In the past few months and years, media coverage of Israel has had subtle but distinct change in tone. The mainstream media is taking a harder look at Israel's policies, and has found not everything is to its liking.
There are several reasons why coverage of Israel has previously been so positive, and why recently a slight change has occurred. In the first place, Israel is a country culturally very attuned to us. Israel is part of the West; it shares Western norms and values. Many Jews would be comfortable living in the West and do so to this very day. Some of them work in the media and are sympathetic to the struggles their peers face.
Moreover, many in the media (and the vast majority of our country) believed that Israel had been in the right before 2006. Israel had - has - a democracy and a free press and all the things we like a country to have; the Palestine cause and their Arab supporters by and large do not. Israelis such as Yitzhak Rabin were calling for peace; meanwhile, Palestinian terrorist organizations such as Hamas were sending suicide bombers to kill Israelis civilians day after day.
Then came the 9-11 attacks by Muslim terrorists. In its aftermath media coverage of Israel was probably the most positive it had ever been.
There were three events, however, which changed things. At the very least, they have damaged Israeli prestige.
One of the original purposes of the Olympic Games, I believe, was to allow for brief truces and / or cease fires between warring Greek city states. Additionally, that principle was also included during the organization of the modern Olympics, by finding a way for nations to come together--and compete--peacefully, rather than in war. Obviously, that is a tradition Russia has violated in Georgia. The reason I bring this up is that Russia is set to host the Olympics in a town not far from Georgia in 2014:
Beginning a well-planned war (including cyber-warfare) as the Olympics were opening violates the ancient tradition of a truce to conflict during the Games. And Russia's willingness to create a war zone 25 miles from the Black Sea city of Sochi, where it is to host the Winter Games in 2014, hardly demonstrates its commitment to Olympic ideals.
Now, given this interesting and ironic coincidence, one obvious sanction that it seems the international community could level at Russia would be to withdraw Sochi's award of the 2014 Winter Games. Really, this is probably the minimum that should be done, but it seems like it would be a harsh enough stick to potentially alter behavior. Countries really, really want to host these things, after all.
Yesterday's opening ceremonies of the Olympics seem to be receiving nothing but rave reviews today. Personally, I enjoyed them, too, even if most of the artistic portion struck me as pretty much the same thing as Broadway, Disney or Bollywood musicals that I don't like very much, only on a scale 50 times larger. A bit cloying for my tastes. Then again, the older I get, the more I seem to like those musicals, but I digress...
What I did like, and what I usually like about the Olympic opening ceremonies, is the march of nations. Yesterday's was just as spectacular and enjoyable as any I can remember:
Before the ceremonies, I was generally of the view that, because of its environmental degradation, internal human right's and worker's right's abuses, it should not have been awarded the Olympics games. However, watching the march of nations, it became clear to me why hosting the Olympics was so important to China, and why there really isn't a good argument to deny them these games. Concerning the former, it is pretty obvious that having the world's greatest athletes, along with many of the world's leaders, make a pilgrimage to your country is a remarkable honor--and certification of recent progress--for a once preeminent nation that has struggling mightily over most of the last 170 years. Concerning the latter, considering our extensive economic ties with them, considering our own recent international record, and considering our own environmental abuses, the more I thought about it, who are we to criticize China? Until we put our own house in order, China absolutely deserves to host this pilgrimage every once and a while.
An attack on a political rally killed the Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto near the capital, Islamabad, Thursday. Witnesses said Ms. Bhutto was fired upon at close range before the blast, and an official from her party said Ms. Bhutto was further injured by the explosion, which was apparently caused by a suicide attacker.
Ms. Bhutto was declared dead by doctors at a hospital in Rawalpindi at 6:16 p.m. after the doctors had tried to resuscitate her for thirty-five minutes. She had shrapnel injuries, the doctors said. At least a dozen more people were killed in the attack.
I don't have a huge amount to say about this tragedy, except that I am sure it will be spun as good for Republicans in some way. The tiger attack at the zoo was also good for Republicans, I imagine.
The US is seeking to beef up Pakistan's counter-insurgency efforts in the tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan by expanding an American special forces team in the country to train the Frontier Corps and recruiting local militias to take on the insurgents.
The aim is to replicate the Iraq model, in which the Americans recruited, financed and armed local militias against insurgents, firstly in Anbar province and then elsewhere in the country.
Or maybe it did work, since we don't really seem to care if Pakistan is democratic, as long as it is stable. Oh wait-stable countries don't see opposition leaders assassinated…
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
