By Darryl Mason
The Australian newspaper reveals there is outrage, from some, that Australians are angered and outraged now they are finally seeing the true horror of what Israel has done to Gaza on the evening news. The outrage that Australians are disgusted by what they see and hear about Gaza on the news is now becoming shrill :
Sure enough, some television programs did invite a token Israeli guest who tried to explain Israel's case. But the answers given seemed to be presented as propaganda, and the implication was that the only story to be believed was the Hamas narrative.
When news finally gets out about how those hundreds of women and children died in Gaza, the news takes on a 'Hamas narrative'. If you believe the stories from the UN, from the Red Cross, from the BBC, from CNN, from ABC, from the Murdoch media, from The Australian itself, about children hiding in UN safe houses and hospital being shelled by Israel, you are believing 'The Hamas Narrative'. It is implied.
Yes, why would people across the world have their buttons pushed by images like this?
...the strategy has worked for Hamas: it produced the images that screamed from the front pages of newspapers and TV screens, pushing the buttons of people across the world.
Presumably, the preferred reaction to images of civilian slaughter by an Australian ally is to not have any buttons pushed at all.
It gets a little creepy.
Emotions cloud the context; the result is a circus.
Don't become emotional when you hear and see on the evening news that an Australian ally, an ally in the 'War On Terror', is slaughtering women and children by the hundreds.
By forgetting the context, voluntarily or not, much of the Western commentators have implied this: it is permissible for terror groups to use civilians as human shields, but not for a legitimate country to mistakenly kill civilians in the course of battling enemy.
The latter is being portrayed as a crime against humanity.
It usually is when hundreds of civilians are killed, and when it keeps happening, to UN buildings and schools, when the UN has told the legitimate country that those buildings belong the UN, and have civilians in them.
The worry about 'Western commentators' forgetting "the context" of how missiles tear off children's legs and shred their faces with shrapnel is misplaced concern. Those who have to sell Israel's side of the state terror attacks on Gaza have got far bigger problems than 'Western commentators' nosing around the words "war crimes".
When even the Murdoch media are running news caps like the one below, on News.com.au's main page and the Daily Telegraph online front page, for almost 48 hours, you've got a serious, devastating public relations disaster on your hands :
The only surprise is the low number of civilian casualties in an area where 1.4 million Palestinians live....
1300 dead, more than 5000 wounded, thousands of buildings destroyed, including schools and hospitals, playgrounds bombed....
This is a result of the care with which Israel has operated.
Imagine the death toll if they didn't care?
Israel says 12 per cent of casualties are civilians, Hamas say 40 per cent. Whatever the percentage, it is a tragedy. But citing numbers and showing images while forgetting the context creates one more casualty: the truth.
I think you will find The Truth became a casualty in what Israel is doing to Gaza a long time ago.
The headline for the opinion piece quoted above, published in a newspaper, is extraordinary.
Images Of Bloodshed Obscure TruthA newspaper is telling you not to trust the usually non-bloody images they allow you to see.
But even those images don't obscure the obvious truth of the bloodshed in Gaza, and who is responsible for it.