and its Fuhrer, a sympathy whose value is particularly

high as it is based on a purely ideological foundation,” a Nazi official in Palestine wrote in a letter to Berlin in 1937. He added: “Most important for the sympathies which Arabs now feel towards Germany is their admiration for our Fuhrer, especially during the unrests, I often had an opportunity to see how far these sympathies extend. When faced with a dangerous behaviour of an Arab mass, when one said that one was German, this was already generally a free pass.”

Even more troubling was the fact that Britain decided not to save 20,000 Jewish lives in a shortsighted attempt to stay on the Arabs' good side in Palestine:

The records also show that the news of increased Nazi-Arab cooperation panicked the British government, and caused it to cancel a plan in 1938 to bring to Palestine 20,000 German Jewish refugees, half of them children, facing danger from the Nazis.

Documents show that after deciding that the move would upset Arab opinion, Britain decided to abandon the Jewish refugees to their fate.

“His Majesty’s Government asked His Majesty’s Representatives in Cairo, Baghdad and Jeddah whether so far as they could judge, feelings in Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia against the admission of, say 5,000 Jewish children for adoption… would be so strong as to lead to a refusal to send representatives to the London discussions. All three replies were strongly against the proposal, which was not proceeded with,” a Foreign Office report said.

“If war were to break out, no trouble that the Jews could occasion us, in Palestine or elsewhere, could weigh for a moment against the importance of winning Muslim opinion to our side,” Britain’s Minister for Coordination of Defence, Lord Chatfield, told the British cabinet in 1939, shortly before Britain reversed its decision to partition its mandate, promising instead all of the land to the Palestinian Arabs.

Britain chose to let thousands (and ultimately, millions) of Jews die rather than upset their Arab "friends" - who were naturally sympathetic to Hitler.

There have been other connections shown between Arabs and Nazis, here and elsewhere. But this story sheds new light on this topic and it has more than just theoretical historical importance.

I would not expect this story to create major headlines around the world, but a search through Google finds that not a single other news outlet has published this story, a full day after Yediot Aharonot uncovered it. Not in England, not in Germany, not in any Arab news source.

More hypocrisy from Dhimmi Carter, Terror Apologist

Jimmah is at it again, showing his clear preference for murderous Palestinian Arab thugs to Israeli Jews.

In his latest execrable piece written for the International Herald Tribune, he writes an insane series of idiotic ramblings to the effect that by not paying Hamas all the money it wants, the world is punishing innocent Palestinian Arabs who only want peace. It "deprives them of their basic human rights" - apparently, paying terrorists is a basic human right according to Carter. He bends over backwards and sideways and inside-out to portray Hamas as a misunderstood group of people who are honorably holding up their end of a cease-fire.

His astonishing ability to ignore explicit Hamas statements praising terror and reading deeply into side comments that could be construed as possibly being less-than-terroristic is perhaps the worst case of wishful thinking trumping reality ever witnessed:

With all their faults, Hamas leaders have continued to honor a temporary cease-fire [really?] , or hudna, during the past 18 months, and their spokesman told me that this "can be extended for two, 10 or even 50 years if the Israelis will reciprocate." Although Hamas leaders have refused to recognize the state of Israel while their territory is being occupied, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has expressed approval for peace talks between Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel. He added that if these negotiations result in an agreement that can be accepted by Palestinians, then the Hamas position regarding Israel would be changed.

The upshot of the article is that exerting economic pressure on Hamas is immoral.

Interestingly, Carter has in the past argued that exerting economic pressure on Israel is desirable:

There are two existing factors that offer success to American efforts at persuasion.
One is the legal requirement that American weapons are to be used by Israel only for defensive purposes...
The other persuasive factor is approximately $10 million daily in American aid to Israel.

So here we have it in black and white - Jimmy Carter prefers Hamas terrorists to Israeli Jews.

Could it because the Nobel Prize recipient is also the recipient of millions of Arab dollars?

Crocs vs. Zeeba

In the brilliant (and twisted) Pearls Before Swine comic strip by Stephan Pastis, it seems that the artist has a little symbolism going on with his series of a bunch of crocodiles trying to kill their neighbor, the zebra.

The main themes are that Zebra is very smart, the crocodiles are usually dumb, and often the crocs end up either killing themselves or otherwise failing spectacularly.

The comics can be appreciated more when you realize that almost certainly (but perhaps subconsciously on the artist's part), Zebra represents Israel and the crocodiles are Palestinian Arab terrorists.

Here is a recent series that demonstrates this (notice the punchline at the end):

The idea that the artist is passionately pro-Israel and anti-terror is apparent from this uncharacteristically somber strip from December of 2003:

Stephan Pastis, for his part, does not divulge any symbolic meaning to the crocs. But to my mind at least, the battle is remarkably consistent the Palestinian Arab war against Jews. Today's strip even includes the religious dimension of the terrorists:

Even if I'm wrong (and I don't think I am), it adds a bit to my enjoyment of the strip.

The precarious state of Iranian Jews

From the Scotsman:

FOR the dwindling Jewish community in Iran, a sacred ritual is observed at 6.30 every evening as shortwave radios are switched on to listen to the daily Farsi broadcast from Israel.

