What Is Israel to Do?

 

Western opinion in favor of Israel was united after the massacre of October 7 and until several weeks later when the counterattacks began. Since then, with Palestinian casualties mounting, support has steadily waned, particularly in the case of Joe Biden.

The president says that he is appalled by the numbers slain, and his reaction may be genuine. But the outrage may also be influenced by political consideration of the significant percentage of Democratic voters who are antagonistic to America's aid to our Middle East ally.

Politics aside, what other than a devastating Israeli response was to be expected? Consider the American reaction when 3000+ people were killed on 911 in 2001. On a pro rata basis, the 1500 killed in Israel, a country of 9.5 million, is massively higher than the US experienced with its population of 330 million. If America had received a loss of the magnitude suffered by Israel, the numbers killed 23 years ago would've been more than 50,000, approximately the same number lost in the entire Vietnam War!

Israel's leadership has consistently pledged to stay the course: fight until  Hamas is destroyed (Biden made that promise, too). That objective is probably unattainable since common sense tells one that some remnants are sure to escape elimination. But the organization will at least be severely crippled and rendered impotent, one hopes, for many years.

Yet Biden, et al., want to thwart this effort by demanding a cease-fire (whether labeled temporary or permanent, the pressure to make it the latter would be strong) that would likely end further military activity by Israel.

But Israel can hardly afford to ignore the wishes of its chief foreign backer. It needs access to America's seemingly bottomless well of military supplies.

Israel feels compelled, therefore, to offer not only lip service to Washington's call for a reduction in civilian deaths but actual steps to minimize losses by lessening military action against Hamas.

That response, however, will aid Hamas efforts to survive and soon again, Israelis fear, it will resume deadly attacks against their homeland.

Israel knows that its radical Islamist foes are implacable – a cease-fire will not lead to peace. For various reasons the administration prefers to think otherwise and is inclined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory … an outcome rather typically obtained by our commander-in-chief.

Israel, however, has no real choice but to persevere in the face of timid allies. The horrendous events of 10/7 united their people. Never Again.

[Note: war is simply a nasty endeavor. To expect warriors to fight in a humane way is fantasy. Humans so engaged are not inclined to be merciful. Atrocities occur as do mistakes which kill innocents such as aid workers. But to suppose that such events are the result of policy decisions by Israel it (it is not Russia after all) are ridiculous. Such policies would be counter to Israel’s interests as the outrage over the attacks on the humanitarian convoy made clear.]

Effective Media Bias Is What You Don’t Notice

 These days most liberal outlets (think "mainstream") don't bother to conceal their antagonism towards Republicans and conservatives in general. Thus, there is no surprise when New York Times staffers assail the decision by an editor to run a piece by a GOP senator calling for a strong law enforcement response in the midst of the 2021 urban riots following the death of Minnesotan George Floyd. Likewise, there is a ho-hum reaction to news that prominent anchors of NBC protested the hiring of the recent chairman of the Republican National Committee (which led to her firing).

The display of such blatantly liberal/leftist bias is not helpful to their efforts to persuade America to follow the left. Only those already in the choir pay favorable attention. For the media – at least most of the "profession", there is no pretext toward objectivity. The result is the loss of respect – and attention – from the public (most) who do not share their allegiance to leftist, wokist, etc. ideas.

It used to be that members of the media saw merit in being perceived by the public as objective, notwithstanding bias that lay beneath the veneer of fairness. They were, like today, mostly liberal. For my readers old enough to remember Walter Cronkite, he was a prime example of this approach. His demeanor on the air was smooth and his presentation exuded fairness and balance for all sides. After his TV career ended, however, he felt no need to conceal his liberal perspective.

Some media still strive to maintain the "Cronkite" appearance but practice, as he did, selective bias. And that can be very effective in affecting the audience’s understanding of whatever point of view is being promoted.

National Public Radio and TV, for instance, as entities supported at least in part by taxpayers, are obligated to be objective in their activities. But that hardly means that such are bias-free.

How selective bias works is along these lines:  Assume (of course in stark opposition to current reality) that the object is to promote Donald Trump's candidacy over that of Joe Biden’s.

Feature stories at the top of the TV news or on the newspaper’s front page that describe recent and positive statements he has made. Describe the activities that he is making to fulfill his promises, if elected, to make America great again. At the same time either ignore, or downplay, such activities which have not been successful.

Contrast the coverage of that of the incumbent president. He is described as forgetful and frail who often seems confused in public appearances.   His success in achieving legislative successes are not covered.

A fact checker would find nothing amiss in what was reported in either case. The contents were accurate. But that misses the point.

The coverage is clearly biased, even though true, for balance is missing. Another example of selective bias is simply the priority attached to news coverage.  If a story is covered, the reader or viewer reasonably concludes it must be important.  Thus, the fact that CNN seemingly leads each morning news with an update on Trump’s court challenges means the subject matter is more Important than, say, wars in Ukraine and Israel and southern border crossings.  Fox News plainly has different news stories with illegal border crossings leading the way.

Again, the stories, in both cases are not inaccurate but, whether they are highlighted or not makes a big difference in the audience’s take-away.  MSNBC (even more leftist than CNN) viewers overwhelmingly dismiss border crossings as an important problem.  Fox News watchers go strongly the other way.

Simply put, selective bias works. Highlight your side’s positives (minimize the negatives) and do the opposite for the other side. Few will comprehend what's happened.  The audience will be influenced in the manner intended.