|media distortion in Palestine||MJ|
Jan 16, 2003 8:54 AM
|you can see where it's from - don't click on it if you're gonna bitch about the source - try and stick to content
so exactly who is the terrorist/aggressor killing innocents?
Jan 16, 2003 10:00 AM
|Specifically targeting "innocents" is different from killing them by accident.|
|But who is innocent? (nm)||TJeanloz|
Jan 16, 2003 10:04 AM
|innocents?||Fr Ted Crilly|
Jan 16, 2003 10:53 AM
|Is it really any different when the side with all the firepower uses tanks and helicopter gunships to target militants, but obviously doesn't care about nearby civilians who are also killed? Is it really any different when Israeli soldiers fire into a crowd of stone throwing children? Are these killings really "accidental"?|
|re: media distortion in Palestine||TJeanloz|
Jan 16, 2003 10:04 AM
|It was unclear what the Guardian's point was, but I will presume that it was that "mainstream" media is inaccurately covering the situation in Palestine/Israel, and here is an example of how. I think the Guardian is blowing its own horn for "fairly" covering the issue, and taking a swipe at news outlets that are pro-Israel. The (US, I can't speak for the UK) media reporting on the latest Intifada has been much more balanced than it has been in the past. Prior to September 11, I would have said that many Americans vociferously supported the Palestinian cause. Post- 9/11, the numbers have dwindled, because Americans don't want to be seen as "supporting terror", but emotionally, I think a lot of educated Americans continue to side with the Palestinians. The media has not been entirely on either side of the issue, but it has been much more balanced than it was in the past. The only really egregious error that I've seen recently was when Price Abdullah of Saudi Arabia said that Zionists were the root of a lot of Middle Eastern trouble, and the narrator (Katie Couric's voice dubbed over the interview), said: "Zionist is his word for Jew". Which is not true, he clearly meant Zionists, not Jews. But I'm not even sure Ms. Couric knows the difference.|
Jan 16, 2003 10:13 AM
|coverage is what I think it was
it was a media report about a media report - goes to spin of news stories
|The Moral Burden||Jon Billheimer|
Jan 16, 2003 10:40 AM
|In a protracted conflict such as the Israeli/Palestinian one ultimately all innocence is lost. The reciprocating, "defensive" party becomes more and more like the initial aggressor. However, the weight of moral blame and guilt must rest with the Palestinians as they intentionally target non-combatants. The parties responsible have also consistently done everything they could to jettison any peace process, since they are totally invested in conflict with the avowed purpose of destroying the state of Israel.
This is not to belittle the terrible suffering of the Palestinian people. But I think their own leadership bears as much responsibility for this as does Israel.
|The Non-combatants argument||TJeanloz|
Jan 16, 2003 10:49 AM
|People like to say that Palestinians target "innocents" while Israel tries to avoid non-combatant deaths. This is obviously not true. Israel launchs rocket attacks on urban Palestinian areas - that doesn't seem to be "avoiding" non-combatant deaths, it seems to be begging for them. Let's not forget the incident that sparked the Intifada - the Israeli military shot and killed a six (?) year old boy who was caught in the crossfire. The Israeli argument seems to be that all Palestinians are combatants, and hence, they don't target non-combatants, because there aren't any non-combatants. Furthermore, an "innocent" Israeli child living in a settlement in the West Bank is not, in my mind, innocent. They are being put there to occupy the territory as colonists; I don't really see what makes them innocent, aside from the fact that the choice was not their own.|
|The Non-combatants argument||eyebob|
Jan 16, 2003 10:55 AM
|By and large you make a good point except for the fact that the children of "colonists" have no choice in where they live and as such this makes them innocent. To say less is wrong.
