Truth Casualty of Gaza Conflict
Blog Post | Blog of Bob Brown
Friday 9th January 2009, 1:53pm
by BobBrown in
The world has been shocked by the conflict in Gaza over the last few weeks. As always, truth has been one of the early casualties of the war, so the full extent of the blood-shed is not yet known. A central element of this is the Israeli government's continued ban on foreign media entering the Gaza strip.
The borders of Gaza were initially closed to the media in November of last year. The Israeli government claimed this was in response to unbalanced news coverage and continues to defy an order of Israel's own Supreme Court to allow a small group of foreign journalists into the area. It seems just as the people of Palestine are under siege, so too is the democratic principle of freedom of the press.
Unfortunately, the response of the Australian government and opposition has been disappointing to say the least. In the last Senate sitting, I moved a motion calling on the Australian government to pressure the Israeli government to grant proper access for the media into Gaza. The motion was voted down by the Labor and Liberal parties.
My Green colleagues and I have continued to support the calls of the Foreign Press Association to allow journalists to enter the Gaza strip. Despite the escalation of violence in the region, both major parties have remained tight-lipped on the freedom of the press.
I remain staggered that Labor and the Liberals have chosen to flagrantly deny the rights of Australian journalists to report on the conflict first hand. Journalists have a key responsibility to report the facts as they see them. This often attracts the ire of governments, but should never be used as justification for muzzling the media. Freedom of the press is fundamental to democracy and both the Australian government and opposition should stand up in support of this.
Conflicts such as this can only ever be solved by raising awareness and promoting greater understanding across borders, and there are so many on both sides of this conflict working hard towards this end. Journalists are uniquely placed to facilitate this understanding. By denying journalists access and allowing misinformation to spread, the Israeli government runs the risk of creating the very conditions that allows terrorism to fester.
It is often said that truth is the first casualty of war. Unfortunately, with a media black-out in Gaza, that first casualty could tragically lead to many more.
PDF version
Bookmark, email and share
Comments
it's not so simple
Since the time of your writing this article, Reuters journalists have been let in.
If journalists are allowed in the large numbers they'd like to be in, then journalists will be killed. Of course this will be the Israelis' fault. Either Israeli soldiers kill them by accident in which case it's Israel's fault, or Hamas kills them in which case it's Israel's fault for not protecting them.
During a conflict, journalists require security. The days of the brave journalist out there under fire are over - they expect protection. A single print journalist will require a section of ten soldiers to protect them. A television journalist - with journo, cameraman, sound guy, etc - will require a platoon of thirty or so soldiers.
Multiply that by the hundreds of journalists who are likely to want to go to the area, and it quickly becomes a very big problem indeed.
It's true that the reporting is one-sided. That's natural, since the sorts of things states do - tanks and bombs - are easier to get on the six o'clock news than the sorts of things petty dictatorships like Hamas do - kidnap, torture and murder people.
The absence of journalists guarantees the truth is concealed. But the presence of journalists does not guarantee the truth is told. Don't you remember Hurricane Katrina, where according to journalists the inhabitants were raping and murdering each-other in an orgy of violence? It turned out to be complete fiction. Likewise many aspects of the Lebanon war a couple of years back, or the Russia-Georgia war this year. The problem is that while the sensational fiction is reported - violent orgies in the Superdome, Israeli cluster bombs in south Lebanon, Russian missiles falling on South Ossetia - the correction and retractions aren't. So people are left with wrong ideas about the events.
I think the best journalism will come about not from unrestricted media access, but from allowing a few competent ones with integrity through - Al Jazeera, BBC and Reuters, rather than CNN, Fox, and Channel Nine.
pick and choose?
Except that you can't pick and choose, Kiashu, can you? Either the Israeli Government grants media access or it does not. If it did pick and choose, how likely do you think it would be that it would grant access to Al Jazeera?
Why no discussion about the fires?
Tim,
Why isnt there any discussion about the vic fires? If there is I cant find it.
Victorian fires.
Tim,
The Greens are in embarrassed retreat because of their indidious lunatic policies about fire control. Have a look at the Telegraph today. Apparently we should leave any debris where it is for the natural functioning of the environment. This has provided a fuel bonanza for the current conflagration. Needless to say they have not apologised or admitted any complicity in this madness. I really wonder how they can voice these condolences in these circumstances.
Exactly why
This is exactly why we have deliberately not opened a thread on the fires to comment, because it is too open to wilfully ignorant abuse and attack.
The Greens do not and never have opposed fuel reduction burns, Bill. If you, Miranda Devine, Alan Jones or anyone else cared to find out what environmentalists have said, you would discover that the Greens, the Wilderness Society, the ACF and everyone else have all repeatedly said that fuel reduction burns are an important part of saving lives and protecting the environment.
