Palestinian deaths count for less in Canada’s newspapers. Data proves it ⋆ The Breach
Palestinian deaths count for less in Canada’s newspapers. Data proves it ⋆ The Breach
An analysis of thousands of sentences in Canada’s top newspapers shows a clear bias that serves to sanitize Palestinians’ deaths
The largest Canadian newspapers have given disproportionate attention to the deaths of Israelis, portrayed Israelis in more humanized ways, characterized their deaths as more worthy of indignation, and more often identified who was responsible for killing them, a comprehensive comparison of reporting on the deaths of Israelis and Palestinians reveals.
The Breach analyzed thousands of sentences in coverage in The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, and National Post from Oct. 7 to Nov. 24. The study found that dozens of Palestinian deaths were required to merit just one mention in the newspapers, while there was one mention of Israeli deaths for every two Israelis who died.
The study shows a pattern of anti-Palestinian bias in Canada’s establishment media, sanitizing political violence against Palestinians and unequally stirring emotions about Israeli deaths.
Despite the unprecedented scale of Israeli bombing that has killed 20,000 Palestinians, the majority women and children, the newspapers have never used emotionally evocative terms like “massacre” or “slaughter” to describe their deaths. Meanwhile, they regularly used those terms to describe the Hamas attack on Israelis on Oct. 7, when militants killed 1,139 people.
Wow, this is impressive journalism. The war on truth and efforts to sanitize genocide over the last few months have been incredibly troubling to see. The article has some great graphs! I think I'll start subscribing to Breach this year!
The Breach is awesome!
And so are you for sharing such important articles :)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/15/war-on-terror-911-deaths-afghanistan-iraq/
Give it time? No, I think any military/tech advanced country would do the "retribution" as deterrent for that short lived celebration of terror act. The only thing that stopped massive scale wars between economic powers are that they do it in proxy wars and flex their muscle at the cost of people and lives that aren't their own. Even if they are directly involved, see above, they aren't shy away from just "use" their citizens as long as it achieve the political/military goals, while the arms dealers enjoy their record profits and funds worth them retiring for probably another couple thousand years for their offsprings. No matter how moral high ground people likes to pretend they are when they are not involved, we are not creature that thinks logically when things could have been prevented at much earlier stages.
The smart and logical flees and avoid physical and violent conflicts like war because there are no logic reasoning with it. Yes there is logic of how to defeat or kill enemies or drain their supply, economic etc as the people behind flexing their manipulation power, but there are no logic on how to prevent more killings as the war started. Cause those would needed to be done way before the war started.
The senseless death from any big scale conflict can be attributed back to mostly, guess who, yes, us everyday citizens. You gave those political figures power to decide when and how they send people to kill and die. From both side, regardless of the death tolls and how atrocious one side is killing another.
I am not even touch the topics why the hate or bigotry is in place so they hate each other already before the conflict started. I am just assuming that most won't care or if you do care you already did the homework.
Western settler colonist media supporting Israeli settler colonist genocide is no surprise, they have been doing it for 80 years. And for hundreds of years before that when it was local genocide.
What's the deal with Jordan and Lebanon and Egypt? Didn't Palestinians turn on the nation that took them in a start several civil wars? Why should we become part 4 of that pattern?
No, not immediately, and also for very different reasons. Palestinians, no matter where they end up, have a large sense of identity and continue to identify at Palestinians, be they Muslims or Christians - continuing to speak in their own dialect for example - while Israel expends enormous resources convincing themselves and anyone who will listen that "there is no such thing as a Palestinian". Palestinians by and large do not want to leave Palestine, because if they do they would likely never be able to return - especially if forced out by the IDF.
-
Lebanon has already absorbed Palestinians but Lebanon has a small population that is in a delicate demographic balance between their various religious groups - Maronite (Catholics), various Orthodox Christian, Sunni, and Shi'a, among many others. Lebanon is a creation of France in order to have one country in the Middle East be majority Catholic, but the demographics have shifted (due to emigration, birth rate differences and incoming refugees) and led to various civil conflicts, including a devastating civil war which drew in all their neighbors, and the current power sharing agreement is a precarious peace while larger foreign powers still meddle there, supporting one group or another. Hisbulla for example is a Shi'a Iranian proxy with a fairly large and kind of effective military wing independent of the state, while the West funds the official yet ineffective and probably incredibly corrupt state military. Adding more people, a majority Sunni, upsets the balance further, so Lebanon is reluctant to do so, understandably.
-
Egypt has also absorbed Palestinians over the years, but Egypt is also very careful about accepting people whose politics are principally driven by religion, especially Sunni Islam. Not saying that all of Gaza is politically religious, but many are, and Hamas definitely is. Allowing Israel to easily annex Gaza by allowing Israel to expel all Palestinians there to Egypt would cause the Egyptian State all manner of trouble. Also the pro Palestinian cause is very well favored by ordinary Egyptians, so the government cannot simply help Israel to kick them out by absorbing them. Either way you see it, it is not in Egypt's interests to accept.
-
Jordan has absorbed more Palestinians than anyone else. 60% of Jordanians are Palestinian in origin, and there are hundreds of thousands of refugees there also (i.e Palestinians without Jordanian citizenship) living there. The source of conflict between the PLO (whose leadership was exiled in Jordan at the time) and the Jordanian monarchy at the time was not sparked by the Palestinians "just being there" but rather that the Jordanian King Abdulla was opposed to Palestinian nationalism, and vehemently opposed the idea of a Palestinian state, since he always believed that any land that did not become Israel was his to rule by right, since Britain offered his ancestor all of Palestine during WW1 (all while double crossing the Arabs to offer it to the Zionist movement also). The Jordanian monarchy is not native to Jordan but rather originate in Arabia. Anyway this put the monarchy at odds with the goals of the PLO and Jordan failed to rein them in. Jordan is very receptive to Palestinian refugees though even though they are demographically overwhelmed by them, and lack the resources to absorb so many (Jordan is one of the driest countries on the planet).
-
Syria is in no state to absorb millions of Palestinians, although before the war they had done so.
-
Saudi and Gulf states don't really give much of a shit. They are happy to accept Palestinian workers, often educated professionals such as teachers, doctors, engineers and such. Not millions of refugees.
Essentially, each country has reasons to not do what Israel wants. And two of the major reasons on top of it all is that it is what Israel wants, and it is not what the Palestinians want. Palestinians want their homeland.
My issue is the notion of Palestinians making other not Palestine land their new homeland, which is emphatically never gonna happen and needs to be shut down however forcefully it requires. Nobody wants to live like that, so I'm unsympathetic to their obession with enforcing Islam through the nexus of a theocratic, oppressive state. Its interesting that for all the talk of oppression they literally want to run an oppressive theocratic state, its like a snake complaining it can't bite because its in an aquarium or its had its dangerous teeth removed
Edit: for all the talk against Israel, I would much rather live their than some of the crappy places theocrats inevitably turn the place into the moment they have have hegemonic and millitary dominance
-
Oh, come on, all sides are doing that. The newspaper in countries on the side of Hamas/Palestine do exactly the opposite. It is unfortunate that this war (as any other) divides the world on sides, but what else is new?
Sides? I would have hoped that Canadian newspapers are on the side of "facts".
You can say one facts and omit others.