ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => News and Politics => Topic started by: suenoga on January 01, 2009, 11:18:01 pm
-
Israel is not seeking an extended military campaign in the Gaza Strip, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said during an appearance on Thursday in rocket-besieged Be'er Sheva.
"It became clear that it is impossible to live under these circumstances," the premier, who also met with municipal and council heads of southern communities, said. "We could not come to terms with the situation in which hundreds of thousands of people go to sleep and wake up in fear, uncertainty, and discomfort. We will act so that there will be quiet in the communities of the south."
"We did not declare war against the residents of Gaza, but against Hamas we will act with an iron fist," Olmert said. "Hamas is making things difficult for us, but more so for its people."
The prime minister said he is hopeful the goals of the operation will be attained quickly. "We have no interest in waging a prolonged war," he said. "What we want is that our children will grow up in security and that they will not need to run away from the shrieking whistles of rockets."
"We also are not eager to wage a war on a wide front," Olmert said. "We want quiet and that the way of life in the south will change so that the children will not live in fear."
The premier also addressed concerns that the Gaza operation was beginning to resemble the Second Lebanon War. "In contrast to the war in Lebanon, there is no sense of collapse or a lack of capability, but rather there is a sense that the home front is being cared for quickly."
The premier also refuted claims of a rift between him and his two key cabinet ministers, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. "What was said and written in the newspapers is not what we know," Olmert said. "There is a government that is functioning with full cooperation. I won't allow election season politics into the rooms where decisions are made."
Olmert is interested in the establishment of an international supervision and enforcement mechanism for any cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. Olmert has made that a precondition of any deal and emphasized it in talks with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other world leades.
"Israel cannot agree that the only party responsible for implementing and regulating the cease-fire be Hamas," a senior Israeli diplomatic source said yesterday.
According to the source, lack of an external supervisory body was the central reason for the collapse of the calm earlier this month.
"The situation in which Hamas didn't have to account for implementing the cease-fire did not prove viable," the source said.
Olmert clarified in yesterday's cabinet meeting that Israel will not end the Gaza operation until it achieves its goals. The cabinet did not debate any cease-fire proposals and resolved to continue the operation already approved.
"We did not go into the Gaza operation only to end it while rocket fire continues," Olmert said.
According to Olmert, a decision now to opt for a cease-fire would carry a heavy price.
"Let's say we unilaterally stopped and a few days from now a barrage fell on Ashkelon," he said. "Do you understand the consequences in Israel and the region? For Israeli deterrence, for Israeli measures."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1051909.html
-
tell that to the 400 or so people killed, or the 100 or more civilians who lost their lives.
-
The death of civillians is tragic. But why would you mention the majority of people killed who are extremists/terrorists?
-
The death of civillians is tragic. But why would you mention the majority of people killed who are extremists/terrorists?
i didn't. if you misspelt the question and intended for wouldn't as opposed to would, i would state that hamas were in fact democratically elected by the palestinian people
-
sorry, stupid wording on my part. I meant why would you say "tell that to the 400 or so people killed, or the 100 or more civilians who lost their lives", when you could have only mentioned the civiliians.
-
sorry, stupid wording on my part. I meant why would you say "tell that to the 400 or so people killed, or the 100 or more civilians who lost their lives", when you could have only mentioned the civiliians.
that's still 300 or so lives that are lost, belonging to a party that was democratically elected and ousted from power
-
that's still 300 or so lives that are lost, belonging to a party that was democratically elected and ousted from power
[/quote]
Does it matter if they were democraticly elected? That hardly justifies their actions. Also, Hamas are still in power
-
Does it matter if they were democraticly elected? That hardly justifies their actions. Also, Hamas are still in power
what actions are you refering to? and still in power? do you know the size of gaza compared to west bank, how are they still in power?
-
What actions? Something like 60 suicide bomb attacks inside Israel which have killed hundreds of people. As well as countless amounts of rockets being sent out of Gaza into the south of Israel.
I do know the size of Gaza compared to the West Bank. I also know that Fatah not Hamas holds the West Bank, Hamas have never controlled it. So I don't see how they were "ousted from power" as you claim
-
Hitler was democratically elected, did it make what he did with his leadership any less illegal? No.
Hamas is a terrorist organisation that must be dismantled if there is to be peace in the Middle East.
-
killed hundreds of people? ok what they did was wrong, but israels done worse. compare the number of palestinians killed by israelis compared to vice versa, see who has killed more. hamas was democratically elected where they not? hamas did hold the prime ministerial postion until they were deposed did they not?
-
Hitler was democratically elected, did it make what he did with his leadership any less illegal? No.
was just thinking that!
MOD EDIT: Message taken out of quote
-
Hamas is a terrorist organisation that must be dismantled if there is to be peace in the Middle East.
fatah were terrorists before, where they not?
-
why is Israel worse? Israel does not target civillians, Hamas does. Hamas was democraticly elected but did not hold and has never held (to my knowledge) the prime ministerial position. I think you are confused.
-
killed hundreds of people? ok what they did was wrong, but israels done worse. compare the number of palestinians killed by israelis compared to vice versa, see who has killed more. hamas was democratically elected where they not? hamas did hold the prime ministerial postion until they were deposed did they not?
What is this "Israel has done worse" argument simply on the scale of numbers killed?
I think a better statistic with which to compare the two is "Number of civilians intentionally killed". Hamas deliberately sets up its quarters in civilian areas (like universities) to maximise collateral damage from any Israeli strike on it. It is a deliberate ploy to use its citizens to win sympathy. It is one of the most disgusting acts of treachery ever seen in the field of war.
-
Yes Fatah were terrorists, but are now much more moderate. What's your point? Because Fatah were extremists that excuses the actions of Hamas?
-
Israel does not target civillians, Hamas does.
tell that to the hundred or so civilains killed recently, and the many more before
Hamas was democraticly elected but did not hold and has never held (to my knowledge) the prime ministerial position. I think you are confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ismail_Haniyah
-
What is this "Israel has done worse" argument simply on the scale of numbers killed?
I think a better statistic with which to compare the two is "Number of civilians intentionally killed". Hamas deliberately sets up its quarters in civilian areas (like universities) to maximise collateral damage from any Israeli strike on it. It is a deliberate ploy to use its citizens to win sympathy. It is one of the most disgusting acts of treachery ever seen in the field of war.
compare the size of the gaza and the population, it is extremely densely populated.
