After weeks of tension surrounding the Temple Mount, the irony of the conflict is unsettling, particularly because it has gone widely unnoticed and has been blindly accepted by the majority of observers. Although well-intentioned, efforts to stand for justice, equality and human rights have often been shaped by false information and a lack of understanding surrounding the complexities of the conflict.
The tension began following the Temple Mount terror attack where three Arab Israelis shot and killed two Israeli Druze police officers on duty. In response to weapons being smuggled onto the Temple Mount, Israeli police installed metal detectors, cameras, and temporarily placed age restrictions on those who could enter the Temple Mount. The Muslim world met the new security measures with outrage. Protests, often violent in nature, began erupting all over Israel and captured the focus of the international community. Protesters were killed, Israelis were murdered in their home, and a downward spiral of violence ensued.
Israel, often seen as the aggressor in the world’s eyes, was once again found guilty. But the international community’s sentencing wasn’t based solely on what some would assume to be obvious or apparent facts of discrimination and brutality; rather, Israel has, and is continually condemned based largely on twisted, manipulated, anti-Israel jargon, that is well explained in revealing its antithesis. Here are eight thoughts exposing blatant contradictions in news coverage and international opinion towards Israel:
Only in Israel…can a perpetrator of terror also be a victim.
Only in Israel…can security measures–steps taken to ensure the safety of both Jew and non-Jew, Christian and Muslim, from mindless violence and terror–be seen as oppression.
Only in Israel…can terrorists murder police officers, and then blame Israel for additional security measures.
Only in Israel…does international media coverage equate the deaths of terrorists with the deaths of terror victims.
Only in Israel…can the government be accused of religious discrimination against a religion that regularly bars non-believers from entering or praying at their holy sites.
Only in Israel…does the United Nations vote to ignore Jewish ties to the Temple Mount, despite biblical and historical evidence, and then call on Israel to create a peaceful resolution to an area previously denied them.
Only in Israel…is the burden of responsibility to protect all people–regardless of their race, religion, or ethnicity–placed solely on Israel. While at the very same time, the terrorists are often praised and honored by their leadership as martyrs.
Only in Israel…is it expected of the Israeli government to deal with conflict in a democratic, civilized manner; however, Palestinian response to conflict, often violent and openly egregious, is often permitted.
It becomes apparent that instead of covering the entire story, the mainstream media is continually dishonest when covering the conflict, and paints Israel as the villain in a repetitive, oxymoronic story. The difference between what is true and what is false is no longer a canyon, but an ever-shrinking chasm of public discourse. Guarded by an appeal to empathy and an honest, although misled, longing for good intent, public opinion is being transformed and shaped to fit a very specific worldview – a worldview that is growing increasingly anti-Zionist, and as a direct effect, antisemitic. In this worldview, Israel is often found to be at fault and is disproportionately blamed for the atrocities not only occurring in Israel but around the Middle East. When truth is traded for ratings and accuracy for publicity, it must be combatted by comparing what is thought to be known with what is known, by showing the inconsistencies in narratives with the realities presented us. In fact, only when truth is separated from fiction can progress be made – progress not born out of false narrative but complete understanding.
This article isn’t written to say that Israel hasn’t made mistakes or should not be held accountable for their wrongdoing–quite the opposite. Israel, a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, must be held to the highest of moral standards, but never at the expense of hypocritical, often dangerous demonization. Israel is the world’s best (and only) choice to encourage and advance any type of free society in the region. Instead of suffocating Israel with boycotts and libel, Israel must be critiqued when at fault but supported when merit requires. In showing the inconsistencies lurking within common public opinion of Israel, there is hope to encourage progress and to oppose regress.