A media eclipse: Israel-Palestine and the world's forgotten conflicts

In a forty-eight hour period beginning on Christmas Eve 2008 the Christian fundamentalist Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) killed, dismembered and burned at least 200 Congolese civilians. Soldiers raped women and girls, twisted the heads off babies, and cut the lips and ears off those they did not kill. They hacked the rest to death using machetes or axes. Child soldiers helped abduct other children.

During the same period the Israeli government and Hamas officials entered the final stages of failing ceasefire talks. War was on the horizon, but had not yet begun. An errant Hamas rocket killed two Gazan sisters; otherwise there were no cross-border casualties.

According to AlertNet’s World Press Tracker, the two-day Israeli-Palestinian stand-off was reported in the global media forty times. There were no reports on the LRA massacre in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Over the next three weeks Israel’s incursion into Gaza left 926 Palestinian and three Israeli civilians dead. The global media reported these events 2896 times. In the same period, Joseph Kony’s LRA killed 865 civilians and abducted 160 children. The media reported these events a total of twenty times.

The Western media’s fascination with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has long overshadowed death and oppression in other parts of the world. Gilad Shalit and the Qassam rocket are known to many; the death of 5.9 million in the eight-nation Second Congo War is not. Recent Israeli and Palestinian elections were covered worldwide in real-time, while images of genocide in Rwanda and Sudan did not surface until it was too late. Countless articles argue media bias in favour of Israel or the Palestinians, yet few address the media bias towards the conflict itself.

The disproportionate media coverage raises several uncomfortable questions: why were the deaths of Congolese civilians at the hands of the LRA deemed less newsworthy than, in the first instance, crumbling cease-fire talks and, later, the deaths of Palestinian civilians? More generally, why is the west so consumed by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and what are the consequences of underreporting other conflicts? Finally, can anything be done to redress the media balance so that the rights of all humans – regardless of colour, ethnicity, and geography – are given equal weight?

http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/noah-bernstein/media-eclipse-israel-palestine-and-worlds-forgotten-conflicts

I am confident that all of those fighting for the rights of Palestinians here on DU and out in the world are also fighting for the rights of those Congolese civilians living with the horrors described in the OP.

To influence Israel and hence end the I/P conflict, the West simply has to do *less*.

I can't see any course of action short of deploying troops to the area that would end the second Congo war, and that would almost certainly make things worse, not better.

There are a few things - anti blood diamond campaigns leap to mind - that may help a bit, and there are *certainly* things like food and water aid that can ameliorate some of the symptoms - if you want to save the most lives per dollar with your charitable donation, access to clean water in Africa is probably the thing to spend it on (I think - possibly rehydration salts runs it close?). But I can't see anything the West can do that could end the conflict.

If I had a solution to the Congo conflict, I might well fight for it. But I don't, whereas how to solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is heartbreakingly obvious.

That, I think, is what is unusual about the I/P conflict - not that it's the worst, or even close to the worst, but that it's the only conflict of its kind that the West could probably bring to an end.


(That's not why I post about it more than others on DU, incidentally - I do that because there are people here who disagree with me about it. The idea of "Fighting for the rights of Palestinians" (or for the rights of Israelis) on DU is laughable - all the posts on DU put together aren't worth a pitcherfull of warm piss, I suspect; if I believed that posting on DU achieved anything my posting habits would be radically different. But if you're talking about genuine effective protest (such as it exists), I think that the I/P conflict is a worthwhile use of time and effort (although not of money - that can be much better spent on aid to Africa) for the reasons I outline above).

* Step up diplomacy: Increase the diplomatic presence in eastern Congo to forge a peaceful solution. Efforts must focus on consolidating the fragile ceasefire and pressing ahead with political talks between the Congolese government and opposition groups.

* Demobilize armed groups: Increase funding and deploy personnel to support the UN-led process of disarmament, demobilization, repatriation, resettlement, and reintegration of fighting forces. This process, whereby former combatants give up their weapons in exchange for educational and economic opportunities in civilian society, is one of the most difficult but crucial components of peacemaking, as these fighters will continue to commit sexual violence if they do not successfully rejoin society.

* Improve UN peacekeepers' response to sexual violence: The UN peacekeeping force in the Congo, known by its French acronym MONUC , must provide more of a deterrent military presence in places where women are most vulnerable, such as camps for the displaced, road blocks, rivers, and places where women collect firewood, and increase patrols at night, when most rapes and acts of sexual violence occur.

