Stories that can lead to incitement to racial hatred

From National Geographic

July 14, 2006—Fuel tanks blaze at Beirut, Lebanon's international airport after an Israeli air attack on July 13, 2006. That same day Israel struck the television station of Hezbollah, a Lebanon-based Islamic militia and political party.

The Jewish state's military also killed a reported 22 civilians in raids on south Lebanon—a Hezbollah stronghold—and bombed highways as part of a land, sea, and air blockade of the predominantly Muslim country. The Lebanese government, meanwhile, urged a cease-fire.

The attacks were in retaliation for Hezbollah's July 12 foray into northern Israel, during which the group kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and killed eight more.

Pete's Points

I think what is happening in the Middle East is absolutely deplorable. Regardless of who started what or who is responsible for what. Innocent people are in fact being caught up and killed or injured in this process and thousands more are being placed at risk of death or injury.

Alas, news items that read as the one above reads (see highlighted excerpt) do not actually lend themselves to a process to solve the problem.

Indeed I would argue that the juxtaposition of the words "the Jewish state's military? when placed next to the following words, "also killed a reported 22 civilians in raids on south Lebanon" actually create an atmosphere that leads to an incitement to racial hatred.

Other countries have different religious views as their official religion.

Are the forces of other nations ever referred to as the military of (pick the official religion and insert here) state?

I think not.

If this was the case I guess we would be seeing a lot of articles that include words like:

• "the Hindu state's military . . . " when publishing a story about the Indian military taking action against guerillas or insurgents in Kashmir.or
  
• "the Shinto state's military has . . . " when referring to the defence forces of Japan or
  
• "the Church of England state's military . . . " when referring to the armed forces of the UK
  

Placed in this context, the fact that we do NOT see articles that use this sort of language in respect of any other country besides Israel becomes immediately apparent.

Why is it that a reputable journal such as National Geographic allows the publication of language that incites to racial hatred?

Let's also explore the use of the words, "also killed a reported 22 civilians in raids on south Lebanon" in this story.

Insurgents and terrorists seem to be a group of people who do not generally wear uniforms, except when they parade through the streets, masked and carrying their flags and weapons.

The rest of the time, they seem to spend their days, for the most, part behaving like normal innocent civillians.

They wear civillian clothes, they do not mask their faces, they do not openly carry badges of rank or indeed their armaments or their bombs.

This actually facilitates their operational goals. They blend into the really innocent civillian population and actually launch their weapons from inside heavily populated civillian structures.

If there is a loss of life among such insurgents and terrorists, due to the reactions of the people that they have targeted and fired upon, it is hardly surprising that really innocent people are killed and it is also hardly surprising that those terrorists and insurgents who died in the process are proclaimed by their leadership as being civillians to one set of the media and as "martyrs" who died in fighting for the cause to another.

Stories like this exacerbate the situation and do not lend themselves to either accurate or appropriate reporting.

I would strongly urge editors to consider the words that are used in stories and then exercise appropriate editorial judgement to ensure that emotive and/or inapproprate language is dealt with more adequately in future.