The myth of the pro Israeli bias in foreign media- From my (an Israeli) point of view.

reply to post by Eliad

Look, we're not going discuss the whole flotilla issue in depth now, but she said herself that she was below deck and didn't see anything, and she said she had only heard live fire. how does she know that it's live fire, and not something else? They were sitting down there making guesses... Also how does she know when it was that the commandos landed?

I don't know what it sounds like when a ship is hit by a torpedo but i think i would if i was abord a ship and this happened.

You say she was not sure what live gun shoots sound like and i say you are grasping at straws.

I can not describe just what the sound of helicopters landing troops on the ship would sound like but i would have a good guess as to whats happening as people run around in panick.

Are you sure she was below deck all this time because i didn't hear here say that.

Facts are she was ears and eyes on the ground so i'll take her word for what she say happended over someone else that is using what if's and maybe

reply to post by deccal


lol
Already you have two stars for that stupid comment...

Do you really think anyone cares about the middle east forum in ATS?
Besides me of course

I care about my country, and that's why I'm doing this.
I wish I was paid for this...

I'm not telling you to take whatever I say as fact. I'm giving you a different view on things in hopes that you reconsider some of your preconceptions of Israel.

If I was being paid wouldn't it be much easier to lie and say I was a Palestinian and that the Israelis aren't so bad...
Or something?

Instead I'm telling you I'm Israeli, I'm telling you I'm not objective, and I know I'm always defending my country but it's hard for me not to..

Oh, and I'm also enjoying this in a way, I guess..
I like the debates, I like the discussions..
And don't even try and tell me that there isn't a majority of anti Israel members in this forum..

Let's just say this- Maybe I am blind, maybe I don't see what's going on around me, in my country, in my army. Maybe.
Can you blame me for thinking I know better?
I'm here, aren't I? I read your posts and threads, I comment, I'm looking at the other side of the fence, I'm not trying to close my eyes..
I just find it hard no to fend for my country when I see that I need to.
Can you blame me?
Would you not have done the same, were you in my shoes?

reply to post by LieBuster


Maybe you're right, but I've learned never to take things at face value.
I realize that on some level I don't WANT to believe that they shot at civilians for no reason, but it's more than that.. I know the IDF, I know there's no way it'll do something like that..

An explosion by a torpedo can be felt, a shot from a rifle can only be heard, and when you don't know what a gun sounds like- everything can sound like a gun to you..
Also have you seen those boats moving? Have you seen how fast they are? How they were bouncing on the water? Really? Shoot a gun from there? Also there were no 5.56 bullets on the bodies, so you want to tell me all of this was done with pistols?!?

Does this all make perfect sense to you? Pistols shot out of a boat that's rocking and shaking?

The more I think about it the more it makes no sense.

I don't want to be fixated in my opinion, but it just doesn't make any sense! There's no way you can hit anyone like that anyway!

With respect,
Eliad.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by Eliad]

reply to post by Eliad


Come now Eliad are you actually going to sit there and type that the majority of the powerful players in western foreign media are biased against Israel?

Wall Street Journal

New York Times

The whole of the U.S. tv 'News' media

The Times in the UK

Sky News

all root and toot for Israel.

The reason other media outlets are biased against Israel such as the Independent, Channel 4 both in the UK is becasue the crimes committed by the Israeli state towards the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza are so obvious and appaling that to ignore them would be quite ridiculous.

Lets get this straight, lets discuss facts. All Palestinian Arab actions against Jews originate from the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the British support of Zionism during the British mandate and the subsequent declaration of the Israeli Jewish state.

But all you ever see on most media outlets are Israeli reactions to Palestinian attacks as if it were the Arabs who were the original aggressor. Absolute bollox.

You know and i know that it was the Zionists under Weizmann and Ben-Guerion who were the original aggressors. They always planned to form a Jewish state at the expense of the Palestinian Arabs.

Yet this is never discussed when you see talks about the history of the conflict on the T.V.


[edit on 16-6-2010 by Peruvianmonk]

reply to post by Peruvianmonk


As I said, I don't watch foreign news, but maybe I should start..
The only pro Israeli news station that I know of is Fox..

Could you tell me in what way are they pro Israel? Are the reports unbalanced? Are they selective in presenting the truth in a way that favors Israel?
Do you feel you're getting more info by watching other stations or just the right info?