* Fund programs to respond to and help prevent sexual violence: Increase funding and support for sexual violence reduction and prevention activities. This means deploying civilians, working for the U.N. or humanitarian organizations, to help reduce women's exposure to sexual violence and deal with its traumatic consequences.

* Neutralize the worst offenders: Devise comprehensive strategies to deal with the worst perpetrators of rape and sexual violence, in particular the Congolese army and the Hutu rebel group known as the FDLR. Donor countries should embed military trainers in Congolese army units and improve human rights education. Donors should also provide equipment and training to enable MONUC to take offensive military action, if necessary, against armed groups that refuse to demobilize.

* Pass helpful legislation: The U.S. Congress should pass the International Violence Against Women Act (S. 2279) as a small but important step toward ending violence against women in the Congo and around the world.

* Pursue international accountability: Publicly call for the International Criminal Court to open an investigation into rape as a war crime in eastern Congo and provide information to assist the court in building cases. Rape as a weapon of war in eastern Congo is systematic and widespread, and militia leaders and military commanders who have committed atrocities must be brought to trial.

* Make sanctions bite: The United States and all UN member states must aggressively enforce existing UN targeted sanctions against individuals and groups responsible for rape, sexual violence, and other crimes against humanity. The international community must eliminate the political and economic support from outside the Congo to predatory armed groups.

* Reform the security sector: Support the vetting and training of Congo's military and police so that they can and will protect the civilians whom they currently threaten with atrocities.

* Restore the rule of law: Increase funding and coordination to assist the Congolese government to investigate, arrest, and try suspected criminals and to keep them behind bars. These efforts should include support to the Congolese armed forces to prosecute and punish perpetrators of sexual violence within its ranks.

* Staunch resource exploitation: Lead international efforts to curb the illegal exploitation of minerals and other natural resources in eastern Congo. Congo's wealth of natural resources fuels the conflict, as armed groups commit horrific atrocities to control and profit from these resources.

* Invest in Congo's development: Support economic recovery by building roads and reestablishing trade, raising the standard of living, and creating jobs, all of which contribute to preventing the relapse of conflict in Congo.

http://www.raisehopeforcongo.org/solutions

(CNN) -- Actor Ben Affleck on Monday launched a grassroots initiative to assist communities ravaged by war in one of the most troubled places on earth, the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Affleck, who just returned from a trip to the DRC, told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that he had long heard about the crisis in Congo, which has left more than 5 million people dead over the past 12 years, but only came to understand the scope of the humanitarian crisis after repeated visits to the country.

"The more I traveled, the more I was struck about it, the more I fell in love with the people, the more I was horrified by what was happening. And the more I did, I started to develop this idea of partnering with the Congolese people and wanting to empower community-based organizations there that were doing extraordinary work," Affleck said.

Affleck on Monday announced the launch of the Eastern Congo Initiative, an effort to support community organizations working to help rape victims and to rebuild from a decade of war.

"There are folks who are working to protect those who are suffering from gender-based violence, who help child soldiers to advance the educational needs of the citizens there." Affleck told Amanpour. "There are people who live in the communities, who are from there, who understand the relationships there, who are Africans finding solutions to African problems. And when I was there, what I saw was that those were, in my view, the most effective folks at meeting those goals."

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/03/22/congo.affleck/

I can't see any form of Western intervention likely to end the conflict, but there is a great deal that can be done, and done very cheaply, to alleviate some of the symptoms.

There *are* people who argue against international aid because it causes "a culture of dependancy", but I've never seen one on DU, thankfully.

people everywhere who are fighting to live with law and dignity.

I don't work as hard on each issue; we can't all do everything.

But I surely hope the same progressives that work for peace and justice in Darfar and Tibet support the just cause of the people of Palestine!

Also, Oberliner appears not to have noticed that when it comes to many other conflicts around the world, there aren't many where there's a lot of US left-wing types who support the oppressors and not the oppressed. When I see US liberals coming out in support of the govts of Darfur, China etc, then I'll be in there boots and all telling them why they're wrong exactly the same as I do here in this forum when it comes to their defence of what Israel does to the Palestinians...

you put that quite well...

when it comes to many other conflicts around the world, there aren't many where there's a lot of US left-wing types who support the oppressors and not the oppressed.

and everytime I mention it I am accused of being anti-semitic.