-
Hamas is a terrorist organisation that must be dismantled if there is to be peace in the Middle East.
fatah were terrorists before, where they not?
Well that's the point, no? They WERE a terrorist organisation, but then they gained some sense, recognised Israel and renounced all terrorist actions. Now no government in the world deems Fatah to be a terrorist organisation, and thus none of their establishments are currently being blown to smithereens by Israel.
Hamas is a terrorist organisation, thus Israel will do everything in its power to ensure its citizens' safety from it.
-
What is this "Israel has done worse" argument simply on the scale of numbers killed?
I think a better statistic with which to compare the two is "Number of civilians intentionally killed". Hamas deliberately sets up its quarters in civilian areas (like universities) to maximise collateral damage from any Israeli strike on it. It is a deliberate ploy to use its citizens to win sympathy. It is one of the most disgusting acts of treachery ever seen in the field of war.
compare the size of the west bank and the population, it is extremely densely populated.
There are still many open areas in which the bases could be set up, yet they are not. You tell me how it is justified that an organisation uses a university as its base of operations to develop rockets to lob at a country?
It isn't. This blind devotion you have to a terrorist organisation is quite worrying...
-
I meant Hamas does not hold the presidental position , which is the person who holds the power in the territories.
-
Yes Fatah were terrorists, but are now much more moderate. What's your point? Because Fatah were extremists that excuses the actions of Hamas?
beause fatah were 'terrorists' and somewhat more moderate, they are exemp from the israeli blame game and hamas are not? is that your opinion? and because hamas kill people, that excuses the israeli army from killing much more people?
-
Although I consider myself a lefty, I feel sick when people justify the actions of Hamas. They are a major face of Islamo-facism. The left are blinded by this fact because of their insistence on putting down Israel and the United States.
-
I meant Hamas does not hold the presidental position , which is the person who holds the power in the territories.
your posts clearly didn't. and yes, president does hold power but the prime minister is also the power holder, as is the cabinet and the democratically elected parliament.
-
Yes Fatah were terrorists, but are now much more moderate. What's your point? Because Fatah were extremists that excuses the actions of Hamas?
beause fatah were 'terrorists' and somewhat more moderate, they are exemp from the israeli blame game and hamas are not? is that your opinion? and because hamas kill people, that excuses the israeli army from killing much more people?
I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here. Could you please clarify?
-
Although I consider myself a lefty, I feel sick when people justify the actions of Hamas. They are a major face of Islamo-facism.
i don't seek to justify the actons of hamas, they kill civillians. i don't support their political views either, but they were democratically elected by their people and are no worse than the israeli army when it comes to targeting civilians. that is my point.
-
Hamas- Holds Parliament, Prime-ministerial position as well as Gaza.
Fatah- Holds the Presidency and the West Bank
Hamas were not thrown out of the West Bank. The only reason they hold Gaza is because they took it an armed conflict.
-
i don't seek to justify the actons of hamas, they kill civillians. i don't support their political views either, but they were democratically elected by their people and are no worse than the israeli army when it comes to targeting civilians. that is my point.
[/quote]
Hamas targets civilians deliberately and places it's own targets beneath kindergartens and hospitals.
Israel targets terrorists and undeniably kills civillians accidently in the process.
I think you can see a difference.
-
Although I consider myself a lefty, I feel sick when people justify the actions of Hamas. They are a major face of Islamo-facism.
i don't seek to justify the actons of hamas, they kill civillians. i don't support their political views either, but they were democratically elected by their people and are no worse than the israeli army when it comes to targeting civilians. that is my point.
Then I would contend that that viewpoint is most naive, when clearly every Israeli target in this war has been a Hamas installation of some kind. Civilians are extremely regrettable collateral damage, but Hamas leaves Israel no choice. "Kill or be killed", as the saying goes. And it so tragically applies here.
-
I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here. Could you please clarify?
point one
fatah were terrorists just like hamas, yet israel dosen't treat them the same way. the al-axha brigade have killed more israelis than hamas, yet they're not the main tagret.
point two
israeli army kill more civilians than hamas. don't try to pass them off as heroes whilst hamas are the 'bad guys'
-
Hamas- Holds Parliament, Prime-ministerial position as well as Gaza.
Fatah- Holds the Presidency and the West Bank
Hamas were not thrown out of the West Bank. The only reason they hold Gaza is because they took it an armed conflict.
there was no hamas or fatah holding west bank or gaza, fatah took power, ended parliament ( made their own later on), and hamas were TARGETED AND THROWN OUT of the west bank
-
Hamas targets civilians deliberately and places it's own targets beneath kindergartens and hospitals.
Israel targets terrorists and undeniably kills civillians accidently in the process.
I think you can see a difference.
i see that gaza has nearly 1.5 million people in a very small area of land. any target and i mean any will kill civilians
-
[
quote author=osmoister link=topic=9385.msg120172#msg120172 date=1230815976]
I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here. Could you please clarify?
point one
fatah were terrorists just like hamas, yet israel dosen't treat them the same way. the al-axha brigade have killed more israelis than hamas, yet they're not the main tagret.
point two
israeli army kill more civilians than hamas. don't try to pass them off as heroes whilst hamas are the 'bad guys'
[/quote]
Point one: Hamas are the major Palestinian terrorist organization. The brigade no longer has the same influence as they used to. I don't know where you got your who has killed more figures from. Fatah WERE terrorists as you said, and still have some extremists among them. However, Hamas are clearly more extreme and more of a threat to the Jewish State.
2- Hamas deliberately kills civilians. That's my definition of a "bad guy". The issue is not so black and white as to say Israel kills more civilians then Hamas therefore they are worse.
-
Hamas- Holds Parliament, Prime-ministerial position as well as Gaza.
Fatah- Holds the Presidency and the West Bank
Hamas were not thrown out of the West Bank. The only reason they hold Gaza is because they took it an armed conflict.
there was no hamas or fatah holding west bank or gaza, fatah took power, ended parliament ( made their own later on), and were TARGETED AND THROWN OUT of the west bank
what?! thrown about by who. Are you talking about recent times?
-
Then I would contend that that viewpoint is most naive, when clearly every Israeli target in this war has been a Hamas installation of some kind. Civilians are extremely regrettable collateral damage, but Hamas leaves Israel no choice. "Kill or be killed", as the saying goes. And it so tragically applies here.
clearly you didn't see the images of the university or the mosque being destroyed by the israeli fighters. very naive from you're viewpoint i might add. i think the saying in this situation would be better phrased as '' kill heaps more of them or be killed", told from an israeli view.