Since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to power last June, life for Iran's 25,000 Jews has become even more precarious as the president defiantly pursues a nuclear policy while declaring Israel should be "wiped off the world map".

Israel has long identified Iran as its biggest threat, and these concerns have grown amid repeated calls by its hard-line president for Israel's destruction.

Last Thursday, Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert issued a strongly worded warning that the Jewish state took seriously Iranian threats to wipe out Israel and would defend itself against a country the West suspects of seeking nuclear weapons.

His remarks also came as Western powers sought action by the United Nations to curb Iranian uranium enrichment and other key nuclear processes. "It is becoming a serious matter of concern for Iranian Jews should there be any military action between Iran and Israel," said Israeli broadcaster Menashe Amir.

"The Iranian regime says it does distinguish between Judaism and Zionism, but the local Jewish community knows that is a lie since it has been frequently written by extremists in religious circles that 'every Jew is a Zionist'."

While it is still the largest Jewish community in the Middle East outside Israel, a vast number of the population have fled Iran.

The first major movement came in 1948 when the state of Israel was established and the number of Jews in Iran stood at about 150,000. The Islamic revolution in 1979 prompted another movement.

"Every Iranian Jew who had the financial possibility or courage has already left, but there's still a small but flourishing community," said Amir, who moved to Israel from Iran at the age of 20 in 1959. He has been broadcasting for 46 years in Farsi for Israeli state radio.

He is all too familiar with the precarious position of Iranian Jews who are called on by the government to declare their public support for the country's nuclear policy.

"Not to mention, every time Iran publicly condemns Israeli actions in the Palestinian territories, the Jewish community is expected to issue a statement of support," he said.

Even though the regime officially recognises Judaism as an official religious minority and the Jewish community is even allocated a seat in the Iranian parliament, the reality on the ground is different.

Jewish leaders are reluctant to draw attention to incidences of mistreatment of their community, due to fear of government reprisal, along with fear of being arrested or accused of being spies. In 1999, 13 Jews were arrested in the city of Shiraz and charged with spying for Israel. While eventually all were pardoned, it exposed the fragile position of the country's Jewish community.

"While there are Jewish schools, the principals and most of the teachers are Muslim, the Bible is taught in Farsi, not in Hebrew, and the schools are forced to open on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath," Amir said, as he played Hebrew music for his listeners.

"So while the regime declares that there is freedom of religion, it is all just for the sake of appearances."

Any resemblance is purely coincidental

Gaza City rally for Hamas:

Nuremburg rally for Nazism:

Let's see:
They both want to pretend to be oppressed by powerful Others.
They both want to replace democracy with a totalitarian state.
They both want to place the entire world under their control.
They both glamorize death.
They both like that cool salute.
They both spend a lot of time on organized rallies to brainwash their populations.
They both rely on repeating lies over and over again.
They both regard the free world as their enemy, while they want to get as much money as they can from that same capitalistic society.
They both want to slaughter every Jew alive.

All just a coincidence, I'm sure.

6M African Muslims convert to Xtianity annually

A fascinating translation of an interview at Al-Jazeerah in 2003 (original Arabic no longer on the site.) (Hat tip American Thinker via Iris.)

It looks like the "fastest growing religion" may have been overstating the case, and there is panic in the Muslim world as to the huge number of African Muslims converting to Christianity.

Maher Abdallah:
Dear viewers, peace of Allah be upon you, greetings and welcome to a new episode of the program Islamic Law and Life.

Our topic this evening will be Christianization in the Dark Continent ... Africa. For after Islam was the religion of the majority, the great majority of that continent, the number of Muslims now is no greater than a third of the population. This is taking into consideration, of course, that a large portion of this group are Arab Muslims. No doubt that the missions of evangelization and Christianization played a great role in this demographic shift of Muslims in the continent.

To discuss this topic, it is my pleasure to introduce today a man who is an expert on the issue of evangelization and Christianization in Africa, even though he will concentrate on the issue of Christianization first and foremost…. Sheikh Ahmad Al Katani; the president of The Companions Lighthouse for the Science of Islamic Law in Libya, which is an institution specializing in graduating imams and Islamic preachers.

Sheikh Ahmad, welcome to you on the program.

Ahmad Al Katani:
Greeting to you.

Maher Abdallah:
If we start by inquiring about your strict stance against the Christian missions in Africa, don’t the followers of every religion have the right to seek new converts, exactly as you train and graduate young Muslims to propagate Islam?

Ahmad Al Katani:
I seek refuge in Allah the Seer, the Knower, from the stoned devil. In the name of Allah the Merciful the Beneficent. Thanks to Allah the One, the Only, the Permanent One, who did not give birth nor was born, to whom no one was equal. I bear witness that there is no God but Allah who has no partners, and I bear witness that our master Muhammed – Allah’s prayers and peace be upon him - is his messenger and seal of prophets; Allah prayers be upon him and his brothers the prophets and messengers and their families.

The question that you pose is a result of not comprehending the difference between the concept of Christianization and the concept of evangelism.