An interesting statement.

Apparently, the author questions why Palestinian deaths should receive more attention than Congolese deaths - yet at the same time the author doesn't even stop to think whether the same principle should apply to Israeli deaths (which I think we all agree receive far more coverage than the deaths of Africans).

I can only assume that the author considers that Israelis, being an urbane and literate people, should receive disproportionate press attention as a matter of course, whereas Palestinians, being the undistinguished sand-niggers that they are, should receive no more than the standard allotment of press sympathy normally reserved for anonymous brown hordes.

Yes, it *is* true that some conflicts such as I/P arouse more comment and awareness than some others, including most in Africa. I would agree that, while there is a common tendency to attribute this either to antisemitism or Islamophobia, depending on which side you're on, most of it *is* due to the more powerful nations and groups focusing on conflicts that have a strong impact on their own lives and self-interest.

For those who are interested in helping to find solutions to the conflict in the Congo, and other major conflicts in the world, the following is a great organization:

www.peacedirect.org

I had the inspiring experience of listening to a talk by Henri, the Congo peace worker on their list. A wonderful and courageous man.

Has little to do with the absurdly over the top focus the world MSM gives the IPC. Off the top of my head I can think of three reasons that might explain the inordinate focus.

1. Different standards for different countries. Whether we want to admit it or not the MSM holds first world contries to higher standards than third world countries. I'm not convinced that this is entirely wrong but it does result in skewed coverage of world events.
2. The arab/muslim states have perfected the "look over there" tactic. In order to avoid scrutiny of their own pathetic human rights records the arab/muslim states, whether at the UN or through the MSM they have, in solidarity, deliver the same stupid talking points to anyone that will listen (like the notion that Israel is the source of all the problems in the ME). It seems to me that this does work, why else would someone like Gen Patreas make the recent stmts that he did if not for the reason that that is what he is constantly being told by arab leaders.

3. Israel is an open society with virtually unlimited freedom of the press. Let's face it the MSM doesn't do well with presenting news that doesn't include personal narratives. Take the skirmish in lebanon a couple years ago where hundreds of palestinian civilians were killed, after the military bombed the shit out of nar-al-barad refugee camp they closed it to all media and human rights orgs. Without the first person accounts to "drive" the story the MSM didn't want to (or know how to) cover it.

would be the end of the ability of some Arab and Islamic governments to direct attention away from themselves by playing on the deeply held emotions surrounding the Israel/Palestine conflict. There is no denying that throughout the Arab and Islamic world - whenever any government or political movement does something bad - they almost inevitably claim that they did whatever they did at least in part, because of Palestine. I suppose it is a little bit like Americans or perhaps even Israelis who have been told that certain things can't be done - because we are at war against "terrorism".

Given that it is hard to overstate just how deeply held the emotions surrounding Palestine genuinely are, I most certainly rejoice at the thought of all of these excuses being removed from the equation forever - especially in the Arab and Islamic world.

The end of this conflict would by no means mean the end of all problems in the Middle East, but it would be the end of the issue that is by far the single largest point of contention between the Arab and Islamic world and America and the West.

Do you really see the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza as "the end of the issue" as far as the Arab and Islamic world is concerned?

the Organization of Islamic Conference have endorsed the international consensus on the two-state solution - and have stated clearly an unambiguously the intention of establishing normalized relations with the state of Israel in exchange for Israel accepting the minimal requirements of international law.

I do believe that to for the Arab and Islamic world to fully accept Israel - Israel has to accept the Arab and Islamic world. I do not know, but I have my doubts whether most Israelis are currently even psychologically capable of accepting Arab and Muslim people as truly full human beings of equal worth.

As to your last statement, I would turn it around and suggest that if you have those doubts about Israelis, you maybe should consider thinking about whether the above-mentioned populations are currently psychologically capable of accepting Israelis and Jewish people as truly full human beings of equal worth.

From a recent Pew Global survey:

While European views towards Jews have become more negative, the deepest anti-Jewish sentiments exist outside of Europe, especially in predominantly Muslim nations. The percentage of Turks, Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese and Pakistanis with favorable opinions of Jews is in the single digits.

In the predominantly Muslim nations surveyed, views of Jews are largely unfavorable. Nearly all in Jordan (97%), the Palestinian territories (97%) and Egypt (95%) hold an unfavorable view. Similarly, 98% of Lebanese express an unfavorable opinion of Jews, including 98% among both Sunni and Shia Muslims, as well as 97% of Lebanese Christians.

