It’s curious what a difference just changing a word or two in a news report can make. For example, in an account on the recent Israeli boarding of the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara leading to the killing of nine of the activists aboard, The Guardian wrote on 1 June:
Israeli soldiers involved in the military raid on the Gaza flotilla released descriptions of facing a 'lynching' at the hands of armed activists aboard the Mavi Marmara.
The Israeli defence force (IDF) issued a video featuring two soldiers, each with one arm in a sling and their faces obscured to avoid identification.
Now, I’ve watched the video footage and it’s obvious that the Israeli forces were met by pretty terrifying violence. It’s hard to imagine that anyone in that situation and with a powerful weapon to hand might not use it. Without wanting to quibble, though, I do have to question just why such soldiers with such weapons were being dropped by helicopter onto civilian boats. I’m not sure that I can quite go along with Joseph Liebermann, erstwhile running mate of Al Gore in the presidential elections in 2000, and an independent senator for Connecticut (or possibly Upper Galilee) who recently proclaimed:
‘We should be very clear about who is responsible for the unfortunate loss of life in the attempt to break the blockade in Gaza. Hamas and its allies are the responsible parties for the recent violence and the continued difficulties for the people of Gaza. Israel exercised her legitimate right of self defense.’
To test the even-handedness of reactions to these events, consider a slightly modified news report, with a just a few words changed:
Iranian soldiers involved in the military raid on the Bandar Abbas flotilla released descriptions of facing a ‘lynching’ at the hands of armed activists aboard the US vessel Chesapeake Bay.
The Iranian revolutionary guard issued a video featuring two soldiers, each with one arm in a sling and their faces obscured to avoid identification.
I wonder whether Senator Liebermann would speak out in favour of the poor Iranian Revolutionary Guards and defend their right to act in self defence.
But don’t worry: I don’t really wonder for long.
Completely unrelated postscript. Just finished watching John Ford's film of A Single Man. Powerful, well performed, and directed with the kind of economy that magnifies emotional impact. I strongly recommend it. But it was fascinating to see Joanne Moore of North Carolina acting with an English accent, and Surrey-born Nicholas Hoult playing with an American one. Why did they do this transatlantic swap-over? Just because they can, like why a dog licks his genitals?
2 comments:
Comment to your "Completely unrelated postscript".
Carissimo amico, just a small clarification concerning the name of the director of the film "A single man". I suppose, you mean TOM FORD and not JOHN FORD.
What I do not know: Is Tom the son of John ?
Also concerning Madame Moore, I think Joanne as first name is a very fascinating name, but "unfortunately" her right first name should be Julianne, giusto?
You see, I am really 50% Swiss and 50 % Italian.
So, after the above stated Swiss precision it comes now my Italian/Roman nature:
"A single man" really is a very good film. The only "problem" I had, I did not observe/hear your mentioned fascinating transatlantic swap-over in the German version of the film ! :)
Ciaooooooo
Pino
Right on all counts! I'm consumed by shame.
Tom Ford not John Ford and wikipedia makes it clear there is no relationship. Julianne Moore not Joanne Moore - Joanna Moore was an actress, but unrelated to Julianne Moore, and Joanne Moore is my invention. How sad the German dubbers didn't go for, say, a Viennese accent (old world) to represent England and a Zurich accent (thrusting modernity) to represent the US.
Post a Comment