Great video- thank you.Ordinarily I would agree with you. It certainly is problematic to claim people don't know what they're talking about rather than accept they have a legitimate argument. And I also get sick of people blaming everything on the media. But I feel like this conflict is an exception in many ways.
The media shapes the impressions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so much - not just by what the media covers but what informations and perspectives it leaves out. Have you seen this comparison of British and American media coverage? The difference in the language used to describe events and in the way they humanise one side or the other is startling. Start watching at 3:15 if you want to skip to the crux of the matter:
This documentary is much more critical of Israel and American news organisations portrayals of events, but the European media has the same level of bias toward the Palestinians. We seem to get mainly UK media reports on the conflict here on NZ news, so I'm often frustrated by a lack of humanising stories about the Israelis.
The misconceptions the media create are not necessarily intentional either. It can be a simple as not reporting on what happens on the 'down' periods when there isn't outright conflict going on. People then tend to mentally fill in those gaps: often they either think all out war has continued during that period or they think there hasn't been any conflict at all. Both are inaccurate and they shape the way people react to the media reports they do receive. For example: if you believe that conflict has been intense and constant up until recent events, you're going to see Israel's present actions as more justified (ie. it's not just aggression coming out of nowhere), but if you think it's been completely peaceful, the Israelis look inexcusably ruthless and bloodthirsty.
Knowing about it the history and the issues in play is also incredibly important. There are some crucial aspects that you must at least be vaguely aware of for any of it to even make sense, and I don't think the media does enough to outline it. The conflict parameters have shifted so much over the last 60 odd years but people forget about how and why things have changed. The media only report on immediate events and assume people will know why it is happening and how it came to this - which they often don't.
Arafat walked away from negotiations and I've read varying accounts as to why. Some say there was a misunderstanding; others say his ego got in the way; some even say he wanted to prolong the conflict because it was more beneficial to him as a leader. It's hard to know what really happened, but apparently many of the other Palestinian negotiators were furious about how he went about it.
And yes, I think even Hamas realise this can't go on forever. The leaders must know it's not possible for them to retake greater Israel/Palestine and that the Israelis are not leaving. I think they actually want to make a deal but don't know how to appease (delusional) hard-liners or justify any peaceful shift in policy without looking weak. I think a lot of what these rocket attacks are about is a show of strength, so that when a (long term or short term) ceasefire/peace deal is eventually negotiated they can drive a harder bargain with Israel. Although, I may be wrong and they're all insane and delusional, but I think it's too easy to dismiss them as being so.
There is a plan to deal with Jerusalem that can work. In fact the way the borders of Palestinian territories will be determined, the way the reparations/compensation will be outlined, the way the refugee issue will be addressed etc, basically the reality of how all the broad issues will be resolved, is already pretty much understood and accepted by the governments and much of the population of both sides (again, sometimes behind closed doors). A lot of the reason it doesn't go ahead is that lingering anger, fear and distrust. Neither wants to give and inch because they fear being screwed over.
Media has blood on their hands.