Computer algorithm can be used to analyze anti-Israel bias in media. This research can identify
- Most frequent word usage towards Israel or Israeli politician in comparison to others
- Analysis of article headers
- Analysis of picture illustration selected.
- Absence of particular information or news in a media source examined
- Proportion of positive vs. negative articles in comparison to other countries.
There were number of articles where antisemitism can be considered (f.e. Next year in Palestine, from Holocaust to Nakba) and letters were written to NZZ as i learned from JPOST media comment.
Last week, there were number of articles about Jews in Switzerland, Yiddish, culture and an external comment (by Daniel Dettling) was published by NZZ about New Antisemitism.
The publication was good in principle but i was surprised it was about Germany. There is a lot of support to Israel and right of Jews to Palestine in Germany rather than in other EU countries. There are much more comments on Antisemitism in Norway, Sweden, UK, France.
I feel these publications are rather an excuse in case of critic< also in order to publish more anti-Israel texts in future. NZZ is, in my opinion, do not present Israel’s point of view and pro-Israel argumentation base, like
- Israel and some prominent lawyers see Settlements legal
- Opinion of all countries incl. US about illegality of Settlements in political and there are number of official US statements about that and about legality of settlements.
- Border of Israel and future Palestinian state is subject to negotiations
- Application of IV Geneva convention is questionable to Judea and Samaria. It is seen rather as absurd because Palestine is recognized by international law as homeland of Jewish people.
- Anti-Israel position of UN institutions (widely discussed)
- and many other points.
They can disagree with these points but hiding these is a subject for 3D test.
NZZ, Nr. 38, 15 Feb 2013 page 22 publishes 6 readers comment to the opinion of Daniel Dettling. All 6 are against articles and blaming / mentioning Israels violation of international law and human rights.
These comments are perfectly illustrating that D. Dettling point is correct. Here are some words used in 6 comments published by NZZ
- 1st: …suicidal policy of violating human rights stealing of land (‘selbstmörderische Politik des menschenrechtswidrigen Landraubs’)
- 2nd: According to european understanding of law, Israel constantly violates human rights and the laws of war (Nach eropäischem Rechtsverständnis verstösst der Staat Israel permanent gegen die Menschenrechte und das Kriegsvölkerrecht)
- 3rd: It’s that simple, the drilling questions about the human rights and violations of international law Israel (‘So einfach ist es also, den bohrenden Fragen nach den Menschenrechts- und Völkerrechtsverletzungen Israels’)
- 4th: So easy to make it to the defenders of apartheid (e.g. Israel). (‘So einfach machen es sich die Verteidiger dieser Apartheidpolitik‘)
- 5th: ..continuous acquisition of land or .. practical expulsion of the Palestinian population (‘kontinuierlichen Landnahme oder wegen der praktizierten Vertreibung der palästinischen Bevolkerung’)
- 6th: Israeli occupation and settlement policy … Human rights violations … (…israelische Besatzungs- und Siedlungspolitik… Menschenrechtsverletzungen …
Questions to NZZ that i would ask:
- Did they receive only Anti Israel comments?
- Why to publish 6 similar ( and actually rubbish) comments not addressing that initial opinion of discussion?
- Isn’t it NZZ to select reader comment with word ‘Apartheid’ towards Israel when this is apparently false
- Can NZZ mention position of all parties over Settlements ( can be found even in wikipedia)?
- Is not it dangerous that all 6 NZZ readers (all presented opinions) are so biased and unable to read article of Daniel Dettling and see difference between critic and Delegitimization+Double Standards+Demonization)?
If NZZ readers do not see Anti-Semitism and physical attacks on Jews in Europe – NZZ may need to perform 3D check on their own articles.
by the way, Isn’t it that attacking Israel on a question of Legality of Settlements is a major obstacle to reaching peace agreement?
The 3D Test of Antisemitism is a set of criteria for distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israel from antisemitism
”Spillmann seemingly does not even realize how anti-Semitic such a letter is in its damnation of the people of Israel.” http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=298990
58% rise in anti-Semitic attacks in France in 2012
Kontorovich says, “international opinion is squarely against Israel, and if international law were a popularity contest, Israel would be voted off the island. But the whole point of international law is to buffer international politics, rather than serve them.”
The Legal Case for Israel, Professor Eugene Kontorovich
legal arguments on both sides are durable on what are central points of contention. It therefore makes little practical sense to raise the profile of the issue of legality, for it would only add an insoluble element to what is already an extremely difficult problem.
The United States supported the applicability of the Geneva Convention and the unlawful character of settlements until February 1981 when President Ronald Reagan disavowed this policy by asserting that settlements are not illegal. President Reagans policy has been sustained, implicitly, by subsequent U.S. administrations, all of whom have declined to address the legal issue, although they have all opposed, with varying emphasis, settlements or settlement expansion. However, on April 14, 2004, President George W. Bush, in a further retreat from past policy, told Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that, In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949
May 29, 2002
Our opposition to the settlements is political. Washington feels that Israel would be better protected and more accepted inside borders where there are no settlements, so a decision on their future must be accepted on the basis of their feasibility.
February 02, 1981
“ As to the West Bank, I believe the settlements thereI disagreed when, the previous Administration refereed to them as illegal, theyre not illegal. Not under the U.N. resolution that leaves the West Bank open to all peopleArab and Israeli alike, Christian alike.
I do think perhaps now with this rush to do it and this moving in there the way they are is ill-advised because if were going to continue with the spirit of Camp David to try and arrive at a peace, maybe this, at this time, is unnecessarily provocative.”
President Ronald Reagans statements in an interview with the New York Times, February 02, 1981
Professor Julius Stone also wrote that “Israel’s presence in all these areas pending negotiation of new borders is entirely lawful, since Israel entered them lawfully in self-defense.” He argued that it would be an “irony bordering on the absurd” to read Article 49(6) as meaning that the State of Israel was obliged to ensure (by force if necessary) that areas with a millennial association with Jewish life, shall be forever “judenrein”.
Professor Ben Saul took exception to this view, arguing that Article 49(6) can be read to include voluntary or assisted transfers, as indeed it was in the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice which had expressed this interpretation in the Israeli Wall Advisory Opinion (2003).,
Israeli Settlements and International Law, May 2001
In 1998 the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs produced “The International Criminal Court Background Paper”. It concludes
International law has long recognized that there are crimes of such severity they should be considered “international crimes.” Such crimes have been established in treaties such as the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions…. The following are Israel’s primary issues of concern [ie with the rules of the ICC]: The inclusion of settlement activity as a “war crime” is a cynical attempt to abuse the Court for political ends. The implication that the transfer of civilian population to occupied territories can be classified as a crime equal in gravity to attacks on civilian population centres or mass murder is preposterous and has no basis in international law.
Understanding UN Bias Against Israel, The Jerusalem Institute of justice