And again these news stations, each with its own crowd, its agenda, its own political stance... How stupid is that?
And don't get me started on sites like ifonlyamricansknew.com...

Also I don't get how the Balfour statement was the first attack.. It was all politics anyway, the Jews wanted a land, the British wanted acetone, and Jordan and Syria wanted Palestine and Jerusalem.
It's always politics and always has been.

But almost 100 years later, how is it relevant who cast the first stone?
What difference does it make?
The Palestinians are shown as the aggressors because Israel would never have bothered going in if it hadn't been for terrorist attacks..
Take the west bank for example, when was the last time Israel drove a tank in Rammallah?
The only reason Israel does anything in Gaza is to prevent terror...
I mean, do you think it happens for any other reason?
We don't like going in there, believe me..

Besides no one's blaming the Palestinian people, it's the hamas who ruins everything.

You don't need to go as far as the Balfour declaration every time you discuss the history of this place.

Besides the Balfour declaration only promised Jews a home in Palestine, it wasn't an act of aggression, but regardless of that the Palestinians responded with aggression, right? So how is it a bad thing for Israel to mention it?

It's so irrelevant in regards to the current conflict though, if you ask me..
Take 100 hamas activists, ask all of them what's the Balfour declaration, how many do you think will know the answer?
Just because you know their history so well doesn't mean they do.
Just because you fight for them because of that history doesn't mean that they do as well...

OP ... Something to think about.

I was Pro-Israeli because all our school curriculum and news sources were very one-sided and biased. Back then we only had BBC and U.S. based news sources. Israel had a good 40 years of doing what it wanted, to whom it wanted with zero criticism. But this is what has happened since then.

(1) A few BBC an independent reporters were killed by the IDF. So European bias has slowly disappeared.

(2) We now have much more independent coverage plus the older U.S. based news agencies.

(3) I watch BBC , FOX and Aljazeera at night plus a number of internet news sources, to get multiple views. I am experienced enough to see through any BS now. Having been feed it for years before.


I also have friends who lived in Israel who openly discuss the hatred and sub-human disgust the IDF forces are indoctrinated to have with anyone Arab and not Jewish. They are racial supremacist in the deepest way imaginable. Still making it illegal for a non-Jew to marry a Jew. So don't bother with the " but they are just normal people ' bull. If that is normal for you then I would say that is the problem right there.


You combine that with the "poor me" attitude surrounding the Holocaust and the billions of dollars and arms given to Israel over the years. The whole situation was ripe for a backlash. And if the pendulum swings back the other way, and chops Israel's head clean off, they will have no-one to blame but themselves.

The fact is Israel needs the worlds support to exist. And it is losing support every single day. And even though I still probably have more in common with most Israelis than Arabs, I can not support its current existence. . So the clock is ticking.

Arrogance and nukes will not save them.

You say you live in a free democracy. Well then prove it and for the first time in 60 years elect a moderate Govt instead of the ex-military right wing one you have. How about a Prime Minister not involved in war crimes ? That would be a nice change. Until then the people of Israel will reap what they sowed. Hatred.

And yes I am aware of other evil things happening in the world. But Israel wanted to be heard and pitied by the world for years, so it gets extra, extra attention. No use complaining about it now.

What my Pro-Israeli education deliberately left out.

The Stern Gang was the first terrorist network in the region. They made it very clear they were going to systematically take the land by force off the local population. Remember the Jewish immigrant population did not have to agree to claiming a separate state. By doing so they broke their agreement to not displace anybody.

The remaining members of the Stern Gang that escaped execution by the British became the first commanders of the IDF.

It is still Israel's policy to continue the Stern Gangs mission. I see no proof to make me think there has been a policy change. But I am willing to be educated if you know something I do not.

reply to post by Eliad


The Balfour Declaration is relevant. The creation of Israel in 48 is relevant.

And the Balfour Declaration was an attack. It was a clear plan for mass immigration of Jews with a political objective of creating a Jewish state, in a land that already had a people.. This was different to previous Jewish immigration in the 19th century who came and settled and intergrated with the Arab population.

Tell me if, hypethetically speaking, thousands of Kurds started arriving in Israel with the stated aim of creating a Kurdish state, how would Israelis react?

