Despite the Washington Post headline (4/6/18), Palestinians’ burning tires have not been reported to have killed anyone, whereas Israeli live fire has killed 30 at last count.
As FAIR has noted before (e.g., Extra!, 1/17; FAIR.org, 4/2/18), the term “clash” is almost always used to launder power asymmetry and give the reader the impression of two equal warring sides. It obscures power dynamics and the nature of the conflict itself, e.g., who instigated it and what weapons if any were used. “Clash” is a reporter’s best friend when they want to describe violence without offending anyone in power—in the words of George Orwell, “to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.”
It’s predictable, then, that in coverage of Israel’s recent mass shootings in Gaza—which have killed over 30 Palestinians and injured more than 1,100—the word “clashes” is used to euphemize snipers in fortified positions firing on unarmed protesters 100 meters away:
- Journalist Among 9 Dead in Latest Gaza Clashes, Palestinian Health Officials Say (CNN, 4/7/18)
- Burning Tires, Tear Gas and Live Fire: Gaza Clashes Turn Deadly (Washington Post, 4/6/18)
- Demonstrators Wounded as Gaza Clashes Resume (Reuters, 4/7/18)
- Israel Clashes: Seven Palestinians Killed in Gaza Border Protests (Independent, 4/6/18)
- After Gaza Clash, Israel and Palestinians Fight With Videos and Words (New York Times, 4/1/18)
It’s almost as bizarre as the time several media outlets referred to a white nationalist driving a car into a crowd of unarmed protesters in Charlottesville as a “clash” (FAIR.org, 8/17/17):
“Clash” implies some degree of symmetry. When one side is dying by the dozens and the other is sitting behind a heavily secured wall, firing at will on unarmed people from hundreds of feet away (some of whom are wearing vests marked “PRESS”), this is not a “clash.” It’s more accurately described as a “massacre,” or at the very least, “firing on protesters.” (No Israelis have been injured, which would be a surprising thing if two sides were actually “clashing.”)
How media report on troops firing on protesters when it’s an official enemy doing the firing (New York Times, 3/25/11).
The fig leaf of “clashes” is not needed in reporting on US enemies. In 2011, Western headlines routinely described Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad as having “fired on protesters” (e.g., Guardian, 2/20/11; New York Times, 3/25/11). Simple plain English works when reporting on those in bad standing with the US national security establishment, but for allies of the United States, the push for false parity requires increasingly absurd euphemisms to mask what’s really going on—in this case, the long-distance slaughter of unarmed human beings.
Israel has a state-of-the-art military: F35s, Sa’ar corvettes, Merkava tanks and Hellfire missiles, not to mention the most intrusive surveillance apparatus in the world; total control over the air, sea and land. In the Great March of Return protests, the Palestinians have employed rocks, tires and, according to the IDF, the occasional Molotov cocktail, though no independent evidence has emerged of the latter being used. The power asymmetry is one of the largest of any conflict in the world, yet Western media still cling on an institutional level to a “cycle of violence” frame, with “both sides” depicted as two equal parties. The term “clashes” permits them to do this in perpetuity, no matter how one-sided the violence becomes.
Another good article by AJ on the semantics of the media that serves the powerful.
Indeed. A soon $20 to support FAIR’s exceptional reporting.
No evidence anywhere of a Molotov Cocktail being used? Get a grip.
Grant for the sake of argument there were. Though it’s dubious at best arguing with FAIR’s grip on facts. It would mean nothing compared to the firepower Israel regularly employs in its illegal apartheid occupation of Palestine.
Israel’s occupation is legal because Israel was attacked just as
France’s occupation of Germany was legal because France was attacked.
so not what is really happening .. but they know how to put on a good show for there own media brain wash benefit.
and in the meantime siria is bombing his own muslim people killing over 120 – with Russian aid- with chemical gass, but I have not seen as many articles as this silly provocation one
Syria isn’t bombing their own people with chemical weapons. That is a fabrication. Search for the source of these false stories and you will find yourself better informed.
“So not what is really happening” – I understand that you are agreeing with the author, that the word clashes does not apply either to the killing of the young American woman at Charleston, or to the shooting of protesters which has occurred in Israel.
To the extent that the Syrian govt is killing anybody, that’s terrible. However your guys over in Syria, are nothing but Al Qaida, and you know it. Notice how these chemical attacks were never done against the Kurds, supposedly also at odds with Assad – while they are currently receiving your two-edged aid.
Thank you FAIR.org, I had never thought about the word, clash. I’ll definitely pay more attention.
The word “regime” usually leaves a bad taste for me. It seems to be applied to governments and administrations the West doesn’t like. Seldom is it used to describe the racist regime on Pennsylvania Ave.
It should be excepted that Zionist expansion is inevitable, this just feeds down the chain of command from the ultra right Rabbi to the most explosive living God of Israel ”Benjamin Netanyahu” .
The territory under Israeli control has been shrinking since 1967.
It should be excepted that Zionist expansion is inevitable, this just feeds down the chain of command from the ultra right Rabbi to the most explosive living God of Israel ”Benjamin Netanyahu” .
The territory under Israeli control has been shrinking since 1967.
Shame on the Palestinians for polluting the air with poison gases produced by burning tires.
Shame on the Palestinians for polluting the air with poison gases produced by burning tires.
What would Palestinians do if the cards were flipped (i.e., Israel the aggressor and hurling 10,000-plus molten tires into Palestine as a way to infiltrate and murder?).
OK, just to make you happy, they’d probably do the same as Israel. The question is what would the reaction be by the US and the rest of the world. Firstly, they certainly wouldn’t call it a “clash” and secondly, BOMBS AWAY.
100 yard range is not “sniping” (long-range) it is “executing”.
It is always this way with Israeli affairs.
People are shot. They were “militants,” whatever that contrived, vaguely dangerous-sounding word means.
Here people are clearly ambushed by trained military, and yet there is a “clash.”
Actually, Orwell said it all a long time ago in his “Politics and the English Language.”
The extent of this nonsense, from and about Israel, tells astute readers of the immense abuse going on.
Of course, it is the same with Israel’s godawful project in Syria.
Gangs of paid and supplied mercenaries are termed jihadis or some such irrelevant term.
They are paid, trained, supplied, and encouraged by a little club consisting of America, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Britain, France, and originally Turkey, but not a word of that in our press.
Extremely well written article, unfortunately reason and intellect, I fear, will be insufficient to overcome decades of Western propaganda.
great piece Adam, you also however forgot to mention that while Iran is told it can’t have nukes by Israel and the West, Israel has millions of nuclear weapons, Palestine and Iran don’t.