>Why is Israel on my TV news ?
>
This question is in the context of why is the media serving us certain dishes over and over.
Do you think that there is any basis for the newsworthiness of a border dispute between two countries that are not European, not economically strong, and not culturally significant to Europe, to be constantly on our TV news ?
Once or twice I could understand, in the same way some African dispute may make the headlines initially. But these African disputes are very quickly consigned to the newsman’s dustbin if there has been no resolution or progress within a short space of time.
On the other hand, the Israeli conflict has been stagnating for decades, and yet almost every night it is on our television as though it was breaking news !
I expect that more than 90 % of the BBC’s viewers do not care for anymore news about Israel, so why do you think British viewers are constantly subjugated to having to hear about it ?
Battison's Blog 
>Well obviously there are grounds for putting it on the news so often. In fact it's a lot more justified putting the Middle East peace process onto the news than most of the things that are put on. But I know exactly what you're talking about. If we're hearing about Israel and Palestine so often then why aren't we hearing about Somalia, Yemen, Myanmar etc? There are some very disturbing reasons i.e. that because Israelis are considered closer in ethnic, religious and cultural terms they're deemed more 'news-worthy'. But there are also good reasons. We, Europe, created the problem. We, the West, said we'd clear it up. We, the world, persistently cite it as one of the world's largest security threats. Yet despite all this we've failed to make advances. So in other words we know the actions of Palestinian and Israeli leaders throughout the last hundred years would not be our actions. But half the interest in the Middle East is not in them; it's in ourselves. Every time you hear of Netanyahu refusing to extend the settlement ban it blemishes the reputation of Obama, and EU leaders too.
>Your first paragraph stated that it was obvious and justified in having Israel on the news all the time but you didn't elucidate.I'm not being facetious but not having studied political science, the reasons that seem blatant to you, escape me entirely.As for your contention that Europe created the issue, well we created the African one too. Imperial slicing up of Africa based on a cartographers pencil rather than tribal affiliations etc has created new countries with histroically opposed tribes.So our responsibility for the Israeli issue is no more than that to Africa.You contend that half the reason Israel is on the news is because of there refusal to co-operate with the west (obama and the EU).But Castro, Chavez, and Mugabe also refuse to co-operate but they rarely make the news. maybe half a doezn quick snippets a year.The Iranian guy is making the news alot recently though, i will admit. But i think the reason is not because he is refusing to bow to the west, but because the west is using the media to create hysteria about Iran. Therefore it's not so much reporting as it is propaganda.I will say i have rarely watched news for about 10 years, and when i do it's usually channel hopping between RT today, Al jazeera, CNBC (big time, great show), and other off centre sources.The reason i don't watch BBC is because i know what i'm going to get. 10 minutes of weather and 10 minutes of Israel.
>Sorry about skipping over that. Apart from how much political capital our State leaders have involved with working towards peace (it would make someone's legacy permanent in the history books) it largely comes down to economics and security issues. Before the act of Palestinian terrorism at the 1972 Olympics the West didn't actually pay that close attention to the Middle East. But since then, and especially since 9/11, State leaders in the West, and indeed elsewhere in the world too to an extent, see peace in the Middle East as a pre-requisite to stopping the terror attacks in their own countries.There is also the issue of nuclear weapons. Israel has them, and it seems like only a matter of time before an Arab or Persian country gains them too. The prospect of a Third World War being triggered by the Arab-Israeli conflict is a very real worry.Then there's the matter of the region's economic significance. The Middle East sits in-between Africa, Asia and Europe, meaning that it can facilitate, or badly disrupt trade (think about the Chines Silk route; the region has held economic significance throughout human history). This also gives the region strategic importance, for example the Suez Canal, Gulf of Aden and Gulf of Oman all offer funnel points that are easy to block, and not allow ships in or out of. Yet the amount of trade that passes through these regions in enormous, which of course brings me to oil.See this link for where the world's oil reserves lie: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/04/world_the_world0s_oil/html/1.stmYou only have to think about the supply shocks in 1973 and 1979 (when OPEC raised the price of oil by cutting producetion) to realise how big an impact the region has on the world. The West, and particularly the US, are paranoid about how much of an effect this very unpredictable region has on their economy. If by some miracle the region became stable, the global economy should be strengthened quite a bit. Lastly the guilt factor. You're