The list of Israeli agressions since her creation are pretty long.

The Suez Crisis in 56 that Israel involved herself in was initiated by Israel, U.K. and the French to bring down General Nasser.

The usurption of the West Bank and Gaza during the six day war is the main problem today. Israel initiated that conflict, her leaders admit that.
''We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him
(Nasser) ." -- Former Israeli PM Menahem Begin.

82 in Lebanon.

And the constant colonisation of the West Bank. Seriously how else are the Palestinians going to react other than violently? They have tried and continue to try peaceful protest but this is ignored in favour of covering unguided missile attacks.

Fox and others, in particular in the U.S., are bias becasue of the constant airtime given to Israeli propaganderists like Mark Regev and Israeli apoligists and supporters. The attack on the flotilla has been blamed on the activists in basically all the media coverage i have seen from the U.S..

Another example of Pro Israeli bias. Just look at the treatment of Helen Thomas by fellow 'journalists' over the past couple of week. All becasue she suggested that all these nutter colonialists coming from the U.S., Poland and Germany who are annexing the West Bank should go home. I mean what the hell is wrong with that statement? Yet she is treated like some kind of anti-semetic nazi. Disgusting.

The Pro-Israeli bias both in the American media and political ciricles is unfathomable to me.




[edit on 17-6-2010 by Peruvianmonk]

reply to post by thedeadtruth


I agree that the media was biased in favor of Israel for many years, but as you said, that is not the case today.

It's good that you watch BBC, FOX, and Al jazeera, you should read ynet.com from time to time if you want a different perspective.
Also, would you say you spend an equal amount of time watching all three, or is there one that's your favorite, that you watch more than the others?

The sub human hatred IDF soldiers are indoctrinated with?! What?
Who told you such things? Are these people who have actually been in the IDF? When? What unit?
There's no truth in any of this. IDF soldiers are definitely not indoctrinated to have Arabs, and treat them as sub human. I was in a small checkpost in the west bank in my last year of service, and I know that's not true.

But as I said, there is hate between the two nations, and there is anger on both sides.
But no one is indoctrinated or taught to hate. I wish you could come and see for yourself, I know my word will never be enough.

As for the marriage thing- Israel still have a big orthodox political lobby, it's insane. It's a bit complicated to explain why and how, but yeah, this law is not going anywhere anytime soon, and it's not because we're racist, it's because the politics of this place makes it impossible to change it...

Enough with the holocaust thing.. How would you feel if I had said "Enough with this 'poor me' refugee thing the Palestinians keep talking about"? It happened, it was a real problem, there were consequences to it, that's it.

As for saying there had to be a backlash.. Maybe there had to be a backlash, but is the situation right now fair? I don't want the media to be biased neither in our favor, not in theirs..

And as for our politics.. They're #ed up, I know..
We need to get the # out of the west bank, make peace, and be done with this #..

You should come and visit Israel sometime. Go couchsurfing or something. You'd be surprised at what you'll see, and the people you'd meet.
I'm not saying your mind will be changed completely, but some of your preconceptions of Israel might be proven wrong.

With respect,
Eliad.

reply to post by Peruvianmonk



Our perspectives are very different.

Debating the Balfour declaration is debating ancient past. The world was still in the midst of colonialism, borders were not set yet, and Palestine was hardly populated.
What is Palestine? Who are the Palestinians?
It was named by Phoenicia Palestinia by the Romans many many years ago, after deporting all the Jews from the kingdom of Israel. It was named that way to erase the name of the Jewish kingdom from this land. This is Palestine.
The people who lived here are not different from the people of Jordan and Syria.
This area had been conquered and switched hands so many times..
Who are the original Palestinians if not the Jews?

But # that... This is ancient history, and, again, is irrelevant.

The point is- 1917 is not 2010. Times were different, the world was different, and it was perfectly legitimate for anyone to ask for a land of their own.
Nobody asked to deport the Arabs. Nobody asked for ethnic cleansing. It was a simple promise- The Jews will have a nation in Palestine.

But there's more to it than that. Imagine let's say that the vikings who lived in Denmark or whatever were one day forced to depart Denmark, and were spread all over the world. They managed to retain their viking heritage over the years, and could not find a place of their own. Would you not let them go back to Denmark? Especially if most of Denmark wasn't populated?