-
I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here. Could you please clarify?
point one
fatah were terrorists just like hamas, yet israel dosen't treat them the same way. the al-axha brigade have killed more israelis than hamas, yet they're not the main tagret.
point two
israeli army kill more civilians than hamas. don't try to pass them off as heroes whilst hamas are the 'bad guys'
You have a clear flaw in your logic that I have pin-pointed. You seem to think that this is a revenge game. That Israel are "paying Hamas back" for their killing.
This is not a payback thing. This is a preventative measure. They are attempting to stifle the rocketfire into Israel from Hamas.
Hamas are the threat of the HERE and NOW. They are what's going to be killing Israelis if they are not stopped. Israeli is putitng a stop to Hamas for the threat that they CURRENTLY pose.
Fatah and Al-axha were terrorists of years past. If they can be brought to justice via the legal system, then they will. Until then, they pose no current threat and are not of major concern.
It's as simple as that.
Re: point two
Whilst Israel may have killed more civilians than Hamas, the only reason that Hamas has not killed more civilians is that they simply do not have the means. Meshaal wants to wipe Israel off the map and kill all its citizens. Israel wants to rid Palestine of its Hamas scourge and give the Palestinian people a workable two-state solution. You tell me who the real villain is.
-
Then I would contend that that viewpoint is most naive, when clearly every Israeli target in this war has been a Hamas installation of some kind. Civilians are extremely regrettable collateral damage, but Hamas leaves Israel no choice. "Kill or be killed", as the saying goes. And it so tragically applies here.
clearly you didn't see the images of the university or the mosque being destroyed by the israeli fighters. very naive from you're viewpoint i might add. i think the saying in this situation would be better phrased as '' kill heaps more of them or be killed", told from an israeli view.
What would you suggest Israel do? Doing nothing would leave people in the south of the country living in a state of constant fear.
-
Point one: Hamas are the major Palestinian terrorist organization. The brigade no longer has the same influence as they used to. I don't know where you got your who has killed more figures from. Fatah WERE terrorists as you said, and still have some extremists among them. However, Hamas are clearly more extreme and more of a threat to the Jewish State.
2- Hamas deliberately kills civilians. That's my definition of a "bad guy". The issue is not so black and white as to say Israel kills more civilians then Hamas therefore they are worse.
2. the israeli army deliberately kills civilians. much more than hamas does. if you think hamas are the bad boys, than the israeli army are the biggest bunch of bad boys.
1. they are terrorists as you say, but if you ask the civilians of palestine, israel are the ultimate terrorists. unseeable, unfightable and with far superior firepower
-
[
2. the israeli army deliberately kills civilians. much more than hamas does. if you think hamas are the bad boys, than the isralei army are the biggest bunch of bad boys.
That is a Lie. Where did you get that information from?
-
What would you suggest Israel do? Doing nothing would leave people in the south of the country living in a state of constant fear.
of course, they don't care about the palestinian people. all they care about is the people in southern israel. who cares if 100 or so recently, and many more civilians before are killed right?
-
[
2. the israeli army deliberately kills civilians. much more than hamas does. if you think hamas are the bad boys, than the isralei army are the biggest bunch of bad boys.
That is a Lie. Where did you get that information from?
the 100 or so bodies lying dead in gaza
-
Whilst Israel may have killed more civilians than Hamas, the only reason that Hamas has not killed more civilians is that they simply do not have the means. Hassan Nasrallah wants to wipe Israel off the map and kill all its citizens. Israel wants to rid Palestine of its Hamas scourge and give the Palestinian people a workable two-state solution. You tell me who the real villain is.
the real villain is the nation who attempts to kill, wipe off or 'rid' the party that was democratically elected by the palestinian people.
-
the 100 or so bodies lying dead in gaza
[/quote]
Who were tragically but accidentally killed. Wake up to yourself! Israel targets terrorists. Hamas target civilians. I'm not saying Israel is perfect but they have the right to protect their citizens.
-
Whilst Israel may have killed more civilians than Hamas, the only reason that Hamas has not killed more civilians is that they simply do not have the means. Hassan Nasrallah wants to wipe Israel off the map and kill all its citizens. Israel wants to rid Palestine of its Hamas scourge and give the Palestinian people a workable two-state solution. You tell me who the real villain is.
the real villain is the nation who attempts to kill, wipe off or 'rid' the party that was democratically elected by the palestinian people.
hamas are a threat to israel as you suggest, but israel is a far worse target threat.
Who are Israel a "threat" to?. Do you think Israel would be in gaza if Hamas had not continued firing rockets across the border?
-
Whilst Israel may have killed more civilians than Hamas, the only reason that Hamas has not killed more civilians is that they simply do not have the means. Hassan Nasrallah wants to wipe Israel off the map and kill all its citizens. Israel wants to rid Palestine of its Hamas scourge and give the Palestinian people a workable two-state solution. You tell me who the real villain is.
the real villain is the nation who attempts to kill, wipe off or 'rid' the party that was democratically elected by the palestinian people.
hamas are a threat to israel as you suggest, but israel is a far worse target threat.
You still didn't address my point from before.
Hitler was democratically elected, do you think Britain going to war with Germany and killing civilians in their airstrikes was unjustified, given Hitler's military actions?
It's the SAME situation in Gaza.
Hamas was elected to power, and has used that power to wage war on Israel. Israel has every right to wipe out such a vile terrorist organisation.
-
Who were tragically but accidentally killed. Wake up to yourself! Israel targets terrorists. Hamas target civilians. I'm not saying Israel is perfect but they have the right to protect their citizens.
tragic or accident they may be in you view, but their still 100 bodies that have lost life. and hamas has the right to protect its people from a major threat, the israeli army.
-
You still didn't address my point from before.
Hitler was democratically elected, do you think Britain going to war with Germany and killing civilians in their airstrikes was unjustified, given Hitler's military actions?
It's the SAME situation in Gaza.
Hamas was elected to power, and has used that power to wage war on Israel. Israel has every right to wipe out such a vile terrorist organisation.
yes, hitler was democratically elected. as were many israeli presidnets who have killed palestinian civillians. the israeli political parties have waged many wars against palestinians. vile they may be to you, but to many in the region, they are the only people standing up to the people who MASSACRE palestinians.
