Es gibt schon wieder mehr zu lesen. Zu der Reuters-Entlarvung der letzten Tage schreibt die „Investor’s Business Daily“ in einem redaktionellen Beitrag mit einer Schärfe, die ich in der deutschen Presse kaum erwarte (Link):
Need a little anti-war, anti-Semitic buck-up? Try some Reuters coverage. The British news outlet will be only too happy to oblige. […] Reuters‘ explanation? „Photo editing software was improperly used on this image… We are sorry for any inconvenience.“
An apology to clients is nice. But what about an apology to Israel for employing staff members who are trying to inflame world opinion against a nation that is already globally hated? […] Just one episode, some might say. Means nothing. But there’s a pattern:
• Thanks to the Powerline blog, we know that Reuters is either sloppy or has purposely used unaltered (we presume) photos to try, yet again, to cripple Israel’s self-defense initiative by exaggerating the damage.
On July 24 Reuters issued a photo of a damaged area in Beirut with the explanation that it was the result of „Israeli attacks on a Hezbollah stronghold.“ Less than two weeks later, a photo dated Aug. 5 from the same damaged area but from a different angle shows a woman walking „past a building flattened during an overnight Israeli air raid on Beirut’s suburbs August 5, 2006.“
The photographer? Adnan Hajj, whose entire catalog of Reuters photos has been pulled by the news outlet. The agency also said it has „ended its relationship with Hajj.“
• Reuters has not admitted to any doctoring of photos regarding the site of Israel’s late July attack on Hezbollah in the Lebanese village of Qana. But the blogosphere is hot with charges that Reuters and others were duped by — or cooperated with — Hezbollah to stage the rescue and recovery of the Qana victims to stir up scorn for Israel.
The Reuters photographer this time? Hajj.
• Reuters has admitted that Hajj changed an image of an Israeli F-16 flying over Lebanon to make it appear the jet fighter dropped three flares rather than one.
• Fearing it will violate its commitment to accuracy and impartiality — which clearly are in question — Reuters refuses, as company policy, to use the word „terrorist“ in news reports. Executives prefer that „individuals, organizations and governments… make their own decisions based on the facts.“ But when Reuters provides the facts, reaching a reasoned conclusion becomes a difficult task. […] Is Reuters a patsy or collaborator? Either way, it is helping the cause of terrorism and undermining civilization.
Unless it wants to become just another branch of Al-Jazeera, it had better make meaningful institutional changes soon.
Ich ergänze hier nur, dass ein Fernsehinterview mit dem Blogger Charles Johnson, der „Little Green Footballs“ betreibt, bei CNN gesendet wurde (Link mit Videoaufzeichnung). Glückwunsch!
Viel widersprüchlicher ist der Artikel von Leon Wieseltier bei „The New Republic“ (Link). Der Text steht seit dem 4.8.2006 online und ist offensichtlich unter einem großen Schock entstanden, als die ersten manipulierten Nachrichten über das „Kana-Massaker“ kamen. Wieseltier glaubt den Nachrichten und moralisiert, dass es böse Sache ist, Kinder zu töten. Es wäre spannend zu erfahren, was und wie er jetzt nach allen Enthüllungen denkt. Vielleicht kommt da noch etwas. In diesem Sinne ist die Diskussion zu seinem Artikel lesenwert (Link). Besonders passend scheint mir aber der Beitrag von einem Ariel in einem zionistischen Blog zu sein (Link):
War is a dreadful thing. Human lives are lost, on all sides. Combatants, civilians, women, men, children–every lost life ends a world; every bomb which hits its mark costs the universe a soul.
And yet war, at times, is a necessity. „When you go to war,“ the Torah says, recognizing that war is a part of life–or at least a part of life when there are other people out there whose ideology includes a call for your death and destruction.
In that regards, while we should constantly recognize the ugliness of war, and express our disagreement if we feel the war is no longer serving the ultimate purpose of the state–that is, the defense of its citizens–we must also recognize our duty to support the State and join in its battles when the very life of our people is in danger. Our people, yes–because our family comes first, no matter what.
In this regards, I find myself echoing Leon Wieseltier who writes in the New Republic:“I am not trying to talk myself into accepting the deaths of the children of Qana. I am trying to talk myself into not accepting them, whatever that means. But it isn’t working. I see no escape from the distinction between moralism and morality. Moralism is a denial of the actual conditions of moral and historical action. It is a way of protecting morality from the knowledge of the world. Whether or not this sounds complacent, I believe it.“
May we have the peace of mind to wrestle with these issues this Shabbat, and may the ideologies of hatred–those calls for the destruction of entire peoples and elimination of entire states–be wiped from the map, so that all human beings find peace in the coming days and weeks.
Das klingt für mich authentisch und würdevoll. Der streitbarste Artikel kommt von Stephen Plaut und zeigt, wie sich der laufende Krieg auf die innere Debatte in Israel auswirkt (Link). Der Text ist nichts für schwache Friedenskämpfer. :-) Besonders die 40 Thesen, wie zum Beispiel:
15. Much of the world has no qualms seeing Jewish civilians murdered by terrorists.
17. Israeli niceness and flexibility fan anti-Semitism.
18. Arab terrorists do not morph into statesmen.
26. Those who claim that anti-Zionism is different and distinct from anti-Semitism tend, on close inspection, to be anti-Semites themselves.
28. “Palestinians” are not a nation in any true sense of the term and never were. They are simply Arabs who happened to migrate to Western Palestine. They have no “right” to statehood.
33. Palestinians are the Sudeten Germans of the Middle East.
34. There are no non-military solutions to the problem of terrorism.
35. One can only make warwith one’s enemies. One can only make peace with one’s defeated enemies.
36. There are no significant differences between the agenda of the PLO and the agenda of Hamas and Hizbullah.
37. One cannot make peace by pretending that war does not exist.
38. One cannot buy off anti-Semites and Islamofascists with trade concessions and subsidies.
39. The only way to stop terrorism is to kill terrorists.
40. No terrorist has ever murdered anyone after he was executed.
Einiges davon wird sicherlich die Hauptrichtung der künftigen Diskussionen innerhalb der israelischen Gesellschaft bestimmen.