It is unfortunate that in the Arab and Islamic world that the hostility toward the state of Israel often crosses over to hostility against the people the State of Israel claims to represent. But this is hardly an unusual phenomena in the history of human conflict - where conflict against a state overlaps into fear and loathing against people on the other side. Polls show that the vast majority of even Israeli-Jewish high school students have views to Arabs very similar to attitudes white Southern segregationist once held toward African-Americans. The State of Israel and many of its supporters do claim to be the organized political will of the Jewish people of the world. Arab people are not savages who just blindly hate Jews for being Jews. This representation of the conflict does a great deal to perpetuate the situation. The philosophy of the necessity of permanent war almost assures that there will be.

It is no secret what has to be done to reach a state of reconciliation between Israel and the Arab and Islamic world. Will there still be lingering ill will? probably. There is still a certain amount of ill will between the French and the English. But they are no longer killing each other and are in a strategic alliance.

look at the way your write about israelis.....similar to whites views of "negros"

Polls show that the vast majority of even Israeli-Jewish high school students have views to Arabs very similar to attitudes white Southern segregationist once held toward African-Americans

compare that to of the arabs:
Arab people are not savages who just blindly hate Jews for being Jews. This representation of the conflict does a great deal to perpetuate the situation.

why didn't you show a poll of how the vast vast vast majority of the arabs have views of jews?..instead you totally ignore it, excuse their undefined views and blame the "conflict" on their views, that you dont articulate.

maybe the jews deserve the same treatment as the arabs?....why are we so different?

racist and bigoted toward Arabs and always has been.

about socialism, the new society they wanted to create etc? not hard to find, in fact you could even look them up as well and post them too!!


i was commenting on how you constantly find polls showing just what a racist society we are...you then claim that all the arabs all over the middle east will join in with making peace with israel,

but always neglect to show polls what they think.....why is that?

Pelsar,

You're assuming there is some rhyme or reason where it doesn't exist. I see all this as more a cult or mood where people are manipulated by slogans, prejudices, and emotions. These are fanatic cultists - or true believers - who do not even have an ideology. If they had an ideology, there would be some sort of logical consistency to it.

It's not "Left" even if they think it is.

It's people telling themselves lots of lies, and pushing themselves to believe them. Probably because it makes them feel good.

ETA...

If this was really about the "Left" or some logical and consistent ideology, where's all the talk about the labor exploitation and near-slavery conditions in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE, etc? These countries own billions of dollars worth of assets in Western countries, including real estate, industrial manufacturing concerns, bonds (including US T-bonds), etc. They are major capitalists and by Lenin’s definition of imperialism (finance capitalism) they are also imperialists.

Not a word.

And shall we get into all the double-standards employed in I/P? How much further extreme 'Right' all Israel's neighbors are in the ME? Come on. There's nothing logically consistent in the worldview of a true-believing cultist.

it defies what i see as common sense:

israelis work and live with arab israelis, muslim turks, etc and to a lesser degree Palestinians....thats been the case since pre 1900s. Of course some israelis and jews have their own bias etc..thats goes with the human nature and education...less of a problem in an open society.

but your actually claiming indirectly that accepting 'the other" is more of a problem with the israelis than with the arabs!!.

a quick look at the cultures and what they produce sure shows a lopsided version of the "other"....and its not the way you prefer to see it:

israeli movies, TV shows, talk shows, interviews all show arabs, the arab culture in a multitude of fashions-be it comedy, slapstick serious, drama etc, even the military movies show arabs/ Palestinians as real human beings, given the subject matter.

a short look at egypt with their protocols of zion movie, irans Zarahs blue eyes. Jordans laws of professionals having no contact with israelis etc, shows a very different attitude towards israelis and jews.(and yes they tend to "mix them up")...Interviewing israelis in an arab country? having plays or movies about israelis as real people with real human problems?....do you know of any?

and your saying the problem is with jewish israelis accepting arabs and muslims as people?....
got any polls in the arab world how they see jews and israelis?