-
tragic or accident they may be in you view, but their still 100 bodies that have lost life. and hamas has the right to protect its people from a major threat, the israeli army.
[/quote]
That's BS. If Hamas were "protecting" citizens from the army, you would think they would attack the army and not civillians! Are you comparing the Israeli army to Hamas?
-
Who are Israel a "threat" to?. Do you think Israel would be in gaza if Hamas had not continued firing rockets across the border?
A threat to the palestinians. and yes, israel would be in gaza. afterall, why not take more of their land than they allready have right?
-
yes, hitler was democratically elected. as were many israeli presidnets who have killed palestinian civillians. the israeli political parties have waged many wars against palestinians. vile they may be to you, but to many in the region, they are the only people standing up to the people who MASSACRE palestinians.
[/quote]
I think you mean PM's rather then Presidents. Which war has Israeli waged against Palestinains? Most have been waged against Israel by the Arab States. Israel has only attacked Palestinain terrorists due to provocation. I'm starting to think you know very little about the situastion.
-
That's BS. If Hamas were "protecting" citizens from the army, you would think they would attack the army and not civillians! Are you comparing the Israeli army to Hamas?
i'm saying the israeli army are every bit, if not worse than hamas. they target civilians the same way hamas do and they kill much worse. the only difference is, israel kills civilians and hamas because they can, whereas hamas don't have the capabilities to target the israeli army.
-
Osmoister, you refuse to argue on topic and are extremely one-sided and irrational. I will not argue further with you, when you clearly refuse to see reason.
I also advise you that you are walking a fine line when you slur Israel as "massacring" palestinians.
If you attempt to use bigotry in your arguments, you WILL face punitive action as per the Code of Conduct.
Good day, sir.
-
I think you mean PM's rather then Presidents. Which war has Israeli waged against Palestinains? Most have been waged against Israel by the Arab States. Israel has only attacked Palestinain terrorists due to provocation. I'm starting to think you know very little about the situastion.
pm or president, the end justifies the means. war? israel has occupied palestinian land for many decades, and has invaded many times. that's not war? im starting to think you know absolutely nothing about the situation, given you didn't even know hamas had a palestinian prime minister
-
I made a mistake. Like your mistake in thinking that the presidents in Israel were the head of government. Tell me. Why is Israel "occupying" Palestinian land?
-
Osmoister, you refuse to argue on topic and are extremely one-sided and irrational. I will not argue further with you, when you clearly refuse to see reason.
I also advise you that you are walking a fine line when you slur Israel as "massacring" palestinians.
If you attempt to use bigotry in your arguments, you WILL face punitive action as per the Code of Conduct.
Good day, sir.
ok, you want me to stop. i understand. and i don't support hamas, just don't appreciate what the israeli army is doing. it's funny how i'm one sided, when you guys don't understand the number of palestinans killed by israel and it's significance, but whatever. i don't think i've changed the topic from the israel-palestine conflict from the beggining, but you're the boss. i have seen on numerous occasions the term massacre used in context where far more people have been killed than the palestinians, but i accept what you've said. its 1am and i also need sleep.
-
I made a mistake. Like your mistake in thinking that the presidents in Israel were the head of government. Tell me. Why is Israel "occupying" Palestinian land?
I think you mean PM's rather then Presidents. Which war has Israeli waged against Palestinains? Most have been waged against Israel by the Arab States. Israel has only attacked Palestinain terrorists due to provocation. I'm starting to think you know very little about the situastion.
israel HAS occupied palestinian land for many decades, and has invaded many times.
-
maybe read a history book before bed?
maybe you need to read one on palestinian history between 1947 - early 1990s.
-
Though I agree with the comparison with Nazi Germany, I must declare that Godwin's Law has been invoked upon this thread.
Merely being elected to power does not change the nature of your organisation one bit...it takes a little more than that.
-
someone mentioned that "intention" is important, i don't think it is. if you walk to the shops to buy bread, you inevitably will wear down your shoes a little bit. Though people do not ordinarily "intend" to wear down their shoes, it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence. A civilian death is a civilian death.
-
you are walking a fine line when you slur Israel as "massacring" palestinians.
Wherever he is walking, I do not think he has crossed any line:
yes, hitler was democratically elected. as were many israeli presidnets who have killed palestinian civillians. the israeli political parties have waged many wars against palestinians. vile they may be to you, but to many in the region, they are the only people standing up to the people who MASSACRE palestinians.
-
"someone mentioned that "intention" is important, i don't think it is. if you walk to the shops to buy bread, you inevitably will wear down your shoes a little bit. Though people do not ordinarily "intend" to wear down their shoes, it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence. A civilian death is a civilian death."
A civilian death is always tragic. However, one can not look at the numbers of casualties (the Israeli army has killed more Palestinians then Hamas has killed Israeli's) and say "oh that makes Israel worse then Hamas". That's simply ignoring the facts of the situation. .
-
Subjective intentions is a completely flawed metric to judge the morality of action, what matters is the consequence of the actions. And if you take a civilian death to be a negative consequence, and assuming that statistic you refer to is correct, it does not show the Israeli Govt in a very good light.
-
It's true. And it's a tragedy that so many innocent Palestinians have lost their lives. The only way to stop the conflict is the creation of a two-state solution. Unfortunately, with Hamas (a terrorist organization) in power, this aim is impossible. Israel does not have a perfect human rights record, but their army adheres to a strong set of ethics. Deliberate targeting of civilians usually results in inquires and investigations. The army protects Israelis whilst Hamas perpetuates war.
-
Got invited to this by my Liberal friends on fb:
Pro-Israel rally:
http://www.facebook.com/inbox/?ref=mb#/event.php?eid=42331662478
-
That rally will turn into a demonstration about why Israel is always right and all Arabs are evil
-
"Subjective intentions is a completely flawed metric to judge the morality of action, what matters is the consequence of the actions. And if you take a civilian death to be a negative consequence, and assuming that statistic you refer to is correct, it does not show the Israeli Govt in a very good light."
I agree, however, as enwiabe intimated, the context of an action [as well as its consequences] is important in judging its morality.
-
Got invited to this by my Liberal friends on fb:
Pro-Israel rally:
http://www.facebook.com/inbox/?ref=mb#/event.php?eid=42331662478
I've heard of a Pro-Palestine rally being held this Sunday too. State Library at 2pm.
