Response to Current Event:
(protesters gathering after Gaza air strike)
Recently, Israel had launched air strikes on several Palestine cities. According to Israel officials, their targets are on Hamas's troops and soldiers. In reality, however, most of their rocket landed on innocent civilians. Many Palestine families were separated due to the land disputes between the two nations. Although the Israel officials warned the families to move out the area, The heavy shells kept landing on streets and houses to make the escaping difficult. Many normal residents in the Gaza area were forced to enter the security check and was arrested for suspicion. They were forced to take their clothes off and sit on the cold sand and pavements for days. The conflict continued and yet more and more refugees were produced the conflict.
The news article focuses on both the responses from Israel and Palestine after the conflict in Gaza. I am surprised that after the Israeli army had done such inhumane action the human right organization only did some minor criticizing. From other sources I've read that the reason for the Israeli army to storm Gaza was due to the loss of several Israeli teenagers. The Article started off from the view of a Palestinian family who lost his house after the bombing. Almost all the resources are given by the refugees who experienced the terror. There is a conflicting point where the Palestine and Israeli army point at each other for using human shields. "Without addressing specific events, it is important to note that the [Israeli army's] policy regarding fighting in urban areas goes to great lengths in order to avoid hurting civilians, while Hamas cynically uses its own population as human shields" the army said, and "Moments later, al-Najjar told Al Jazeera, the Israeli soldiers used the family as human shields - walking behind them through the streets of Khuza’a, a small town in southern Gaza." Those two conflicting view points blurred the fact and make Israel's claim more unbelievable since most readers will be more sympathetic toward Palestinians who experienced bombing. However, what those refugees said was not necessarily true. Since the fighting continued for years it is easy for both sides to develop bias. Israeli army's image had gone downhill since their attack on Gaza UN school. Although the public admitted that Hamas did use human shield, the public started to realize that what Israel had done was nowhere better than this terrorist group. The public continued to develop Anti-Zionism attitude that criticizing the Israel. Israel will only receive lesser support from the media overtime as long as those news impact Israel negatively.
One bias I found is the quote "Baker, who is soon to be married, said he lost everything from his now-destroyed home in Khuza’a. "Even the $2,000 I kept in the safe for our wedding expenses was stolen by the Israeli troops," he said, adding that Israeli soldiers left only a stack of plastic handcuffs behind." According to the previous discussion Baker and other residences were taken to other places and their house was under serious siege by the time. Then where does this man came up with the assumption that the Israeli army had taken his money but not other people. This bias may be associated with long-term hatred between Palestinian and Israeli army. The war motivated many Palestine to accuse Israeli army for many things without solid proof because of pure dislike and hatred. Most of the perspectives are as well from Palestine. The second bias is that almost all the information is given by the Palestinian side, and the whole article only focused on the Israeli army for only few times to address their stands. As you look through the passage you will find that most statements against Israeli army have no solid proof. For example, the article says that the Israeli army "fired on and killed dozens of civilians in Khuza’a during the ground offensive" and "Israeli air strikes hit many civilian homes, and destroyed the local mosque." without give creditable resources and even the name of the witness.
