In today’s press preview on sky, Brendan O’Neill gave a comment about the journalist perspective the west tend to adopt on the recent bloodshed in Jerusalem, which was interesting, and wrong.
He said the sympathetic approach towards the Palestinian protesters would encourage even more of them and their violent posture against the Israelis defence force, idf.
His understanding is if the western journalists shied away from the protesters in Jerusalem, they would simply go away.
That, I think, is a guess too wild to be correct. But at this point I’m going to challenge his position further with my own guess. It, to me, is like two drunk in a pub who bet the numbers of a lottery the next day. Wild guess against wild guess, to no end.
Brendan used a perfect analogy to show how wrong his guess was. He let us imagine what would uk guard do if thousands of illegal intruders were marching across the gate violently.
That’s exactly why the Jerusalem protesters are getting more and more violent to the point idf has to resort to “force in proportion out of ‘self-defence'".
I added on his analogy of par excellency. Think about Russian forcefully set up his embassy on Buckingham palace, or St. Paul’s cathedral. You warned Russia foreign ministry against it, presenting the spiritual symbol and sacred value of the places, to the verge of exhaustion, and to his stubborn determination to insult your country. What would you do Brendan?
The workflow of something happens for some reasons. And the journalists come to take a snap, or a side, for stupid like you and me, is the ABC, of what journalism is. To think of it the other way around, is more stupid. But it would be stultifyly stupidity to the max if the one who takes that view is a journalist himself.
I hope it’s not you.