-
Israel's Policy Is Perfectly 'Proportionate'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123085925621747981.html
-
hamas appeals for ceasefire in gaza
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24864396-2703,00.html
israels supreme court rules gaza open for press
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24864396-2703,00.html
claims that an aide boat was "rammed and shot by an israeli boat"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/7804554.stm
-
I think that article about the free press in Gaza is an excellent testimony to the democracy of Israel. It works so well that the supreme court can overrule the army and its commander-in-chief (Prime Minister Ehud Olmert), even during a time of war.
-
I think that article about the free press in Gaza is an excellent testimony to the democracy of Israel. It works so well that the supreme court can overrule the army and its commander-in-chief (Prime Minister Ehud Olmert), even during a time of war.
That's true. Israel is the only true democracy in the middle east.
The article about Hamas wanting a truce makes me laugh. They refused to agree to a truce before the incursion began and continued firing rockets at civillians. Now they want a truce, but are not willing to stop firing rockets until Israel pulls out.
-
I think that article about the free press in Gaza is an excellent testimony to the democracy of Israel. It works so well that the supreme court can overrule the army and its commander-in-chief (Prime Minister Ehud Olmert), even during a time of war.
certainly. lets just hope that this doesn't reoccur in the process
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5543s_israeli-tank-kills-reuters-camerama_news
-
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5543s_israeli-tank-kills-reuters-camerama_news
[/quote]
I hope al-jazeera isn't your only source of news for the Israeli-Arab conflict.
-
Got invited to this by my Liberal friends on fb:
Pro-Israel rally:
http://www.facebook.com/inbox/?ref=mb#/event.php?eid=42331662478
Speakers who will address the rally:
Dr Colin Rubenstein, Executive Director, Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council
Senator Mitch Fifield, Liberal Senator for Victoria
Michael Danby MP, Federal Labor Member for Melbourne Ports
Dr Danny Lamm, President, Zionist Council of Victoria
-
Micheal Danby and Danny Lamm are both ridiculous. They are blindly pro-Israel. Throw that in with a Liberal Senator and you got one hell of an Arab-sluring party
-
I hope al-jazeera isn't your only source of news for the Israeli-Arab conflict.
i don't understand arabic dude, so thanks but no thanks
-
I've heard of a Pro-Palestine rally being held this Sunday too. State Library at 2pm.
i've heard from friends, wont go though. i don't like these types of gatherings.
-
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=K1kt8qi0M-M
"Israel Attacks Gaza, Silence from Mainstream Media about Israeli Violations of International Law"
-
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=K1kt8qi0M-M
"Israel Attacks Gaza, Silence from Mainstream Media about Israeli Violations of International Law"
very informative
-
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=K1kt8qi0M-M
"Israel Attacks Gaza, Silence from Mainstream Media about Israeli Violations of International Law"
Now that's just utter crap. Does nobody remember when Israel was dragged through the mud by the media over the legality of its security wall?
Israel is CONSTANTLY accused by the mainstream media of human rights and international law violations. That guy's a conspriacy theorist nutjob if he thinks the view that Israel is violating int. law is being suppressed.
-
If there were gross violations of international law on Israel's part, I'm sure *someone* other than the Arabs (in other words, a third party to this conflict) would have denounced it already within diplomatic circles.
All I've heard has been 'justified, but perhaps excessive, force'.
-
It's hard for Left-wing Zionists like myself to respond to this conflict. On one hand I see Israel's right to defend itself against a terrorist organization. However, it's impossible to not feel for the innocent civilians that are dying. What's pissing me off the most about this, are the people on both sides over-simplifying the situation and simply taking a side. This includes most of the American and Australian Zionist-Lobby who will simply support Israel whatever the case. As well as Leftist organizations such as the Socialist Alternative who have no hesitation in calling Israel's action a war crime without actually understanding the reason behind the conflict. It's also difficult to know what to beleive considering the varying news reports and both sides accussing the media of bias.
-
Israeli Troops Cross Gaza Border
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123099142102451303.html
Isreaeli tanks roll into Gaza
http://www.theage.com.au/world/isreaeli-tanks-roll-into-gaza-20090104-79kk.html
-
I remind AQ that unfoundedly accusing a country of ethnic cleansing (I.E. wishing to wipe out gaza) and making racial slurs are violations of the code of conduct.
-
Child first victim of Gaza tank battles: medics
http://www.theage.com.au/world/child-first-victim-of-gaza-tank-battles-medics-20090104-79kv.html
Is the Real Target Hamas Rule?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/world/middleeast/04assess.html?hp
The actions of extreme Islamists are the cause of the present bloodshed, writes Con Coughlin.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/hamas-an-obstacle-to-genuine-peace-20090103-79gl.html?page=-1
If Hamas is bombed out of existence, a more radical group will replace it, writes Aniel Barenboim.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/military-action-will-not-end-conflict-20090103-79gm.html?page=-1
Israeli Troops Launch Attack on Gaza
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/world/middleeast/04mideast.html?_r=1&hp
Timeline: Israel and Hamas
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/04/world/20090104_ISRAEL-HAMAS_TIMELINE.html?hp
WSJ Photos
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123099142102451303.html#project%3DSLIDESHOW08%26s%3DSB123101466189751459%26articleTabs%3Dslideshow
-
Gaza attack a 'monstrosity': UN chief
http://www.theage.com.au/world/gaza-attack-a-monstrosity-un-chief-20090104-79u2.html?page=-1
-
Israel High Court overturns ban on foreign journalists entering Gaza
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/index.php?sid=448166
-
A libertarian view on the current Israeli-Palestine conflict:
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2009/01/05/israel-hamas-gaza-oped-cx_re_0106epstein.html?feed=rss_author
-
in images: http://media.theaustralian.com.au/multimedia/2008/12/31-gaza/index.html
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rghN17sb2Mo
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=aYNLXYLM44c
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=S25QsNc_m9M
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=cWe86urZo2s
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=WI_EqqkRQzg
and this guy is pretty extreme
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=249JaIaubVw
*** A MUST SEE documentary if your interested in the israel-palestine conflict . this is a VERY GOOD and informative documentary, i recommend watching all 11 parts of the documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE3Zp4hE5fs
but i tend to be leaning towards palestinians and condeming israel for their occupation of the palestinian land
-
Israeli strikes kill 48 in school refuges
http://www.theage.com.au/world/israeli-strikes-kill-48-in-school-refuges-20090107-7bcd.html
-
A true admin or a admin with ballz wont delete post's becuase there scared of a growing problem or issue that may occur.
