To read the original article, click here.


"The IDF shooting of the bound Palestinian was clearly immoral, and in that specific instance it was good that it was captured on film. The army did respond, although one can argue whether the response was sufficient or not," Steinberg says. But the problem, he maintains, is that this is all B’Tselem shows the Israeli public and the world of IDF behavior in the West Bank, and audiences, especially overseas, come away with the impression that soldiers do nothing but brutalize Palestinians. ‘Shooting Back reinforces the false image of Israel as the world’s major perpetrator of war crimes and a systematic violator of human rights,’ Steinberg says, ‘when the fact is that the vast majority of soldiers are the opposite, and we know that much of the army goes out of its way to avoid unnecessary civilian casualties, and does take human rights seriously.’” "But Steinberg points out that by far the largest television audiences for Shooting Back’s videotapes are not in Israel, but abroad – and for audiences overseas, the footage of Palestinian victims is not balanced by footage of Palestinian terrorists. ‘The IDF and the settlers do not get their message across in foreign countries,’ he says. ‘You’re not going to see coverage of the soldier getting acid thrown in his eye; it will get no international attention, and this is an example of the imbalance of the image created overseas by B’Tselem’s work.’”

"Gross, though, argues that foreign audiences, particularly Americans, get plenty of exposure to Palestinian terror, especially since 9/11, which roughly coincided with the start of the Palestinian suicide bombings of the second intifada. He adds that when B’Tselem began publicizing its work during the first intifada 20 years ago, all its reports were in Hebrew. ‘We only started approaching the foreign media after we saw that the Israeli establishment wasn’t reacting to our reports in Hebrew, that nothing was changing,’ he says.”