How would the Israelis react?
Perhaps the same way they reacted to the thousands of Darfurian refugees that are picked up by Israel and given a chance at new life..
Do you know what they do to them on the Egyptian side of the border? They shoot them down. I've seen it happen.

If we stick to the past we'll never move forward. The usurpation of the West Bank and Gaza during the six day war is indeed the main problem today.
We need to get out of the west bank, and we need to find someone to talk to in Gaza..
One thing is in our hands, and the other is in theirs.

The Helen Thomas thing.. Are you seriously for Helen Thomas? She used to be one of those truth to power kind of people, now she's just talking out of her ass.. "They should go back to Poland"? What the # is that? Is that truth to power? Is that something we should expect from the most senior white house reporter? That's something I would expect to hear on the street market, not out of the mouth of anyone educated.

With respect,
Eliad.

"As I said, I don't watch much news, not to mention foreign news, and I've tried to present this issue from my point of you."

If you don't watch much news, how do you know that Israeli bias in the foreign media is a myth? You're drawing a conclusion and then you're admitting to not being qualified to draw such a conclusion? With the above statement, you've basically discredited the entire purpose of your post.

reply to post by Eliad


EIlad. Thank you for highlighting the dangers faced by the brave Israeli soldiers. I wonder how many of those who criticize Israel would tolerate the kind of aggression the IDF have to face every day. What part of "Chosen People" & "Promised Land" don't these pre-teen terrorists understand?

The vicious little stone throwers shown in your photos clearly illustrate the kind of people you must deal with & the dangers the Commandos & Tank Crews must face. Will it take another Cast Lead to finally disarm the brutal young thugs in the photographs?

I salute the courage of the IDF in their fight against terror. I believe most decent Americans would agree with me.

reply to post by Lionel


"What part of "Chosen People" & "Promised Land" don't these pre-teen terrorists understand?" You must be a troll. No one is that moronic.

"I salute the courage of the IDF in their fight against terror. I believe most decent Americans would agree with me." Thankfully decent Americans don't agree with your racist politics. Soon you'll mature and follow the right path.

reply to post by Eliad

But # that... This is ancient history, and, again, is irrelevant.

Something that happened under 100 years ago is not ancient history.

The point is- 1917 is not 2010. Times were different, the world was different, and it was perfectly legitimate for anyone to ask for a land of their own. Nobody asked to deport the Arabs. Nobody asked for ethnic cleansing. It was a simple promise- The Jews will have a nation in Palestine.

So becasue the 'Evil Empire' British promised the Jews a STATE in Palestine that makes it ok? And it was a STATE that was promised by the British as made clear by both Lloyd George and Balfour to Winston Churchill in the summer of 1922. The Palestinian Arabs both Moslem and Christain and the Jews already inhabiting the region before the coming of the Zionists already had a state under the Ottoman Empire and the British.

But there's more to it than that. Imagine let's say that the vikings who lived in Denmark or whatever were one day forced to depart Denmark, and were spread all over the world. They managed to retain their viking heritage over the years, and could not find a place of their own. Would you not let them go back to Denmark? Especially if most of Denmark wasn't populated?

What happened to the Jews during the revolt under the Roman Empire is up for debate. Some historains argue that the number expelled was actually very small and it was more down to free movement that the Jews left and intergrated within other areas round the world. Many others have also inhabited that region, the Jewish people have no more philosophical right to the land of Palestine than anyone else.

How would the Israelis react? Perhaps the same way they reacted to the thousands of Darfurian refugees that are picked up by Israel and given a chance at new life.. Do you know what they do to them on the Egyptian side of the border? They shoot them down. I've seen it happen.

This is nothing like what happened in Palestine during the British mandate. The Sudanese people are not coming to Israel to displace the Israelis and create a Sudanese state. The Zionists never had any intention of living alongside the Arabs in Palestine in the long run. Weizmann 1919 ''Our intention is to make Palestine as Jewish as France is French and England is English''.

We need to get out of the west bank, and we need to find someone to talk to in Gaza..

At least we are in agreement about the need of Israel to fully remove the settlers and military outposts from the West Bank. I personally believe their is a large element within Hamas who can be spoke to. Indeed they clealry are being spoken to in the back channels by both the Israeli and American governments.