Let the post be, and let people read them and think for them self.
Dont lead these issues going a one way road, dont delete or remove replies becuase you dont want people to see them.
Hear me Admins???
-
A true admin or a admin with ballz wont delete post's becuase there scared of a growing problem or issue that may occur.
Let the post be, and let people read them and think for them self.
Dont lead these issues going a one way road, dont delete or remove replies becuase you dont want people to see them.
Hear me Admins???
what are you talking about? People are posting links with individuals on both sides of the conflict.
-
A true admin or a admin with ballz wont delete post's becuase there scared of a growing problem or issue that may occur.
Let the post be, and let people read them and think for them self.
Dont lead these issues going a one way road, dont delete or remove replies becuase you dont want people to see them.
Hear me Admins???
what are you talking about? People are posting links with individuals on both sides of the conflict.
I think Enwiabe might have deleted some posts of his as this post suggest:
I remind AQ that unfoundedly accusing a country of ethnic cleansing (I.E. wishing to wipe out gaza) and making racial slurs are violations of the code of conduct.
-
No militants in bombed school, UN director says
http://www.theage.com.au/world/no-militants-in-bombed-school-un-director-says-20090107-7bzo.html?page=-1
-
I hope al-jazeera isn't your only source of news for the Israeli-Arab conflict.
i don't understand arabic dude, so thanks but no thanks
I just learned my grandparents have Al-Jazeera and they don't speak Arabic [and are Jewish]
-
I hope al-jazeera isn't your only source of news for the Israeli-Arab conflict.
i don't understand arabic dude, so thanks but no thanks
I just learned my grandparents have Al-Jazeera and they don't speak Arabic [and are Jewish]
yeh they brodcast in English I think as well.
-
Israel Is Committing War Crimes
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123154826952369919.html
-
latest figures:
854 palestinians dead (of which 270 are children, 68 women and 90 elderly people)
around 4000 wounded
also, from the same article "The New York-based rights group Human Rights Watch has accused Israel of using white phosphorous in its attacks on Gaza. Israel has denied the claim."
source: http://en.rian.ru/world/20090111/119414133.html
-
latest http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ < that's a body count. Clear that mess up before you go on about the conflict of land or whatever it is between israel and palestine.
A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html
too many wars, not enough resolutions.
EDIT: although i don't really favor any country in the israel-palestine war due to the fact that i know little about why and how the conflict arose. But the number of losses is saddening.
-
(http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o50/sexychaldean_92/800px-Israel_and_Palestine_Peacesvg.png)
-
yer it isn't actually relevant to this post but ahh well.
-
that's weird, my post vanished.
-
EDIT: although i don't really favor any country in the israel-palestine war due to the fact that i know little about why and how the conflict arose. But the number of losses is saddening.
[/quote]
watch this 11 part documentary, it will explain why and how
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE3Zp4hE5fs
-
Is the documentary truly impartial?
I really cant be fucked watching a documentary that has a hidden agenda.
-
watch this 11 part documentary, it will explain why and how
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE3Zp4hE5fs
That's not a documentary and I would thank you to not attempt to swindle the people of this forum. That video is posted by an anti-government, anarchic conspiracy theorist who expresses a clearly biased view through that video. To claim that this video is a documentary is a downright lie. You are subversively attempting to convince viewers of a viewpoint by your guarantee that it is fact.
This was an underhanded, sneaky assault on truth. You should be ashamed.
-
Is the documentary truly impartial?
I really cant be fucked watching a documentary that has a hidden agenda.
mm yer i'm with you on this one, not really much interested in watching a documentary that is bias. I want to make my own judgment based on fact and evidence rather than what some group wants me to hear.
-
"Hamas Official We Will Use Women and Children Human Shield"
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ArJbn-lUCh4
-
watch this 11 part documentary, it will explain why and how
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE3Zp4hE5fs
That's not a documentary and I would thank you to not attempt to swindle the people of this forum. That video is posted by an anti-government, anarchic conspiracy theorist who expresses a clearly biased view through that video. To claim that this video is a documentary is a downright lie. You are subversively attempting to convince viewers of a viewpoint by your guarantee that it is fact.
This was an underhanded, sneaky assault on truth. You should be ashamed.
thankyou
i wont bother watching it then
-
watch this 11 part documentary, it will explain why and how
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE3Zp4hE5fs
That's not a documentary and I would thank you to not attempt to swindle the people of this forum. That video is posted by an anti-government, anarchic conspiracy theorist who expresses a clearly biased view through that video. To claim that this video is a documentary is a downright lie. You are subversively attempting to convince viewers of a viewpoint by your guarantee that it is fact.
This was an underhanded, sneaky assault on truth. You should be ashamed.
well first of all to me it looks like a documentary, its pretty long so wateva doco, video, 'bias' story wateva. its not my fault if ppl believe that video, ppl can look at that video and others and can make their mind up. and im not ashamed just because ppl have a different view, doesn't mean other ppls views are wrong and sneaky and assauly on truth. oh and that video has actual real footage of real ppl so yeah... wateva u say enwiabe
-
watch this 11 part documentary, it will explain why and how
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE3Zp4hE5fs
That's not a documentary and I would thank you to not attempt to swindle the people of this forum. That video is posted by an anti-government, anarchic conspiracy theorist who expresses a clearly biased view through that video. To claim that this video is a documentary is a downright lie. You are subversively attempting to convince viewers of a viewpoint by your guarantee that it is fact.
This was an underhanded, sneaky assault on truth. You should be ashamed.
well first of all to me it looks like a documentary, its pretty long so wateva doco, video, 'bias' story wateva. its not my fault if ppl believe that video, ppl can look at that video and others and can make their mind up. and im not ashamed just because ppl have a different view, doesn't mean other ppls views are wrong and sneaky and assauly on truth. oh and that video has actual real footage of real ppl so yeah... wateva u say enwiabe
No one is putting you down for having a different view, but for the fact that you said this documentary will explain the conflict as if it was historical fact rather then one group’s opinion.
Also, just because it has real people doesn’t make it any less biased or partial.
