Israeli Repression and the Language of Liars

[CyberGnu]

Natan, who is Patrick Seale?

However, I'm not quite sure how this pertains to the issue at hand... I responded to your post on the previous page, where you discuss the leftists on this thread. In your post on this page you started referring to other leftist groups. I still don't understand the point of that, since I haven't seen any references to these 'left wing' publications, with the exception of mobius occaisonal links to the guardian. (disclaimer: I have no idea what the political leanings of the guardian are... I'll just take Natans word for it that it is leftist).

[CyberGnu]

You're never going to know anything about the region if your knowledge of it is limited to 1-page summaries (with occasional 4-page human interest stories every few monthes in the magazine section) written by people who have little background inside the region for people who have even less background in it. In fact, much of what journalists report is based on what they get from the local media.

The NYT has had permanent journalists stationed in Israel for 50 years... BBC likewise.

I think you get a lot better view from a one page summary (which is quite a lot of text if you read one page per day), than if you try to sort through the lies and fabrications of the israeli or palestinian media.

[CyberGnu]

I'm not sure how you came up with those statistics on J'lem post accuracy. I'm particularly interested in how you determined that 20% of the contents were fabrications; since that implies you were able to prove they were false.

remember the story where they gave DieWelt as a source, and DieWelt never wrote a story like that? That was the most prominent, but far the only one...

[CyberGnu]

Prometheus:
umm, you only had one point, right?

I don't quite get it, however. Are you actually claiming that the NYT is biased, and if so towards what? (I personally think that it is biased in a pro-Israel fashion, based on the images it chooses to display. In the last weeks they have displayed graphic images of bleeding israelis, but only left cursory mentions of murdered palestinians... This, however, is not the issue. Regardless of whether the NYT is biased towards Israel or not, I firmly believe that if the NYT writes something negative about the palestinians, it is researched, evaluated and within reasonable doubt true).

And what does corporate bias have to do with anything? I'm not sure whether it is true or not (I suspect it isn't...), but I just can't connect it iwht the ME situation.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
remember the story where they gave DieWelt as a source, and DieWelt never wrote a story like that? That was the most prominent, but far the only one...

Are you talking about the story about the father and child who were caught by a brickwall between a battle between Palestinian militants and the IDF during the early days of the current Intifada? IIRC, DieWelt actually did write a story on that.

[CyberGnu]

Siro, well, then you do see the similiarities between the JP and Pravda?

And yet you choose to believe the JP?


Regarding Al-Quida, you again show that you don't get journalism. If FBI claims they have linked the terrorists to AQ, then that is what the NYT reports. Not that the terrorists ARE linked to the AQ, but that the FBI claim they are. The word of a goverment mouthpiece is news, and can be reported as is, since the report is not about the fact itself, but only what the goverment mouthpiece claims.

However, if some yokel in connecticut claims that he has footage of Bin Ladin talking to Saddam Hussein, the NYT would most likely not report this without actually checking whether it is true. and, like a selfrespecting media, it would also report that the claim was false.


BTW, just out of curiosity, when was the last time the JP reported something bad about the current occupation of palestine?

[CyberGnu]

Dino, nope. There was a story a while ago about how the AQ had sent 50 soldiers to the PLO. It made first page headlines in the JP, and the only reference was to Die Welt. Die Welt had never written anything like this.

[CyberGnu]

Ned, there is no double standard involved. Pretty much everyone in the entire world apart from the US has realized that Israel is not only the strong party, they are also the aggressor.

Thus, the situation in E. Timor and Palestine are very much alike... Something you should consider next time you defend an Israeli atrocity.

[Ned]

Ned, there is no double standard involved. Pretty much everyone in the entire world apart from the US has realized that Israel is not only the strong party, they are also the aggressor.

CyberGnu, Strength does not equate to being the aggressor. This simplistic formula would me that the U.S. is always the aggressor.

However, this does appear to be exactly how the left thinks.

[CyberGnu]

Ned:

Israel is not only the strong party, they are also the aggressor. (bold added for emphasis). Basically, they are stochastic variables.

[CyberGnu]

This whole 'left' business is worrying me. Is this just a new version of labeling the opposition anti-semite? If someone thinks that Israel is responsible for its own actions, they are labeled left-winger, and therefore incapable of making their own decision based on morality?

While I completely agree that most leftwingers are sadly distanced from reality, I think the assumptions visible in especially Neds post are offensive not only to leftwingers in particular, but to humanity in general.

Should we reduce the debate to 'left wingers support the palestinians because they are the underdog, and right-wingers support Israel because they are essentially fascists'?

And how does that deal with me, who is ideologically right-wing, but still think that justice is a valuable concept?

[CyberGnu]

bumpelibump

[Ned]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
This whole 'left' business is worrying me. Is this just a new version of labeling the opposition anti-semite? If someone thinks that Israel is responsible for its own actions, they are labeled left-winger, and therefore incapable of making their own decision based on morality?

While I completely agree that most leftwingers are sadly distanced from reality, I think the assumptions visible in especially Neds post are offensive not only to leftwingers in particular, but to humanity in general.

Should we reduce the debate to 'left wingers support the palestinians because they are the underdog, and right-wingers support Israel because they are essentially fascists'?

And how does that deal with me, who is ideologically right-wing, but still think that justice is a valuable concept?

CyberGnu, on the way into work today I was listening to the Bill O'Riley show. The topic was why Europe has become so anti-American. Callers from Europe provided a long list grievances Europeans have with the United States. Everyone of these is a pet leftists issue. What conclusions are we in United States to draw from this?

You say, CyberGnu, that you are a rightist. However your simplistic condemnation of powerful countries as always being in the wrong regardless of anything else causes me to doubt to your credentials.

You say to my statements concerning the left are offensive not only to the left but to humanity. I find in contrast many statements on this board that are both anti-Israel and anti-United States to be similarly offensive. It seems to me that the left has become racist. I find it inconceivable that the left the defends mass murder as legitimate means for advancing political ends.

There is obviously a major gulf between Europe and United States that is growing. European leftism is the reason for the growing division. From the European point of view, the problem, of course, is not Europe but the United States, particularly its increasing willingness to use force the its own defense. This seems to be the same problem Europe has with Israel.

New York was attacked, not Paris. It is the Israeli people are blown up, not Europeans.

The Russians and Indians both understand and support America and Israel because they too have directly experienced terrorist acts.

CyberGnu, if you have any other explanation for the growing divide between Europe and United States, I would like to hear it.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Cyber, it would be nice if instead of talking out of your ass like you usually do, you would come here and watch the israeli ews.

hi ,

most people like to stay in their homes , with their beer , their comp , ......

they dont know what it is to sleep in a bunker every night , they dont know what it is if a guy blows himself up , .....and you see it because you was drinking your cup of coffee 100 yards away , ....

they dont live in fear , yet a lot of people put the "zap" on us , ....

their are student programs , they even give credits , ....why dont some of them come and see , we would happely put something together , ......with maximum security , .......

so far only two guys from apolyton are going , ...so , who is coming also , ......

have a nice day

[Natan]

Cyber, you never showed that story to be false - you claimed that a search on the website did not reveal any articles, while my search found 19; neither of us knew German well enough to be sure. Besides which, the internet and print content of a newspaper are often not identical, and I saw the story on American TV news as well.

I'm complaining about both leftists on Apolyton and in general. People who support military action against Israel but oppose action against Iraq, for example.

Your second argument isn't really relevant, because it relates to how facts are presented ("The FBI said '_______' " vs. " '_________' " according to security sources") rather than the actual facts and sources.