The Greens are not in embarrassed retreat. Instead, the party is holding back out of respect for the victims of the fire, unlike people like you who are using the tragedy as an excuse for a nasty politically motivated attack.
Fires
This comment has no place given no thread for it, and given the beliefs that exist, I can see why the Greens would be sensitive on the issue. However we should not stifle reasoned debate on such a vital issue.
While the Greens and others can point to records showing they favour fuel reduction it is quite clear that other brands of environmentalism over the past few decades have not felt the same way. Most of the public won't differentiate between the Green brand and the outcomes arising from the statements or actions of other groups who identify as "environmentalists". Favouring fuel reduction does not mean that sufficient fuel reduction actually occurs which is of course the key issue. Essentially it is not enough to simply favour it.
All Greens will be horrified at the environmental and human cost of the recent fires and indeed those fires that have come before and the increasing numbers of fires we anticipate in future.
Given their special expertise and interest, perhaps the Greens more than any other party need to provide strong messages and take positive steps to see to it that new and effective management practises come into place as soon as can be achieved. This will be difficult given entrenched bureaucratic procedures in local councils. Please take up this mantle for the sake of the environment.
The process of rationalisation occurs early in the grieving process and is entirely appropriate and a powerful healing force. Please do not omit yourselves from this process, people would be very grateful for the comfort they would derive from a Greens statement favouring improved management. Right now due to ignorance they genuinely fear your power to derail future fuel reduction and you can alleviate this fear with clear, calm and timely rational messages. Opinions are being formed now and they will become rigid and inflexible in adverse ways if you don't choose to help provide messages that will set those opinion. Don't make the critical error of being sidelined here by not engaging.
No right to attack the greens over fires!
I am not one to agree with the greens all the time, and while I support the environment, I dont necessarily agree with the approach of the greens.
However, It is the height of hypocracy and stupidity to attack the greens over the fires.
The reason, is that part of what has caused the fires is extreme weather events. These extreme weather events have been the largest contributing factor in the existence of the fires outside of the deliberate lighting of the fires if this has occured. While we have seen unnormally cool weather now, Victoria and South Australia were suffering a heatwave, and a lack of rain, which was one of the major causes of the fires. At the same time we had floods up north. The weather patterns are a predictable outcome of climate change. There is a concensus that Climate change is occuring, and even if it isnt caused by us, we should not take the chance, and anyway the amount of crap that we artificially put in the air is dangerous to our health.
So before people go blamming the greens for the fires, they should remember that the greens are one of the orgainsations in this country trying to stop climate change. As the greens have said they are not against hazard reduction, and unlike the anti- environment types they are doing something about climate change, rather than simply clutching at straws as an excuse to make some devisive clap trap up to justify themselves being to lazy to do things like walk 500 meters to the shops instead of drive. So before people bitch at the greens over issues such as this they should put their money where their mouth is and do their part in reducing climate change.
I dont think many Australians want to own up to their part in the cause of the fires. So before bitching at the greens, next time the weather is fine and you want to go up the road for some bread, milk, walk or ride a bike, and leave your car at home. Do something positive for the planet, and then, after you do your bit then have a winge if you want. Until then stop bitching at people trying to help.
Looks like I have to be
Looks like I have to be James G now...
The greens definately have to review their forest policies though James. They may not be agaist hazard reduction, but they are definately against non-indigenous humans conducting hazard reduction. The greens have been very influential politically and this is reflected by the expansion of national parks. Unfortunately though we have less national park managers per hectare than some developing countries. Guess what - it all burns down.
The greens have campaigned against the maintenace of fire trails - saying they should be allowed to regenerate. They have backed local councils taking community members to courte for conducting tree removal for fuel reduction purposes near their homes. The greens are also excessively heavy handed with the forest industry for percieved damage to biodiversity. But let me tell you this James, forestry in its own right has caused no know extinctions in this country. I wonder if the Leadbeaters possum still exists in Victoria after Black Saturday.
Greees must definately re-evaluate thier forest policies. Humans must be re-empowered to intervien in forests and manage fuel loads.