Pew Research Centre poll on Global attitudes conducted between May 18 to June 16 2009:

"In the predominantly Muslim nations surveyed, views of Jews were overwhelmingly unfavorable. Nearly all in Jordan (97 percent), the Palestinian territories (97%) and Egypt (95%) held an unfavorable view. Similarly, 98% of Lebanese expressed an unfavorable opinion of Jews, including 98% among both Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims, as well as 97% of Lebanese Christians.

By contrast, only 35% of Israeli Arabs expressed a negative opinion of Jews, while 56% voiced a favorable opinion."


56% of Israeli-Arabs voiced a favorable opinion....Compare that with the % of young Israeli-Jews who think Arabs should be treated the same as Jews!

perhaps you might do some research on how arabs and muslims (not in israel) see jews and israelis?

that would certainly be a more honest approach to your thesis. You were clearly insinuating that israeli jews dont accept arabs while arabs and muslims fully accept jews and israelis.
----

go for it...take the honest comparison route and show us those polls. how do non israeli arabs and muslims see jews and israelis-after all your claiming that they have to be part of the peace process......

I was trying to bring a little bit of balance to the debate.

since you pretty convinced that israel is a racist society incapable of seeing arabs as equals, as per your posts...according to those other polls the problem is far more problematic on the arab side. You sure like polls....

do you agree or not?

loathing will dissipate. What I completely reject is the implication that a broad peace agreement is impossible and this constant effort to promote an ideology of permanent war.

I do believe that just as many black Africans overcame their bitterness against white Europeans - so can the Arab world. Just as many white European colonizers became less bigoted and racist - so can the Israelis.

you were and are clear that israel is a racist society and that the arabs in general despite that poll, are not....that is what you imply,....so i am asking point blank, if that poll is correct in your opinion, and that that arabs given the percentage are far more racist toward jews and israel than israeli jews are toward arabs?

you can claim the poll is flawed and it doesn't reflect that true attitudes if you like.....but dont avoid the question.

to the conflict over Palestine. This hostility can dissolve over time with a just peace. It is certainly not the emotions of a people looking down on someone they are convinced are their inferiors - the way most Israelis have been indoctrinated to view Arabs as their inferiors.

they have a free press and multiple media outlets with various views that keep them well informed. Whereas the israeli jews have only govt sponsored media with a restricted viewpoint and no free press..

isnt that how indoctrination works? you've got to be kidding.....can you point to a single arab movie, TV show where jews/israelis are protrayed in a positive fashion-any where in the arab world?.....are IDF soldiers seen as humans...anywhere in the arabs world (just try to answer....please)


btw your excuse for the arab world and the israelis is humorous and does stretch the imagination: I'll give you a summary:
Arabs dont like jews/israelis because they worry about the Palestinians (they must really hate the egyptians than as well)

and jewish israelis who are constantly being bombarded with threats of various types, constant attacks by individuals and state sponsored terrorism, via the media as well as by gun, not to mention several wars with the goal being the states removal are unmitigated racists who simply see arabs as inferiors.


where do you get this stuff from?...a few selected quotes from a few individuals?...try the same in the arab world, shouldn't be to hard.

but you actually believe it dont you?...that we are racists to the core while the arabs are simply concerned for the Palestinians....(evidence not withstanding)

most Arab people throughout the Middle East who have never had contact with Jewish people - are convinced that Israelis and to some extent Jewish people look down on them as sub-humans - Arab people I know who lived, studied or traveled in the United States frequently have very positive experiences with Jewish people and come to realize that is usually not the case in America - in fact that is only very rarely the case in America. God Bless the United States of America!

so nothing like that is going to really change is it?...unless of of course the arab govts who actually do control the press and media outlets decide to "unindoctrinate" their people...and they can do that now if they chose....so we now know that infact it has nothing to do with the conflict and merely the manipulation of the arab masses..who if we accept those polls, are over 90% racists (or as you see it "racists "light')---is that a new category?

now i understand your logic, because most arabs feel that israelis and jews look down upon them as sub humans that makes us israelis racists....

or because israelis actually work with arabs, have contact with arabs, either through work, diplomacy or war, we have to be hard core racists because we're indoctrinated by our multiple media outlets that keep on drumming in to our children how subhuman the arabs are...and those movies we produce and TV shows and interviews with ararbs.....obviously dont exists but are all illusions of our indoctrinating govt.

i know you believe this stuff...so i'm pretty amazed at the level of ignorance about israel... BUT i do love the racist light category to explain away arab racism and that you believe that israelis are indoctrinated and not the arabs (given that 90% of the arabs, according to that poll have a negative opinion of us....90% thats an incredible number).

btw i noticed in you post..you skipped over how the arabs in the US feel about israelis...is that another poll you have to avoid?

and you should avoid this poll like the plague..it destroys your whole world view of jewish israelis:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/995466.html

73 percent of the Jews and 94 percent of the Arabs want Israel to "be a society in which Arab and Jewish citizens have mutual respect and equal opportunities

the data also showded that more than two-thirds of Israeli Jews (69 percdent) said they believed that contributing to co-existence was a personal responsibility

there's more..but its not for you.

