Consider these three questions:
1. If you lease some land and then build a ramshackle house and shed on that site without getting a building permit or complying with the building code, is it a "human rights violation" if the government then goes to court and gets an order under which the buildings are torn down?
2. If you buy some urban property and then tear down the structure there and build an small apartment building there in compliance with all laws and regulations, it is a "human rights violation"?
3. If a country is the target of repeated attacks by its neighbor and the victim of the attacks attempts to cut off military supplies from getting to the attackers, is it a "human rights violation"?
The answer to all three of these questions are clearly negative. But there is a caveat. If you are the Christian Science Monitor and the questions pertain to Israel, then the answers are all yes. When Israel tears down illegally built homes and other structures after getting court orders allowing the demolition of particular buildings that were built without a building permit and without compliance with the building codes, the Monitor repeatedly calls this a human rights violation. When individual Israelis buy land and build new apartments in Jerusalem and (gasp!) allow Israeli Jews to rent those apartments, the Monitor sees a human rights violation if the site is in the eastern half of the city. When Israel cuts of military supplies to Gaza after being hit by thousands of missiles launched from that enclave, the Monitor calls it a human rights violation because it causes problems for the attackers.
The truth is that even an idiot understands that there are no human rights violations here. What is actually at play is that the bias of the Monitor against Israel just comes to the fore whenever there is a story about events in that area. As a result, the Monitor does not present things as disputes; instead, there is always a good guy victim (the Palestinians) and an evil guy oppressor (the human rights violating Israelis). The reality, however, is clearly something else.
I realize that the Monitor is just a small and failing paper. Things got so bad a few years back that they had to discontinue printing newspapers and go solely on line. Nevertheless, it is wrong to allow the blatant bias of the Monitor to go unchallenged.
1. If you lease some land and then build a ramshackle house and shed on that site without getting a building permit or complying with the building code, is it a "human rights violation" if the government then goes to court and gets an order under which the buildings are torn down?
2. If you buy some urban property and then tear down the structure there and build an small apartment building there in compliance with all laws and regulations, it is a "human rights violation"?
3. If a country is the target of repeated attacks by its neighbor and the victim of the attacks attempts to cut off military supplies from getting to the attackers, is it a "human rights violation"?
The answer to all three of these questions are clearly negative. But there is a caveat. If you are the Christian Science Monitor and the questions pertain to Israel, then the answers are all yes. When Israel tears down illegally built homes and other structures after getting court orders allowing the demolition of particular buildings that were built without a building permit and without compliance with the building codes, the Monitor repeatedly calls this a human rights violation. When individual Israelis buy land and build new apartments in Jerusalem and (gasp!) allow Israeli Jews to rent those apartments, the Monitor sees a human rights violation if the site is in the eastern half of the city. When Israel cuts of military supplies to Gaza after being hit by thousands of missiles launched from that enclave, the Monitor calls it a human rights violation because it causes problems for the attackers.
The truth is that even an idiot understands that there are no human rights violations here. What is actually at play is that the bias of the Monitor against Israel just comes to the fore whenever there is a story about events in that area. As a result, the Monitor does not present things as disputes; instead, there is always a good guy victim (the Palestinians) and an evil guy oppressor (the human rights violating Israelis). The reality, however, is clearly something else.
I realize that the Monitor is just a small and failing paper. Things got so bad a few years back that they had to discontinue printing newspapers and go solely on line. Nevertheless, it is wrong to allow the blatant bias of the Monitor to go unchallenged.
No comments:
Post a Comment