From: pchaston (pchaston@supanet.com)
Date: Fri Apr 12 2002 - 14:57:45 MDT
>
>
> In a message dated 4/12/02 8:23:18, mail@HarveyNewstrom.com writes:
>
> >Even in a war, there has to be a pretty clear and present danger before
> >the military is allowed to fire upon unarmed civilians. I really can't
> >believe I am the only one who believes this.
>
> Curt Adams writes:
>
> Don't worry, Harvey, you're not, you're just doing a great job so there's
> no need for me-toos.
>
> Relevant to the whole discussion; accusations are being delivered that the
> Israelis committed some massacres in Jenin, in addition to killing armed
> militants. The fighting is over, yet the Israelis *still* won't allow in
> reporters. Hmmm.
All that this current thread has shown is that the press and the military
have incommensurate values.
Whilst the Israeli military wish to control all information flows within the
area of conflict in order to maximise their strategy, the international
press will want to obtain as much information as possible in order to
satisfy their audience's thirst for news, expand their circulation and
increase their profit. This is a very simple model but clearly indicates
that the two have differing and conflicting objectives.
However, a warzone is a chaotic area where information flows are very
difficult to control and Israel has decided upon strict supervision within
certain defined areas in order to manipulate external perceptions of this
incursion. (A goal which they seem to have failed to achieve in recent
days). The Israeli army sees its duty as defending the state from terrorist
acts and if this involves invasion of refugee camps, then that is the tactic
utilised. The decline in suicide bombings since Passover would support the
effectiveness of this strategy in the short-term.
However, a reporter has a duty to investigate stories that have a political
and moral bearing on the current situation in the West Bank. If he hears
about possible massacres in Jenin, and he understands the risks that s/he
could face by undertaking such a task, then he is also right. If there have
been dreadful violations of human rights, then these violations should be
brought to our attention.
Both sides would argue for the moral validity of their respective actions
with some justification. If any here has a clear view of this conflict and
knows what is right, then they are luckier or more decided than most of the
people that I know.
Philip Chaston
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:28 MST