Which is easier to resolve?

There is also a difference between the kind of "ism" that grows out of being the subjugated (viewing oppressor as unjust, unfair, hateful, mean, evil, strong) and subjugator (viewing subjugated as subhuman,not worthy of human rights, etc.).

Do you see the differnces in those kinds of views?

I think they are 2 different dynamics, one being far more pernicious.

they have every right to hate us out of direct contact.....and many do, but i don't believe its based on a bias, on any kind of "subhuman" mentality, its based more on being occupied....no matter what their education in the classroom, the outside experience is far stronger....

Nor do most israelis see Palestinians as some kind of sub creature. Hate and fear exist but it has a real basis in reality, i.e. experiences....... and there is the addition that israeli arabs are everywhere in israel, be it in knesset at work or on satires or talk shows, hence its rather difficult for jewish israelis to be indoctrinated as per douglass claim.
--------

as far as which is more pernicious..the one based on ignorance. Those "90%" that have never met an israeli or a jew...that is the one that is harder to remove. The israelis and Palestinians within one generation can reverse their relationship, since its based on experience, change the experiences change the viewpoint

Assuming your figures are correct....

You talk about TV and Movies in the arab world... In my experience (we get arab satellite tv and movies)... Jews and Israelis are nearly invisible. once in a while a series, or an occasional "realistic" movie... but for the most part, Arab TV and movies are incredibly formulaic.

I think if there were a peace deal, people's beliefs could change within a generation.

It's the people INSIDE I worry about! Will the people who have lived under Israel's boot for 40+ years ever forgive? That's a harder sell, IMO.

The real question is: will the multitude of Israelis who regard Palestinians as less-than-human ever change their view?

look at history..germans and french and english and russian and japan etc...all killed each other for hundreds of years....

as far as israelis who see Palestinians as sub human..its probably the same percentage of Palestenains who see jews as the devil. A better idea would be how jewish israelis see arabs israelis vs Muslm Palestenians and how they see christians...

the fact that jews and israelis are invisible is precisely my point. In israeli media "arabs are everywhere".....we even have Achmed tibi, a real anti israeli arab knesset member who appears on a sarcastic comedy show that makes fun of every possible person, thing etc in israel...including arabs.-and that makes arabs human in israel...keeping israel and jews invisible can only help portray the stereotypes.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Anyhoo, I just figured out how to do graphics,so I never paid very close attention to the rules.

Hope you saw my message!

i never even read the "rules" here...

It has always been the case that some conflicts attract more attention than others, long before the I/P conflict was center stage. I'm sure a similar analysis in the late 70s and early 80s would have shown undue attention being paid to Apartheid in SA. And in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq through to the handover to an elected government, the Iraq invasion arguably eclipsed all else. I don't know how extensively it was covered elsewhere but the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 eclipsed all other conflicts for about a year over here. So the article gets it wrong on at least one count. As far as attention alone is concerned, there was no "sin of ommission" in Rwanda.

One error the article makes, Rwanda being an example, is not disentangling much shorter-term conflicts (with admittedly shocking results) from far more protracted ones. In fact most of the conflicts mentioned in the article have been going on for less time than the I/P conflict and some are basically finished.

In fact, I'm not sure which Western media the author is referring to but based on my own perception, the I/P conflict only really started attracting disproportionate press attention in the last decade, maybe decade and a half - and this is after 40 years of occupation.

Its a fair point that the developed world tends to pay disproportionate attention to particular conflicts, but I feel the author goes too far in trying to make this point and at the same time ignores what I believe is the main driver of media focus on the I/P conflict, which is that more people the world over are directly or indirectly connected to its participants than most of the other conflicts mentioned.

Just as Mandarin is the worlds most spoken language, but the sheer reach of English across the globe makes it a kind of Lingua Franca, a more diverse and distributed population the world over has some personal connection to the I/P conflict than, say, the Congolese one.