...except, Al-Jazeera were
...except, Al-Jazeera were there. I was in South Africa at the time and watching Al-Jazeera English and its (Arab) journos were the only ones there. The Western media were indeed outside perched on a hill watching and 'reporting' what they saw, which was pretty-much business as usual Israeli-fed 'news'...which is exactly what you would have got if the BBC et al had actually been let in. It's not a matter of letting the media in, we need to change the paradigm. A comprehensive study by the Glasgow University Media Unit of BBC and ITV television news coverage of the conflict over several years showed categorically that both outlets reported with a pro-Israeli/US bias. The BBC is generally no better at explaining the situation even-handledly than Nine, Seven or Ten's flippant 'shock and awe' style coverage...and the ABC is similarly less-than-ordinary at reporting the true situation in Palestine. If you want to see another viewpoint watch Al-Jazeera English. It's not perfect by any means (for starters it employs the same Western, former BBC/ABC journos) but it's overall coverage is certainly different.
protection of journos
One problem with the protection of journalists in conflict zones - it's usually the result of agreements between the media outlets and the armed forces. Since the Army started allowing certain sanctioned news reporters to accompany them, they are then bound to protect those reporters.
The two sides should be allowing open, unrestricted access to journalists, but at the same time making it a responsibility of the media outlet to be responsible (within reason - we don't want MSNBC militia) for their own safety.
It's the denial of ANY access that is unethical, irresponsible and just bad policy. No news is bad news, especially when talking about an area in which citizens are being bombed every night.
Its not that complicated, either
"If journalists are allowed in the large numbers they'd like to be in, then journalists will be killed. Of course this will be the Israelis' fault. Either Israeli soldiers kill them by accident in which case it's Israel's fault, or Hamas kills them in which case it's Israel's fault for not protecting them."
What examples of Journalists killed by Hamas are you referring to? i know of none.
(edit: web search finds some examples of journalists killed during the internal fighting between Fatah/Hamas. No examples of journalists killed other than on the battlefield. Begging the question of how Hamas is responsible for such deaths in any way Israel isn't?)
I can think of journalists killed by Israeli troops that were not accidental by any stretching of the truth, such as Hamza Shahin and Omar Silawi, along with many non-journalists like Rachel Corrie, though. For them yes, of course it is the Israelis' fault. I am not supposed to notice this?
"During a conflict, journalists require security."
Read: During a conflict unfiltered reporting will not be allowed.
"The days of the brave journalist out there under fire are over - they expect protection"
There are still some journalists that love the thrill of danger i'm sure. Whether they want protection or not is for them to say, not you.
"A single print journalist will require a section of ten soldiers to protect them. A television journalist - with journo, cameraman, sound guy, etc - will require a platoon of thirty or so soldiers. "
Any journalist that travels as part of a military campaign should not be reporting what can safely said to be what that military wants them to say.
"I think the best journalism will come about not from unrestricted media access, but from allowing a few competent ones with integrity through - Al Jazeera, BBC and Reuters, rather than CNN, Fox, and Channel Nine."
You think wrongly then, because allowing only a few restricted views will only give propaganda and mindless conformity, not 'integrity' or 'competence', particularly when your 'good' examples are not really good, just a single level better than your 'bad' examples.
Israeli blogger and
Israeli blogger and journalist Lisa Goldman just wrote an excellent article on this matter from the perspective of living in Israel:
Eyeless in Israel
Journalist Protection
Kiashu, well written.
In addition, there is no chance any army can assure journalist safety. Having trained as an officer, there is no way a soldier is going to put his life at threat to protect a journalist trying to report on a story. The journalist will be accountable for their own safety, and as long as they go where and when the military dictate, the journalist should be protected under the same military unbrella as soldiers on active duty.
If journalists expect special treatment by the military, forget it. The military will have their own objectives, and will not have either the time or man power to provide special treatment for journalists.
Gaza
A long time now has past since some matters of Senate related statements. It is pretty amazing,what you cop if just hating the outcome of the fighting then seek reason. Have the whole Israeli population got over active thyroids, and discovered their health would be better by dumping everything into Palestinian territory !? Or is it just the Pine Gap Echelon,N.S.A. Haarp collection of sheep masters applying some old horn being blown into my waking moments !? I will wait until Bob gets out of the helicopter.
Israel out
I just wish that Israel would stop bombing innocent civilians. Don't they remember the atrocities applied to them in WWII?
phillip travers - you don't
phillip travers - you don't make a lot of sense - what is your point?
irrelevant article
Dear Bob Brown,
Watching television and listening to the radio during the conflict showed that there were plenty of foreign reporters in Gaza. Their reporting however hardly lived up to your expectations of "raising awareness and promoting greater understanding across borders". Instead, they inflamed passions and reinforced existing bias by exploiting the drama of the situation for their own ends.
Furthermore, your statement that, "the Israeli government runs the risk of creating the very conditions that allows terrorism to fester" shows a total lack of understanding of the current state of affairs in Gaza. Terrorism has been festering there for a long while without any help from Israel. Not just anti-western and anti-Israel terror but also brutal repression of the Palestinian people by Hamas and Fatah (see the many amnesty international reports on the subject).
The refusal of both major parties to back your bill may be more a reflection of your understanding of realpolitik than of their views on freedom of the press.