The Helen Thomas thing.. Are you seriously for Helen Thomas? She used to be one of those truth to power kind of people, now she's just talking out of her ass.. "They should go back to Poland"? What the # is that? Is that truth to power? Is that something we should expect from the most senior white house reporter? That's something I would expect to hear on the street market, not out of the mouth of anyone educated.

But you are ignoring what she actually said. She is talking about the ILLEGAL colonisation of the West Bank. And many of these settlers are from the U.S. and Europe. This is what her reference to Israel 'getting the hell out of Palestine' meant in my eyes. And she is correct.

Good debate though.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Peruvianmonk]

reply to post by Romantic_Rebel


Romantic Rebel. You come here bashing Israel, but frankly Your anti-semitic views come as no suprise looking at yout Avatar.

You choose to represent yourself with a figure wearing full WWII Nazi German battle dress. To be precise:

M1916/18 Stahlhelm - helmet
M40 Feldbluse - tunic & trousers
Marschstiefel - jackboots
MP40 machine pistol & Model 24 Stielhandgranate tucked into your belt.

What are you, some kind of neo Nazi camp guard fantasist?

if there truly was media bias against Israel as you suggest, then the media would be calling the Israel government a terrorist organization, just as they are calling Hamas a terrorist organization, so I fail to see your point. However, in the media, if Helen Thomas says "get the hell out" and is branded a despicable neo-nazi, then I'd say the media is fairly in Israel's corner.

reply to post by Peruvianmonk


It is ancient history to us, and it is irrelevant to us as we can debate on this all day long, but we'll never know the truth of what has happened.
For example, up until the Balfour declaration Jordan was supposed to get Palestine and Jerusalem. Do you think they were happy when they didn't? Do you think they would just sit by and let the Jews take over what should have been theirs?
Of course not. If you think there's no outside politics in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict then you're dead wrong.

This was a promise given to the Jewish people for a state in Palestine. This was not a promise for a Jewish take over, and nobody said they were going to take over all of Palestine.
Most of Palestine wasn't even settled, and most of what was settled was backwards, just villages and farmers with no technology or proper building..

And it wasn't a state, it wasn't theirs, this was still under colonialism.. Did you know that for example the Brought an outsider tribe of Bedouins to rule all of Jordan? Is anyone complaining about that?
That was how the world worked.
Do you realize that a few years before the Balfour declaration all of the Palestinians were actually Jordanians be definition?

So what was the big deal about giving the Jews a bit of land? This was before the holocaust, and no one knew so many Jews would come... If no land was to be taken from any Palestinian, why not? They had Christians in Palestine who were Armenian in origin, and the Palestinians themselves were a part of the immigration created by the Caliphate, if I'm not mistaken..

Palestinian Arabs are descendants of the vast Arab/Islamic empire that from the seventh century, had dominated Palestine with the rise of Arabic language and Arab/Islamic culture.--While the majority of Palestinians were peasants, Palestinian cities, especially Jerusalem, were hubs of Arab civilization, where scholars, poets and scientists congregated and where, enriched by a constant influx of traders, they forged the city's identity as an important national center.--Islam's religious and moral teachings remained the dominant social forces, but small indigenous Jewish communities remained. They were the remnants of Palestine's ancient Jewish kingdom that was conquered by Rome in 70 AD, its people largely scattered.

(This is from an anti Israeli site, just so we're clear that there's no distortion or bias www.endtheoccupation.org... although some say the first Palestinians reached in the 11th century.)

So what makes it their land more then ours? They're no the original owners of the land, they were Muslims, and when Islam came and killed everyone in Palestine, he put these people instead... And they didn't settle the whole land, they just settled sporadically..
I don't deny that they've had an effect on this area, but what is their connection to the land? They could've lived in Syria or Jordan and it would be the same for them..
On the other hand you can't deny the Jewish connection to this land, this is where our people were formed, this is where all our history is, like the Celts belong in Britain, and the Vikings in Denmark...
Surely we have had more effect on Jerusalem then any other people! We made it into what it is! We built its walls! We dug its wells!

Why should this not be considered legitimate? I don't get it...

Why shouldn't we be promised a state in the place that our whole culture revolves around?

Why couldn't we have lived in peace?