-
"Politics in sport? Been there, done it, got fined for the T-shirt"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/gabriele_marcotti/article5496890.ece
-
Fury as Israel hits UN
http://www.theage.com.au/world/fury-as-israel-hits-un-20090116-7iga.html?page=-1
-
Gaza reduced to rubble by conflict
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24927869-12377,00.html
Israel begins ceasefire in Gaza
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24928123-601,00.html
-
Hamas was elected to power, and has used that power to wage war on Israel. Israel has every right to wipe out such a vile terrorist organisation.
I think that, if you replaced Hamas with the Israeli Govt and Israel with Palestine in the above statement, you will find a lot of people who will hold that view:
The Israeli Government was elected to power, and has used that power to wage war on Palestine. Palestine has every right to wipe out such a vile terrorist organisation.
-
Cant wait til enwiabe gets here haha
-
Hamas was elected to power, and has used that power to wage war on Israel. Israel has every right to wipe out such a vile terrorist organisation.
I think that, if you replaced Hamas with the Israeli Govt and Israel with Palestine in the above statement, you will find a lot of people who will hold that view:
The Israeli Government was elected to power, and has used that power to wage war on Palestine. Palestine has every right to wipe out such a vile terrorist organisation.
agreed as well
-
I think that, if you replaced Hamas with the Israeli Govt and Israel with Palestine in the above statement, you will find a lot of people who will hold that view:
The Israeli Government was elected to power, and has used that power to wage war on Palestine. Palestine has every right to wipe out such a vile terrorist organisation.
[/quote]
Fact: Hamas fires rockets at civilians in an attempt to kill innocent people.
Fact: Israel (rightly or wrongly) attacked Gaza and more specifically Hamas in an attempt to stop rocket attacks on her citizens. Every country has the right and duty to protect its citizens. The strategy and tactics of the Israeli government will always be questionable but it's simply ignorance to compare Israel to hamas.
Futhermore, Hamas does not represent the Palestinians as a whole, and therefore it is wrong to say that the current conflict is between Palestine and Israel
-
Fact: Hamas fires rockets at civilians in an attempt to kill innocent people.
Fact: Israel (rightly or wrongly) attacked Gaza and more specifically Hamas in an attempt to stop rocket attacks on her citizens. Every country has the right and duty to protect its citizens. The strategy and tactics of the Israeli government will always be questionable but it's simply ignorance to compare Israel to hamas.
Futhermore, Hamas does not represent the Palestinians as a whole, and therefore it is wrong to say that the current conflict is between Palestine and Israel
How do I know that these are facts? ???
-
May instead of Palestine, Gaza would be the better replacement.
-
Fact: Hamas fires rockets at civilians in an attempt to kill innocent people.
Fact: Israel (rightly or wrongly) attacked Gaza and more specifically Hamas in an attempt to stop rocket attacks on her citizens. Every country has the right and duty to protect its citizens. The strategy and tactics of the Israeli government will always be questionable but it's simply ignorance to compare Israel to hamas.
Futhermore, Hamas does not represent the Palestinians as a whole, and therefore it is wrong to say that the current conflict is between Palestine and Israel
How do I know that these are facts? ???
you don't fire rockets at people in order to attack the army or defend your populations. Rockets a innocent people serve one purpose. To scare, maime and kill. Common sense says that
-
fact: israel fired those ahh what ya call it scatter rockets? with white phosphorus and burnt and killed thousands of palestinian innocent children and women and men
-
May instead of Palestine, Gaza would be the better replacement.
I don't think Hamas represents Gazans either. They took the city in a coup after all.
-
fact: israel fired those ahh what ya call it scatter rockets? with white phosphorus and burnt and killed thousands of palestinian innocent children and women and men
Everyone of those deaths is shocking. I truly believe that these deaths were not ordered. They came about as tragic consequence of Israel's hits on military targets.
It is worth noting that Hamas use their population as human shields, hiding weapons in hospitals and schools.
-
Like I pointed out previously, people do not ordinarily "intend" or to wear down their shoes when they go to shops to buy milk, but it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of going to the shops to buy milk, that a reasonable person ought to have foreseen.
Likewise civilian death's might not have been "ordered" per se but it is nevertheless a reasonably foreseeable consequence of actions that the Israeli government did order.
So this argument that is often made that Israeli Govt didn't "order" or "intend" to scare, maime and kill civilians whilst Hamas did, is one that I find highly problematic.
-
what is your point? it's highly problematic yes, but what were Israel's other options. People keep questioning the legitimacy of the war but can't provide an example of a clear alternative. Brendan, what should Israel do? don't they have a duty to protect their citizens?
-
May instead of Palestine, Gaza would be the better replacement.
I don't think Hamas represents Gazans either. They took the city in a coup after all.
They were democratically voted in.
Like I pointed out previously, people do not ordinarily "intend" or to wear down their shoes when they go to shops to buy milk, but it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of going to the shops to buy milk, that a reasonable person ought to have foreseen.
Likewise civilian death's might not have been "ordered" per se but it is nevertheless a reasonably foreseeable consequence of actions that the Israeli government did order.
So this argument that is often made that Israeli Govt didn't "order" or "intend" to scare, maime and kill civilians whilst Hamas did, is one that I find highly problematic.
There is a distinct difference between collateral damage (in what is a dense civilian environment where the militants are garrisoned) and deliberate targeting of civilians - intention is somewhat relevant in differentiating these two (much like manslaughter vs. murder).
I think there's just a lot of spin doctoring going on.
-
Hamas was elected to power, and has used that power to wage war on Israel. Israel has every right to wipe out such a vile terrorist organisation.
I think that, if you replaced Hamas with the Israeli Govt and Israel with Palestine in the above statement, you will find a lot of people who will hold that view:
The Israeli Government was elected to power, and has used that power to wage war on Palestine. Palestine has every right to wipe out such a vile terrorist organisation.
This viewpoint is ill-considered and naive.
Hamas' charter calls for the genocide of all Israeli people.
The Israeli government's policy on Hamas is for it (the organisation, not necessary *all* the fighers) to be wiped out and/or to be crippled to the point of inability to fire at Israel.
... You do the logic on that one, genius.
-
There is a distinct difference between collateral damage (in what is a dense civilian environment where the militants are garrisoned) and deliberate targeting of civilians - intention is somewhat relevant in differentiating these two (much like manslaughter vs. murder).
Yes but that's of no satisfaction to the dead civilians now is it.
-
all i want to say now is when israel started killing all these ppl ... they are just pushing more ppl towards Hamas and the resistance and more fighting... their not actually reversing this trend like they say they want to...
