Canadian Media: Cheerleading War on Palestine
This is the second part of an investigation that explores the official editorial stances taken by the National Post, The Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star, and occasionally the Montreal Gazette, on several states and conflicts, which uncovers a bias toward regime change and war.
Canadian newspapers, even the more progressive ones, have overwhelmingly lined up behind, and cheered on, war or regime change directed against what they often refer to as “rogue states,” a slur for governments that act outside of the control, and often against the interests, of Western governments.
As the spectrum of “respectable opinions” in Canadian journalism has edged slightly more to the left with regard to issues of diversity and intersectionality, those against Empire have continued to find themselves relegated to the fringe. This is a disservice to Canadian journalism as a whole, and a reminder that ideological diversity is needed.
The first part of this series looked at the editorial stances Canadian newspapers have taken on war and regime change in Libya since 2011. This entry will look at the same, but for Palestine.
On March 30, Israeli forces killed 17 unarmed Palestinian civilians, injured more than 1,400 others, and shot more than 770 with live fire. The Palestinian demonstrators had gathered to mark Land Day.
Thus far, Canadian columnists and editorial boards have largely strayed away from discussing the massacre, with a couple exceptions: the Post published an op-ed on April 2 titled “An open letter to Canada’s UN ambassador: why are we supporting Hamas terrorists?;” meanwhile, the Globe published a column suggesting the protest was a ploy by Hamas to make Israel look bad.
Looking at the history of how Canadian media has treated Palestinians, this reaction isn’t a surprise.
The media has been almost unanimous in its support for Israel’s decades-long eradication of Palestinian life, territory, and autonomy. Even the most supposedly progressive outlets have, at most, offered tepid criticism of Israel. This has gone on for decades, but only recent years will be examined here.
In 2009, Israel launched a ground invasion into Gaza. The Israeli military killed over 760 Palestinian civilians during this period, including 345 minors and 110 women. Israel was found to have violated international law, and used white phosphorus, a chemical smoke that burns people’s skin, in civilian areas.
Despite this, the Globe wrote that the invasion of Gaza, which they referred to as “Hamas’s ‘statelet,’” was “well justified,” with no mention of the destruction that came with it. In a June 2010 editorial, they simply referred to the invasion as a “regrettable incident,” but claimed that the more important issue was turning Gaza into a “free and functioning territory” that wouldn’t pose a threat to Israel.
The Post portrayed the invasion as an “excuse” for Israel’s “Arab enemies” to use as one of many “pretexts for attacking the Jewish state.”
In 2012, Israel rained missiles on Gaza. The Post published a pair of editorials in support of these strikes. They wrote, “Our view is that Mr. Netanyahu waged this mini-war in exactly the right way,” arguing that, “Israel had no choice but to strike at Gaza.” They claimed that Israel is a “civilized and humane nation” in contrast to Gaza, and argued Israel had been careful to limit their rocket fire to terrorists, while Hamas had been reckless.
Four Israeli civilians were killed in the clash, compared to 100 Palestinian civilians, including four children playing on a soccer field. The editorial didn’t mention civilian deaths, giving the impression that the Post saw all killed as “terrorists.”
The Star applauded the bombardment, claiming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu couldn’t be “faulted” for his justified response to supposed provocation from Hamas. No Palestinian civilian casualties were mentioned in the editorial, and while they claimed that the “scope” of the airstrikes “raised a few eyebrows,” they concluded Netanyahu couldn’t seem soft on security in the upcoming elections.
In 2014, Israel launched its most destructive attack on Gaza yet.
The Globe wrote, “It cannot be wrong for Israel to defend itself.” They referred to this invasion as the “latest round of grass-mowing” in Gaza, where Israel supposedly “cut back the military capabilities of their enemies.” With regard to the casualties from the conflict, they wrote, “The result has been high Israeli military casualties and, thanks in part to Hamas’s willingness to place fighters and rocket launchers in civilian areas, a very high Palestinian civilian death toll.”
Over 1,460 Palestinian civilians were killed, compared to six Israeli civilians. The idea that Hamas was responsible for these deaths was also contested by Amnesty International, who had “not been able to corroborate the facts in any of these cases.” Moreover, Amnesty stated that even if this were true, “it would not relieve Israel of its obligation to take all necessary precautions to minimize harm to civilians.”
The Post described the conflict as a “fight between a Canadian ally and a vicious terrorist group.” The editorial, focused on Green Party leader Elizabeth May’s lack of a policy position on the conflict, described the choice facing her as, “Stand with Israel against terrorism and alienate the veggie potluckers? Or embrace ‘engaged neutrality’ and inhabit a la-la land of moral relativism?” The editorial failed to mention civilian casualties.
The Star, while mourning the civilian casualties and mentioning Israel attacking civilians, downplayed an incident where Israel attacked a refugee camp. They wrote, “The school was struck by Israeli shells; the Israelis countered that their forces came under fire from the vicinity of the school. Regardless, the result was yet more dead and maimed.”
The Post has also routinely disparaged the people in Gaza, and their democratically elected government, Hamas, which they have described as a “grassroots Islamist cult.”
The party is described as taking over Gaza, as opposed to being ushered in with an election. They have openly fretted that regime change in Gaza isn’t a “realistic possibility,” and mourned that, “In Gaza, there’s no Saddam Hussein-type figure to find, kill and replace.”
Gaza, meanwhile, has been described as a “lawless platform for Jew-killing,” somewhat of a “prison” for “unrepentant murderers,” and a “terrorist enclave run by numerous, often competing armed groups.”
Canadian editorial boards should be ashamed of their support for Israeli apartheid.