right to suggest that this is not the main motivation. However it is different to Africa. Our colonial impact was not entirely negative in Africa. We built roads, facilitated trade, and basically linked Africa up with the rest of the world. There was a lot of bad done too, but with the Middle East it was only bad. We basically did nothing good in the Middle East. The only possible comparison would be South Africa, where huge numbers of European immigrants displaced natives. But apartheid has now ended in South Africa. Palestinian rights, and their own homeland, is still a dream.I didn't say that Israel is on the news because they refuse to cooperate, at least not entirely. Israelis are considered to be "one of us". They have European and American cultural histories, Judaism is well understood by those with Christian heritage (and the Jewish lobby is also quite strong in the US), and they're relatively rich. When we see Israelis on the news we see white people living in normal houses, on normal streets, being attacked for reasons most people are not educated about. This, along with the Cold War, resulted in Israel being seen as an ally. When an ally continues to go against your wishes, and you've invested a lot of time and political capital in working the issue, it attracts the media.The news about Iran stems solely from the Nuclear proliferation everyone thinks he's embarking upon, and the fact that Ahmadinejad loves the spotlight. Every time he's near a camera he walks over to it and tries to smile his way into everyone's heart, convincing people that he's just a 'regular guy'.The BBC is biased, as are all news stations, but it's not the most biased out there. In fact it may well be one of the most neutral. At least most of the BBC's bias comes in selectivity i.e. they don't give incorrect facts, they just only report on certain things.
>Ok, you've given a history of why but not too much seems to hold my attention.a big point is what you said about world war 3. there is no way countries like nz or france are going to join in a war between the israeli's and the arabs. and britain won't wither, unless tony blair is re-elected.therefore, if a war does break out it will be usa and israel versus the arabs.at the moment with the usa vs iraq and soon to be iran, and israel vs palestine, isn't this what we already have ?oil. this conflict has been going decades and there have been no problems with the oil supply from the mid-east. the 73 shock was due to the suez canal conflict was it not ?geographical importance. they only have the suez and nothing else. the silk route hasn't been in use for a millenia. even the suez is starting to be by-passed by the bigger ships like the aptly named 'capes' (cos they gotta go round the cape instead of thru the canal.we also seem to differ on our thinking regarding viewing the israeli's as one of us. i don't. and ask any football fan if it makes sense that israel plays in the euro championship and they'll tell you no. even the football fan knows they in our league for the sole reason that the arabs don't want to play with them. they're not in our league because they're like us.yeah, for the god lovers, the jews and jerusalem and all that shit may seem familiar. i'll give you that point.guess we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.
>Lol. Trust me it's important. Even if we didn't enter the war do you really think it wouldn't affect us? How would a nuclear war affect the financial markets to you think? And besides that logic is only needed if you're completely heartless. Think of how many people are already suffering daily in Palestine. Now multiply that by about a thousand and you get somewhere close to an imagination of what misery could be caused if the Arab-Israeli conflict escalates.There have been tons of problems with oil supply. In fact there have never not been problems. OPEC 1 in 73 was caused by the October War between Israel and the Arab nations, and OPEC 2 in 79 was caused by the Iran-Iraq War.The geographical significance is huge. Do you have any idea how much trade passes through the region? And this is growing not shrinking, particularly with the expansion of the airports in many states. In fact your example of the Silk Route is not quite correct either. Trade has always continued along this route on and off, and there has been a lot of talk in the past decade about the creation of a new route, particularly with the amount of economic growth in China at one side, and Turkey at the other.I never said I saw Israel as "one of us". I said it *is* seen as more "one of us" than the other states in the region, and this is very much true throughout the West. Again I'm afraid this is fact, whether or not you agree.Let me give you an example scenario:1. Iran develops nuclear weapons in secret, and launches them against Israel before anyone is prepared. 2. The US responds by declaring war on Iran, and the EU is likely to join too under US pressure.3. China uses the confusion to invade Taiwan.4. US mentality is such that they refuse to step down and they declare war on China.5. WW3 commences, with states allying right left and centre, and many attracted by promises of oil, and Middle Eastern resources (Russia would try and use the confusion to expand upon lost territory). You're right to say that New Zealand would be likely to try and stay out at first. But even if it didn't get dragged in I don't think you can say this doesn't affect them.