I'm telling you, there's no good reason.. No good reason for attacking the new born Israeli state other than Jordan wanting to take over Jerusalem.

This was all politics, from beginning to end, and has nothing to do with anything else.
It's a fact that the Christian Palestinians were 35% of Palestine, and that they did not fight the Jews, moreover they were given citizenship in the new state, and were allowed to stay in their villages, as they did not threaten to kill anyone...
Only the Muslims fought. Why is that?
Honestly, it's all politics, it still is.

About Helen Thomas-



I feel sorry for the woman.. She's getting old.. I'm not really sure she meant what she said, but she didn't mean just the settlers, it seems more like she meant all of Israel..

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Maybe so, I'm basing most of what I say on what I started seeing and reading after getting involved in this forum, on youtube and on the internet..
This is part of this thread, I'm looking into this myth, and I'm giving my perspective based on news broadcasts I've seen online, based on websites like ifonlyamericansknew.com, and based on what I read here..

This is enough to give me some perspective as to what's going on, but at the same time I didn't want to present my opinions as fact.
Surely that is not enough to discredit them, as I've seen many forum members post half truths and propaganda as complete and undeniable fact.

Also as you can see, this is a debate, I asked for people's opinions.

My points are valid, even if they apply to some, but not all of the media channels, and I couldn't bring the other side of things, the pro Israeli bias because I don't have access to it..
Everyone in the forum are talking about "the Jews are hiding this, the Jews are hiding that" while I was giving examples for things that were done for the sake of sensationalism, rather than the sake of journalism.
These are two different things, are they not?

If you have read all of what I've written, surely you must admit some of it has some legitimacy...

reply to post by filosophia


Well, first of all most channels don't call hamas government terrorists, and even when they report acts of terror they don't say terrorist.. They say "a gunman", "an activist", "an armed Palestinian"... When was the last time you've read "A hamas terrorist shot Israeli forces..."?

So no one calls hamas "the terrorist government of hamas" either.. It's unethical..
So even if they were anti Israeli, they'd have to be very unprofessional to call Israel the terrorist government of Israel...

Journalism died because it was hogged by a war of "leftism" vs. "rightism".

The leftist journalist and his parrot-internet-poster view everything through the lens of "oppressor vs. oppressed", usually having Israel be the Former and Palestine the latter. The rightist journalist and parrot-internet-poster views everything through the lens of "Good guys vs. Bad guys", usually having Israel be the good guys and Palestine the bad guys.

In looking for any truth one drops the lenses and sees clearly. And when one sees clearly its just a bunch of shouting paranoids on both sides of the fence and a media that magnifies the shouting 1000-fold.

The truth the media doesnt want to hear and doesnt want to report is that the majority of Israelis and the majority of Palestinians want peace and mutual respect. Too bad the vocal minority gets all the media-airtime. People wanting peace doesnt sell papers.

reply to post by Eliad


A few points...

(1) Making it actually illegal, get it, against the law, to marry a non-Jew is racism in action. It is not simply a social preference and it is not " complicated" , only a lawyer or someone with an agenda would say that. God even the Germans did not go that far.

It is pathetic you try to hide behind politics. Israelis are racial supremacists, exactly the same as the Aryan brotherhood. We didn't stand for their BS for too long, and you will have the same fate.

The Jewish race should kiss its ass every morning and thank God, we don't stand for that kind of thing. Or the Nazis would have completed their little mission. Maybe you should think about that.


(2) The Holocaust was committed in none of our lifetimes. You are doing this to a people right now, in front of us. Big difference.


(3) Do you think the world press should have given "balanced and fair" coverage to the Nazis view on things ? Because I am pretty sure they had their " reasons and politics" to.

I dare you to actually answer the last question without tripping over your Israeli pay check.

reply to post by Eliad


You raise some interesting questions, but I ask you this - do you apply the same viewpoints to the way Israel portrays itself to the world?

Selective editing, chosen camera shots, bombastic interviewing... it comes from both sides.

You must recognise that surely? The use of Propaganda in any conflict comes from BOTH sides, not just one. To cry foul and insinuate only one side uses it smacks of bias with an agenda.

I know you are proud of your country, I'm proud of mine, but that does not prevent me from accepting that my country is not fallible. You are, I assume, capable of accepting that your country is 50% to blame for the issues in places like Gaza today?