I'm a formerly Catholic white South African, so on the face of it you wouldn't expect me to be connected in any way. But I was bitterly opposed to Apartheid growing up, and the Apartheid government was doing business with the Israeli govt, specifically in the area of arms (AFAIK we even supplied them with materials for nuclear weaponry). A close friend of my youth served in the Israeli military. For a birthday present, my convert aunt bought me a ticket to a drum circle event two years ago, which was fun, but I was bitterly disappointed to learn afterwards the proceeds were going to help settlers in the West Bank. Diaspora Jews can be found in every corner of the world and there has always been a strong current of loyalty to Israel, as much as that is diminishing among liberal and leftist Jews today. In fact the world pays disporportionate attention to conflicts that the USA is involved in (unsurprisingly since in media terms the USA is the world's noisiest nation) and Israel's extremely close military ties with the US have linked them, rightly or wrongly to many American conflicts and interventions, even as far afield as Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation.

A much, much broader spectrum of both political issues and personal experiences converge on the I/P conflict than the Congolese conflict or the Chechnyan, and to ignore that in any analysis is, I think, foolish. Relations between western nations and the world's billion-odd Muslims, political lobbying by pro-Israeli interest groups in all of the worlds richest nations, American interventions in the Middle East and the ever-present suspicion that Israels interests were at least a component of the thinking behind each intervention, the economic reach of Israel and the necessary implication that moral consumers need to be aware where their products come from. All of these factors apply to the I/P conflict. None (nor any comparable considerations) to the Congo. If it came down to the counting of corpses, the Congolese conflict would garner far more attention, but its our involvement in the I/P conflict that makes people the world over treat it as a cause célèbre.

There are no Congolese-manufactured items in South African shops. There are no local Congolese groups constantly lobbying the SA government to favour this or that side in the conflict. There are no Congolese military advisors working with powerful industrialised nations involved in controversial conflicts. There are no supporters of brutal Congolese paramilitaries on the Internet, working ceaselessly to counter allegations of brutality. There are no Congolese expats in my community organising events I might knowingly or unknowingly participate in, which will raise money for recipients of land siezed by force.

Lastly: There are, admittedly, a flood of Chinese imports, which have all but destroyed entire industries here (the textile industry being one). The South African government, responding to pressure from the Chinese government, refused to issue a visa to the Dalai Lama to do a speaking tour here. And I am outraged by these things and given the chance and an interested listener will ramble on about the issue for an hour or more. But, for the most part, I will encounter agreement from just about everyone (aside from a few fundy libertarians I know) I speak to on the issues of Chinese involvement in Africa and the occupation of Tibet. Even cabinet ministers broke ranks and condemned the government's decision to decline the Dalai Lama's visa. In contrast, support for (or at least obfuscation on and playing of silly moral equivalence games about) the 40-year old occupation in the WB spans the reaches of power and reaches into otherwise liberal and leftist institutions the world over.

one factor. Money sent to the butchers you support is more controversial than no money sent to their counterparts elsewhere.

It is about the Western media generally.

gives Israel 3 billion dollars in aid every year, don't you?

the continued oppression of Palestinians, Billions or even millions are not being spent to prop up those committing or enabling mass murder in Africa. The US also spends trillions killing Arabs and Muslims in other countries. The US is not spending anything like that in support of other murderous states in Africa or Asia, although in South America the US is again allied most closely with the most brutal country there, Columbia

I get flamed so many times and you pleasantly surprised me with all this info.

Good job!

Rank Country | Actual FMF 2006 (millions of USD) | Percentage of total 2006 | Requested FMF 2008 (millions of USD)
1 Israel 2257.20 51.14 2400.00
2 Egypt 1287.00 29.16 1300.00
3 Pakistan 297.00 6.73 300.00
4 Jordan 207.90 4.71 200.00
5 Colombia 89.10 2.02 78.00

On Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Military_Financing

The State Dept original source: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/80701.pdf92006

other types that make what Israel gets look like a drop in the ocean and has been going on for a lot longer. Japan and S Korea cost the US 15 to 45 billion a year each. Europe has cost the US as much as 150 billion a year. We also have spent our blood in these places and continue to risk our blood. We have not spent our blood for Israel nor risk it either like these other places. There are other examples of countries that cost us much more than Israel.

