Iran Deal J-post vs J-news

The Iran Deal

      Media is the primary method of connecting the people with their government on a day to day basis. Without it, we would never have any idea what our government is doing or which politicians are running for office. The media gives us all the information we need to form our political opinions so for this blog post I'll discuss two articles from two different news sources on a subject. For my issue I've chosen the Iran deal so for my two articles, I went to the Jewish News and the Jerusalem Post.

Trump and the Iran Deal - A Game of Poker

The first article discusses the negative effects of giving Iran nuclear materials. Essentially it says that Iran wants weapons to assert their power over their main enemy the Sunnis from Saudi Arabia, the west, and Israel. Soon the nuclear restrictions will end Iran will be able to build nuclear weapons. Donald trump didn’t extend the sanctions. They tested a missile that could reach Israel and Saudi Arabia. After this Trump said the test was a volition and gave congress 60 days to decide whether or not they would reimpose sanctions. Many other countries are now working with Iran and helping them develop weapons.

When the bias of this article can be understood it is credible. The Jerusalem post is a hugely popular news source and they pander to a relatively homogeneous audience. Although they do provide sufficient evidence, there is sort of agenda they abide by just like every other news source. Because much of their audience are Jewish citizens of Israel, they are for Israeli independence and have a tendency to publish things that set Palestinians and anti Israel groups in a somewhat a negative light.

This article was written for a people that have been horrendously abused, displaced, and oppressed throughout history. For us, Israel is our only hope, it’s a symbol of our continued safety for if Israel falls, once again our people will become dispersed and organized, unable to protect its people. This article is written by Israelis which establishes a very clear zionist bias. The Iranian nuclear deal is immensely troubling for Israel because it gives a neighboring country and established enemy power enough to cripple Israel and wipe out many of its citizens.

The article serves to scare the reader and rightly so. The increased possibility of nuclear war is a massive problem for everyone, no matter what side your on. So essentially the main rhetorical devices are pathos logos because they make both emotional and rational appeals to the reader. The author also uses many anecdotes, talking about Israels different enemies to show how dire the situation is, along with polysidentine to create long lists of the problems that would be created for Israel given that the deal happens.

The argument does hold many valid points, overall I find it convincing. He effectively uses logic backed up with evidence to promote the fact that if the nuclear deal goes through, Israel is put under immense danger. Of course we do have to acknowledge some confirmation bias. As a news source, they must be entertaining in order to be popular the journalist might be looking for reasons the Iran deal is harmful, rather than finding objective pros and cons. What does work really well is the way the article uses context to demonstrate the scale of the issue. Through discussing Iran's past relations with Israel and Saudi Arabia, you have a basis for how these countries interact. If they've interacted negatively in the past there's no reason that anything will change. We can actually infer, what reasonably, that giving Iran nuclear capabilities will further exacerbate the issue wich. The article provides rationale for this train of thought by talking about the recent missile tests that Iran has taken part in. It clarifies that the missiles tested are capable of reaching Saudi Arabia or Israel and they can carry multiple nuclear warheads. This context and explanation of past tensions help the article to create convincing and logical rational regarding this issue although major flaw is that they don’t acknowledge a whole perspective. There have been sanctions put against Iran by the UN which help out Israel and the article doesn’t address that.

Nuclear Deal Will Destroy Israel

The second article talks about how the nuclear deal will destroy Israel; they are creating nuclear weapons in order neutralize the power of Israel. Israel has created a system where if they are attacked by nuclear strike they can fire back but giving Iran nuclear capabilities will weaken them but they are at a “strategic vulnerability”. Meaning that they assume they will be attacked but the Nuclear deal makes that a certainty.

This article is very credible. It is written by a respectable Jewish news source, based out of northern California. This article is relatively old compared to this issue so it can give us a pre-Trump perceptive. Being from 2013, the article talks about the possibility of nuclear weapons in Iran in a much more abstract manner than the previous article but still justifies that the degree of the threat. They explain the resources Iran's has are more than sufficient for obtaining this weaponry.

This article has much gentler biases than the previous one. Recently there has been a growing dichotomy between American and Israeli jews. While Israeli jews have doubled down in their beliefs, becoming more conservative and stubborn in order to protect themselves, American Jews haven’t faced these same tensions. As a result, Americans, especially Californian Jews, have become much more Liberal and Secular. The Jews of course is a product of its environment and because of its liberal lean, will be much less biased in favor of Israel than the Jpost so we may be able to consider it more objective. Even while considering it’s increased objectivity, this article does seem to use some hyperbole. They say that eventually Iran will have enough weapons to neutralize the Israeli arsenal and at the point when Iran starts firing at Israel, the UN will not even call a ceasefire! Although this may seem outrageous they do many many allusions to the worse case scenario and the very distinct possibility that Israel would be wiped out given that one of its enemies gains enough power.

This argument is sufficiently convincing. I would say that even with the hyperbole, it may not paint the situation in a dire enough light. This of course such a real possibility for Israel, everyday families hide in the elevator shafts of apartment buildings. Everyday missiles fall into Tel Aviv. They are almost always deflected but what if one if them was nuclear. I think the article does a good job of showing the immensity of situation by talking about Israel's defense measures. In order to ensure relative safety, Israel has german made nuclear submarines all along the coast so if they were attacked, they could respond swiftly, resulting in the destruction of there aggressor along as themselves. A nuclear arsenal this powerful for a county this small shows how their values reflect the constant struggle of always being at war. What is even more convincing is how they use context like the last article, although instead of talking about past events, they back up their opinions more with reasoning about past legislation that weakened Isearlal. From this article, we can obviously see that the situation is just getting worse for Israel. There is a major limitation, just like the first article they don’t discuss what the world and UN has done in the past to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

How might the media influence an individual’s political beliefs?

The media holds incredible control over individuals options. First of all, it controls what we see. In doing this they can make us think certain issues are of greater or lesser importance according to their agenda. Second, they can present things in the viewpoints they want us to see. Our opinions will be completely different, depending on the perspectives they present issues in. Of course while this seems deeply flawed, we must compare it to the alternative which is having no source of news and in turn, knowing nothing. Overall the media does do us a service but we must be careful to try and look at issues objectively, and from multiple sources.