-
what is your point? it's highly problematic yes, but what were Israel's other options. People keep questioning the legitimacy of the war but can't provide an example of a clear alternative. Brendan, what should Israel do? don't they have a duty to protect their citizens?
My point is that it is highly problematic, that is really the main thing. I don't know what they should or shouldn't do. I don't make any statement as to what they should do. I haven't seen a view either way that has really convinced me and consistent with other values that I hold dear.
When it comes to self-defense see the op-ed by Richard Epstein, a self-described libertarian. Maybe my view might be closest to his. I am attracted to the principle of proportionality for occasions when the self-defensive action risks harming innocent 3rd parties. I am not so concerned about proportionality in self-defense when it when there is no risk of harming innocent 3rd parties.
I just find the argument that one civilian death can be less bad than another civilian death by no other reason than one party "ordered" it, problematic. Not least because of the difficulty and/or desirability of drawing a distinction between what was the ordinarily "intended" consequences of an action and the reasonably foreseeable consequences of an action, for the purpose of judging the actions morality.
-
"They were democratically voted in".
Although Hamas were democraticly voted in to a majority in the Parliament, their actual millitary control of Gaza comes from a coup in 2006/2007
-
Yes but that's of no satisfaction to the dead civilians now is it.
[/quote]
No there's no satisfaction for any civilians in war. This is why War should be used as a last resort. Since Israel's disengagement from Gaza in 2005, Hamas have launched thousands of rockets into the south of the Jewish state. Israel was forced to take some action in order to damage the capabilities of Hamas. No state would be expected to sit back and do nothing if rockets were hitting its civilian population. Hamas left Israel with no other choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Qassam_rocket_attacks
-
I dont understand why you've quoted me.
-
watch this 11 part documentary, it will explain why and how
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE3Zp4hE5fs
That's not a documentary and I would thank you to not attempt to swindle the people of this forum. That video is posted by an anti-government, anarchic conspiracy theorist who expresses a clearly biased view through that video. To claim that this video is a documentary is a downright lie. You are subversively attempting to convince viewers of a viewpoint by your guarantee that it is fact.
This was an underhanded, sneaky assault on truth. You should be ashamed.
i just found out what this documentary which it is, is called....
Occupation 101: Voice of the Silenced Majority is a 2006 documentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict directed by Sufyan Omeish and Abdallah Omeish, and narrated by If Americans Knew founder Alison Weir.
The film focuses on the reality and the effects of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and discusses events from the rise of Zionism to the Second Intifada and Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, presenting its case through dozens of interviews. It questions the nature of Israeli-American relations — in particular, the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and whether American taxpayers should help pay for it.[1] Occupation 101 includes interviews with mostly American and Israeli scholars, religious leaders, humanitarian workers, and NGO representatives — more than half of whom are Jewish — who are critical of the injustices and human rights abuses that stem from Israeli policy in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza.
and this is the official site
http://www.occupation101.com/about.html
and its won a couple of awards as well
so in conclusion it is a credible documentary
-
heres another documentary i found and yes it is a documentary
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=avZHRvmSmXM&feature=channel_page
very interesting documentary, it examines how the media manipulates its language and how it presents its story of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...and it examines other things...wow in part 4 i can't believe that the Israel demolishes Palestinians homes that have been their for ages in front of their eyes, so sad...watch part 5 if you want to learn about Palestinians commiting suicide against Israel and the violence towards Israel http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=os8aAa-Ppj0&feature=channel. part 6 really breaks your heart...=( part 7 is america's diplomacy in the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
Peace, Propaganda & the Promised Land is a 2004 documentary by Sut Jhally and Bathsheba Ratzkoff which—according to the film's official website—"provides a striking comparison of U.S. and international media coverage of the crisis in the Middle East, zeroing in on how structural distortions in U.S. coverage have reinforced false perceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" and which "analyzes and explains how--through the use of language, framing and context--the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza remains hidden in the news media".
-
i find part 3 of the above documentary quite interesting, here it is written...
Part 3: Hidden Occupation
One of the things you have to keep in mind when you’re looking at how media report on something like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not only understanding what’s there in the story, but more importantly what’s not there. What’s been left out and in that sense absence is as vital as presence in terms of how people make sense of the story. Context is everything.
The context that’s often missing from the current reporting is that the Palestinian uprising is a revolt against the 34 year long occupation. And if there is no occupation in the story, then the story doesn’t really make sense and the occupation is frequently missing.
A typical TV news report for example on ABC news will show dramatic pictures of these confrontations, where Palestinians are confronting Israeli troops and Israeli troops are responding. For most Americans who don’t understand the history of the conflict. This is an example of riots that are going on, where the authorities are taking measures to crack down. What is not mentioned is the fact that these confrontations are taking place on occupied territory and that the Israeli troops that are there are defending an occupation that doesn’t have any international legitimacy, it’s illegal.
The American media, there are concentrating only on the deeds on the violence and not on the reasons and not on the basic facts of occupation.
This is not presented as an army using its arsenal against young people who are largely unarmed and who are protesting because of the occupation, the siege, the total oppression of the whole nation.
The lack of context is so dramatic that only 4% of the network news reports on the occupied West Bank and Gaza strip mentioned that the West Bank and Gaza strip are occupied.
The Israeli military sends its troops into the occupied territories to defend what is considered an illegal occupation, and when the population there resists, Israel is presented as being under attack.
They don’t present it as saying Israel is the aggressor, Israel is killing people on their own land, in their own homes as an occupier. But no Israel is defending its self.
Israel’s basic posture is anything but defensive. Israel is the only country in the world right now which in contravention to UN security council resolutions, maintains tens of thousands of heavily armed troops outside its borders, in somebody else’s country for the sole purpose of taking their land away from them and in the process forcing them to live under the worst form of tyranny imaginable, it’s just a foreign military dictatorship.
The tanks, the gunships, the snipers, they are all on Palestinian land, and I don’t see why they have to protect themselves on our land, if they’re occupying our land, that context always missing. So even when Israel is busy murdering people in cold blood, it is always presented as part of the self defense mechanism of Israel.
When Israel, the occupied territory now claim that they have to defend themselves, their defending themselves in the sense that any military occupier has to defend itself against the population and aggression. You can’t defend yourselves when you’re militarily occupying somebody else’s land, that’s not defense, call it what you like but it is not defense.
-
they are so mean
Who is "so mean", and why?