Although I will always be grateful to you for raising awareness of green and social justice issues in Australia, writing such irrelevant mush shows why the Australian people might not consider you ready for political prime time.
Respectfully Yours, Yehuda Harmor
Hi Yehunda You speak with
Hi Yehunda
You speak with such authority about the conditions in Gaza - are you posting from there?
I don't mean any disrespect but if people aren't allowed access to an area there is generally something to hide. I wasn't there but thats how it looks.
Israel is fragrantly abusing human rights in Palestine. It needs to stop and not more apologists diluting the debate. What they were doing in Gaza was sheer and brutal murder.
Two sides to the conflict.
This is one of the places, I have to disagree with the greens.
Few, would disagree that the Israeli government does not over react to the palistinians and the whole mess needs to sorted out, most sensibly via a 2 state solution. Few would not also dispute that the Israeli government/ military is not decent or fair towards the palastinians, and is often engaged in activities that could be easily defined as criminal.
However, if a prominant group (HMAS) fires rockets into Israel, that is an ACT OF WAR plain and simple.
Additionally if a governemnt of a foreign power allows/ or supports the kidnapping of a foreign powers soldiors, then that also is an ACT OF WAR.
Imagine if the New Zealand government/ military fired rockets indiscriminately at Australia, what would our reaction be?
My whole point here is that it is not as simple as simply blaming the Israeli's.
Two sides? yes there are.
"My whole point here is that it is not as simple as simply blaming the Israeli's."
Let me counter-point that complaints against Israel are not just idly and lazily blaming them for everything, either.
The first thing about your post is that it starts by admitting that there is cruelty toward Palestinians from Israel, then treats the rockets as if they were somehow a separate issue. An ACT OF WAR, but somehow not an act of the war. As if New Zealand started launching rockets at Australia out of the blue, rather than being the latest round of a long term conflict.
The second is that it talks about the rockets as an ACT OF WAR without mentioning that (a) during the last ceasefire, rocket attacks fell to almost nothing, and (b) even Israel admits that those rocket attacks that happened during said lull were not launched by Hamas. If Israel were interested in peace, it seems they could at least have a reasonable facsimile, even with Hamas as a neighbour.
My point? only that your view seems based on misinformation.
I stand by what I said
Mathew, I never said that the rocket attacks were not some kind of response to an action by Israel, whose action would have been a response to something else, and on and on...
However, things were relatively calm (I did say relatively) before the rocket attacks started.
You will find a good deal of intelligent people who will respond to blogs with a reasonable general knowledge of a topic, without a precise knowledge, they will also seek to respond in a rapid way. That is the nature of blogs. It is not an essay. So, I refute your suggestion of ignorance on my part, in as much as I understand the general nature of the conflict.
However, the general nature of what I am saying is, basically that you cant blame the israelis for everything and if you want to go back to who started it, then you'll go back a long way.
In either case, HMAS have taken a more violent and extreme line, and a rightfully considered as a terrorist organisation. Under Arafat, progress, was being made (slowly admitidly) towards peace. HMAS at least until recently have not even recognised the right of Israel to exist.
Additionally, the promotion of suicide bombings is comming from the HMAS. It is something indescriminate and deliberately targets civillians. Surely you cannot condone such action. While the Israeli army over reacts then and ends up also killing innocent civillians, often when its targets were millitants.
What I am saying is that here is blame on both sides. To simply say that it is all Israel's fault is ridiculous beyond words. Blame must lie with the militants on both sides. As most people suggest there needs to be a 2 state solution. I admit that I am looking at the Greens here from an outsiders perspective but it seems as though they always side with the Palastinians when both sides must bear some culpability in the ongoing conflict.
It is a shame, because there are few things that I disagree with the greens about, its just that this is one. The other is some of the things associated with the marine park, but thats another issue.
Gaza - Well done the Greens!
Thank you to the Greens for being the only party to speak out against the atrocities committed in Gaza. Yes, Hamas firing rockets into Israel over the past 8 years and killing under 30 people is a tragedy. But Israel killing 1300 people in a 3 week period and killing an average of 14 people a week from the second intifada to 2007 is certainly not conducive to peace. Gaza is not free. Their borders are controlled by Israel and Egypt, their fuel, electricity, water, trade is controlled by Israel. Israel can militarily enter Gaza airspace and fire on alleged 'targets' at will.
For how long must an occupied people sit on their hands? Isn't 42 years enough? We need to help the people of Gaza and the West Bank.
Thank you the Greens!
Stewart Mills
Sydney
Hey Bob Brown..I just want
.....
This highly offensive comment has been deleted. Please do not attempt to post anything of the sort again.
Post new comment