|It makes them innocent,||TJeanloz|
Jan 16, 2003 10:59 AM
|I'll grant you that the children are innocent. But they are being forced into what is effectively a combat role, which I think is incredibly wrong, but it isn't necessarily wrong for the Palestinians to target them as combatants - otherwise we could protect assets by forcing innocent children to be human shields (even if we weren't really "forcing" them physically).|
|It makes them innocent,||eyebob|
Jan 16, 2003 11:26 AM
|I see your point, but targeting an "innocent" is still targeting and "innocent." Are the parents who have (presumably) chosen to move there less "innocent?" Yes.
|U.S. & U.K. media||Fr Ted Crilly|
Jan 16, 2003 10:43 AM
|I don't disagree with the gist of the article - the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is certainly being misrepresented in the media, on both sides of the Atlantic. But to be fair to the BBC, while they may not be perfect, their reporting of what is going on in the occupied territories is far more impartial than the coverage that I see on the major U.S. news channels. I'm fortunate that while living in California I can see the BBC World News everyday, and the difference in the way that they report the conflict is glaringly different from that reported on CNN & MSNBC. I recall an incident in Gaza last July when Israeli planes bombed a building occupied by a Hamas leader and not only killed him, but also 14 civilians in the same or nearby buildings. That incident only seemed to warrant a 15 second passing comment with CNN and MSNBC. It was quite reassuring to hear Orla Guerin, (of the BBC) dedicate a three minute report to this incident and to explain clearly that 14 civilians had been killed to target one militant, and that Ariel Sharon had deemed the operation a "success".
I was fortunate that I was home in N. Ireland last September and saw John Pilger's documentary. It struck me then, (having spent 13 months in California) that this type of documentary would never have been shown in the U.S.
They may not be perfect, but be thankful that the British news media is still head and shoulders above it's American counterparts.
|Love those page three girls!||mohair_chair|
Jan 16, 2003 10:56 AM
|They may not be perfect, but be thankful that the British news media is still head and shoulders above it's American counterparts.
You've got to be kidding! They are all passengers on the same sinking ship.
|Orla rocks - nm||MJ|
Jan 17, 2003 1:15 AM
|It works both ways...||Matno|
Jan 18, 2003 11:22 AM
|I lived in the West Bank for 5 months, so I feel like I'm somewhat familiar with this situation, and I would have to say that the people who point out the difference in targets are right on. Yes, the Israelis often kill children when they attack military targets, but the Palestinians often intentionally place their "military" bases in highly populated areas as a means of protection. Obviously that doesn't always work. The Palestinians, on the other hand, SPECIFICALLY target non-combatants. There is a big difference between the Jewish law of "an eye for an eye" and the Arab promise of heavenly glory and numerous wives, as well as a promise to take care of the families of those who commit suicide in the act of bombing innocent people. They don't even bother to attack settlers specifically most of the time. Instead, they pick crowded areas in the heart of Jewish territory.
From an ideological point of view, I would have to say that the Palestinians, don't have much of a leg to stand on. Really, they have shot themselves in the foot over and over again. Sadly, much of what they feel and do is the result of forced ignorance and hate, imposed on them by their own leaders. (Remember, 20 years ago, Arafat was the same "most wanted terrorist in the world" that Bin Laden is today. How quickly we forget).
As for the media taking both sides, American media was quick to stifle news reports of Palestinians dancing in the streets and burning american flags when they heard of the 9/11 attacks. Several of the foreign channels that I watched at the time showed that a lot more than our own news channels. Personally, I think the depravity demostrated by that celebration of the loss of thousands of civilian lives is sickening. You will not find that same kind of celebration among the Israelis, because they do not find joy or pleasure in eliminating innocents for the purpose of... Well, I can't really think of any legitimate purpose for terrorist bombings.
To answer your original question, I say without equivocation that it is the Palestinians who are the terrorists killing innocents. Period. But I will qualify that by saying that I don't necessarily think that the Israelis are in the right. When there is as much hatred on both sides as there is in this conflict, it is hard for me to foresee a peaceful resolution any time soon. Someday, however, there WILL be peace in the Middle East. I'm sure of it.