The concept of evangelism: is inviting the non-Christians to the Christian or Nazarene religion, and this is the right of every Christian and the right of every believer to call others to his faith. However, we are talking about a different matter; which is Christianization. Christianization means the following: preparing plans, and executing these plans and evolving these plans to change Muslims into Christians by taking advantage of the ignorance and poverty (of the people) and whatever necessitates from similar circumstances.

So, we are faced with the issue of taking advantage of circumstances, taking advantage of humanitarian needs, taking advantage of the lack of education for example, that these people (missionaries) use to take Muslims out of their religion.

Maher Abdallah:
Fine. This is a big and dangerous phrase. Taking advantage of poverty, of ignorance, of lack of education, of some need is something that a Muslim can also be accused of. So if you don’t back up what you say with examples, with references, your words remain in the air without much weight to them.

Ahmad Al Katani:
The reality is that these words say a lot less than they should. As we said in the beginning, everyone has the right to invite others to his religion; this is what is known as evangelism (or proselytizing). As for Christianization, no one has the right to take Muslims out of their religion, and you asked for references and the references are too numerous.

Islam used to represent, as you previously mentioned, Africa’s main religion and there were 30 African languages that used to be written in Arabic script. The number of Muslims in Africa has diminished to 316 million, half of whom are Arabs in North Africa. So in the section of Africa that we are talking about, the non Arab section, the number of Muslims does not exceed 150 million people. When we realize that the entire population of Africa is one billion people, we see that the number of Muslims has diminished greatly from what it was in the beginning of the last century. On the other hand, the number of Catholics has increased from one million in 1902 to 329 million 882 thousand (329,882,000). Let us round off that number to 330 million in the year 2000.

As to how that happened, well there are now 1.5 million churches whose congregations account for 46 million people. In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Every year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity. These numbers are very large indeed …..

It is a long transcript including questions from callers. One Christian caller was lectured as to how Christianity is more bloodthirsty than Islam.

The problem with the BBC

The BBC just completed a third-party study on how impartial its coverage is of the Israeli/Palestinian Arab conflict.

There seems some disagreement as to what the conclusions are (the Times claimed the study concluded that BBC coverage favored Israel, which does not seem to be quite true.) There was one welcome recommendation that the BBC use the word "terrorism" when appropriate.

From reading the report itself, it is obvious that the authors tried very hard to ensure that the BBC's coverage was "balanced." In fact, that was one of the purposes of the report:

...[T]he BBC [is] committed, as our terms of reference make clear, to fairness, impartiality and balance. (While fairness and impartiality are legal requirements, balance is a concept adopted by the BBC in seeking to give effect to them.)

And much of the report details suggestions on how exactly to get balanced reporting out of an asymmetrical conflict.

The problem is that the premise is wrong.

Israel's legitimacy is not a valid topic for a balanced debate any more than that of Great Britain. Terrorism's legitimacy is similarly not a valid topic for debate. Any sensible person makes reasonable assumptions that the fundamental moral basis of the reporter is somewhat similar to the reader. These moral absolutes make "impartiality" in itself immoral.

To give a specific example, the report mentions that BBC coverage favors multiple Israeli deaths in terror attacks compared to multiple Palestinian Arabs killed in Israeli attacks (in terms of time given and percentage of incidents reported). The point is that this imbalance needs to be addressed.

That is absurd. There is a huge difference in motive for the killings, and that difference is the difference between morality and immorality. If motive is not important, one would expect the BBC to cover every auto accident in England with as much airtime as an assassination of a Prime Minister. Nobody but the far Left and Arab terror apologists claim that Israel targets civilians, while the Arabs themselves celebrate the murder of Israeli and Western civilians. The very idea that the coverage of both events deserve the same sympathy is in itself immoral.

Nobody is saying that the BBC should not provide in-depth analysis of the conflict, nor that it shouldn't cover anything from the Palestinian Arab viewpoint. But "balance" is immoral.

A more basic premise that is wrong in this report is that the conflict is between Israel and Palestinian Arabs. If the conflict is framed in such terms, it is easy to make Israel look like the big bully with the huge advantage in strength. This idea is so ingrained in the world psyche that even the BBC, striving for impartiality (and it truly appears to be trying) cannot see the forest for the trees.

It is not a conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Israel. It is a conflict between the entire Arab world and Israel. (One can plausibly argue that it is a single battle in the conflict between Islam and the West as well.)

The Palestinian Arab people are not in great shape, but the idea that they have been pawns in the geopolitical and military power play between the entire Arab world and Israel is not addressed by most news outlets. The basic question of whether the Arabs want independence for their Palestinian brethren, or the destruction of Israel, is not addressed. When framed this way, the "conflict" can be seen in an entirely new, and more accurate, light.

But the world has been brainwashed into accepting the idea of a Palestine-centric conflict, and this fundamentally affects how the news is reported. If the BBC and other news outlets truly want to be fair, accurate and balanced, they need to look beyond the incorrect framing that is implicit in the BBC report itself.

If you cannot define the issues correctly to begin with, you cannot dream to cover them accurately.