It seems odd with others costing as much as 50x more than Israel as well as our blood, that only Israel is a problem. I wonder why that is?

to commit atrocities against the Palestinians.

...or Iran's proxies.

That has nothing to do with USA aid to Israel.

The US only sends aid to Israel so that they can punish and murder innocent Palestinians, steal their body parts, drink their blood or use it for Passover Matza....

:eyes:

As I said earlier, the US spends trillions maintaining its empire by stationing paid killers all over the planet as Pinkertons to suppress any opposition so the corporations that own it can continue to plunder, ravage, poison, and steal. Those costs you mention are just small parts of that whole.

A supplementary way to move toward the same goal is to fund and support tyrannical and militaristic regimes whose roles in their regions are to promote those same objectives. Israel is #1 in that category. See the top 5 or 10 in the link above to see who gets put the same category as Israel.

The fact is that the US spends more on its own professional killing forces than on those of Israel, or all the other nations combined, should really not be that hard to comprehend. The fact that the US funds their professional killing forces way more than those of any other country, even the other oppressive states at the top of the list, is, well, a fact that your numbers do not address in any way.

Yakking mindlessly about the costs of US deployments in this or that location, although all are vile, is just irrelevant nonsense in this context.

American companies are stoking the Congo conflict for monetary gains.

Although you want to change the topic, as usual, my comments were about direct military aid intended to both support the builders of mass murdering devices in the US and their use by mass murdering governments who are given the US tax money to buy and use them.

The US supplies zero to fund the LRC murdering crazies, billions to fund the mass murders of Palestinians. When the US funded death squads in several Latin American countries all decent people who learned about these "hidden" mass murders opposed them. I still support CISPES. The US is not funding the LRC. It is funding the murderous IDF, the brutal policies of the state, and the continued theft of native lands,

And of course the US military and corporations are present and active in the DRC just as those psychopathic monstrosities are active everywhere on the planet.

The point you wish to evade is that the US funds and supports the the slaughter of Palestinians by the government of Israel and bribes the governments of Jordan and Egypt to collaborate with billions of dollars in military funding every year. The US aid to DRC is 117+17 million (see article). The vast majority for is health programs. The amount to the DRC that might be considered "military" is 42 million, Of that amount $21 million is for "peacekeeping," and from this site, http://budgetinsight.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/17-million-in-foreign-assistance-for-the-drc/ , the following is noted:

.....
$15 million supports a “professional rapid reaction force”, essentially training Congolese forces “in the fundamental principles of respect for human rights and protection of civilians”. Peacekeeping initiatives mainly focus on reforming the military in the DRC, and provide advisory assistance, training, equipment and infrastructure improvement.

....

If the US had been spending money for purposes aid to DRC was allocated and in those proportions, rather than propping up authoritarian and settler states and giving them more power to brutalize and murder those who resist, and those billions had been spent where most needed in that region things would have been far better for all parties to all disputes.

Not sure how you think any of that aid to the DRC was relevant, but it sure provides a far better model of what aid should do.

(edit tiny bits and add a bigger bit.)

Jewish Lobby Sits Out Vote On Armenian Genocide

Deteriorating relations between Turkey and Israel led Jewish groups to step back from active lobbying this year against a congressional resolution declaring the 1915 Turkish slaughter of Armenians a case of genocide.

For decades, Armenian-American groups have pushed the resolution, which on March 4 narrowly passed the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, sparking a harsh backlash by Turkey. Some Jewish members of Congress have been among its prominent supporters. But Jewish organizations have marshaled their political clout and moral capital on the issue of genocide to lobby Capitol Hill against the resolution in years past, moved in large part by Turkish warnings that its passage could harm Turkish-Israeli ties.

That warning appears destined to remain academic. In response to strong pressure from the Obama administration, congressional leaders have reportedly agreed to refrain from scheduling the measure for a full congressional vote. But the shift in stance by Jewish groups was notable for its reflection of shifts in the Middle East and of the balance between moral considerations and realpolitik.

http://www.forward.com/articles/126556/

I'm sure it's just so heartbreaking to you, as a liberal who deeply cares for others, that the media tends to focus on very minor things (Israel related) in comparison to more horrible things that effect tens or hundreds of millions worldwide.

:sarcasm:

represents Israel in favor of the US is that your point?

I think it's disgusting that any educated Jew works to deny that any genocide happened.