Arafat under siege

[Sirotnikov]

Imagine a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 would be completely biased towards Israel and 10 would be completely biased towards PA. The JP is 0, Al-Hayat is 10. Most western media oscillates betwen 4 and 6. The Guardian, for example, would be a good example of a '6', while the NYT would most likely be a '4'.

Great.

On the basis of 0 substancial evidence you assume that the JP is "0" just like the state controlled al-hayat.

JP is 2
NYT is 4.5
Guardian is 8
al-Hayat is 10.

If a source is 1 or lower, or 9 or higher, it can't be relied on.

If a source is between 2 and 8, assuming you are on your guards, know enough about the topic, you can extract valuable information, without all the editorializing.

CNN moves wildly between 3 and 7.

BBC moves between 5 and 8.5 (8.5 is when they give free stage to palestinian spokesmen without ever checking what they say.

The only time a palestinian liar was put in place, is on hard-talk, and that doesn't happen often.

[Ned]

Siro, Did your hear what Blair said today in Parliament? He favors getting the UN actively involved in settling the ME "crisis."

Would this help or hurt, in your view?

[Arrian]

Oooooh, fun, ranking newpapers. My rankings of newspapers I'm familiar with, just for ****s and giggles:

JP: 1
NY Post: 2.5
Haaretz: 4
NYT: 4
Boston Globe: 5.5
The Guardian: 7
Lebanon Star: 8

Whatever. The point is that one has to question one's sources, no matter what. That being said, the core issues that always flare up in these threads revolve around a very low number of events, and how one views those events:

1) Cybergnu's viewpoint is based upon the belief that the creation of the state of Israel in Palestine by the UN was wrong. From that point onward, Israel could do no right in his eyes, because it shouldn't even be there. Israeli presence on Palestinian land (the way he sees it) is aggression. Thus Israel is the aggressor. Arab attacks are responses to the initial aggression (founding of Israel). Further, Cyber does not believe in the distinction between soldiers and civilians. Thus, Israeli civilians are valid targets because they are citizens of an aggressor state.

2) Siro believes that Israel should be where it is and thinks the events of '48 were justified. Further, though IIRC he favors ending the occupation for peace, he defends the occupation as a reaction to Arab aggression against Israel. He appears to have very little faith in the rest of the world its press.

I don't care what your sources are... there is no way to bridge that gap. But the two continue to butt heads.

-Arrian

[Sirotnikov]

Why does Israel not want the UN involved: part1

The UN is nearing the function of league of nations.


It does not enforce anything unless america tells it to.

It is ruled by political forces. arabs have 22-1 majority.

Israel is banned from ever entering the security council.



Basically, if the UN would actually enforce and help, I would be 100% for the UN coming here and stopping the bloodshed.


However, let us see what happenned in LEbanon?

The UN came. It quietly observes Hezballa actions against Israel, without preventing it, or protesting, or informing Israel.

It even refused to cooperate with Israel, when it requested evidence regarding the kidnapping of 3 of it's soldiers and 1 citizen by hezballa.

What it does do, is sit there and

1) supply things to Hezballa, which make it a habit to rob UN bases for stuff: clothes, appliances, even vehicles IIRC. (my sources are interent versions of ruski newspapers)

2) make sure to protest and film every time Israel retaliates to the mortars and shots (and soon rockets) that Hezballa launches at Israel.



So why is it that we don't trust the UN to do anything, except ignore palestinian terrorism while prevent Israel from doing the minimum to combat it???

I don't know...

[Sirotnikov]

He appears to have very little faith in the rest of the world its press.

correction: I have very little faith in the good will of the rest of the world.

I am very aware of both visible and invisible bias.

The worst bias IMO is the kind that is hard to spot- which is exactly what CyberGnu can't comprehand.

I know alot about how journalism works, which is why I realize that without prior knowledge, it is very hard to get exact and fair information. Especially true when reporting about an area of the world which is far away.

I also know the difference between bias which is simply slanting and editorializing, and bias which is inventing things and lying.

CyberGnu imagines that bias everywhere but america and insists on that.

So far he has accused: the jersualem post, and die welt. let's see if I can find something which will make him accuse his le monde sweetheart.

[Ned]

Siro, You make a very good point on Hezbolla. I thought the very purpose of the UN peacekeepers was to suppress the likes of this terrorist group. But either it does nothing, or it is not effective. What you say also makes it appear that the UN is actively aiding the Hezbolla.

Now, lets recall a little history. The US went to Lebanon to keep the peace. It made a serious effort. However, the US got in the way of Hezbolla (I believe this was the group) and they blew up our Marines' barracks.

I suspect every UN commander remembers this and does not want it to happen to his own troops. Thus the hands-off attitude to the Hezbolla.

So, what do we have here. It appears to be an impossible situation. If a peacekeeping force is to be effective, it will soon be at war with the terrorist groups. No nation is long going to tolerate its soldiers being killed for this kind of mission. Thus, the mission is doomed to failure.

Israel to Blair: When the UN stops Hezbolla in Lebanon, come back to us about the West Bank and Gaza. 'Til then, we prefer to discuss these issues with the United States.

[Sirotnikov]

the UN renamed the forces from peacekeeping to observers iirc, following that incident.

[CyberGnu]

You claim: The NYT isn't biased.

Reposted, with selct parts bolded since you seem to have missed them last time:
However, larger, american (or say, french ) media bodies, are seldom influenced by the goverenment, and seldom have political agendas. While seldom does not equal never, seldom is the best you will ever get, and infinitly preferable to partisanship.

Way of proof:
Let's assume NYT is biased.
If it biased, it should be like al-hayat or JP (which you assume are biased).
Your proof: It isn't like them, so it must not be biased.

Apparently you can't tell my claims and your claims apart. Maybe you should try reading your own posts.

reposted:
The major fallacy of your statement lies in this part, however: [Siro:] "and totally believe international media, which is just as biased." This is, of course, an absurd statement. If true, the NYT would be substantially like EITHER the Jeruslamen Post OR Al-Hayat. It is quite obvious that it isn't.


If you read it ten or fifteen times, maybe you can figure out what it says.

JP is 2
NYT is 4.5
Guardian is 8
al-Hayat is 10.

Right.... And other modern fairytales. Take a look at Arrians rankings. I wouldn;t put Haaretz at the same level as the NYT, but otherwise it is pretty good.

BBC moves between 5 and 8.5 (8.5 is when they give free stage to palestinian spokesmen without ever checking what they say.

You know, this would be so much easier if you only knew what news are.

If, say, Bush claims in public that the moon is made of green cheese, should the NYT?
A) Report that the moon is made of green cheese
B) Report that Bush claims the moon is made of green cheese
C) Report that Bush claims the moon is made of green cheese and immediately send out a manned mission to confirm
D) Immediately send out a manned mission to confirm, and if true, report that the moon is made of green cheese
E) Report that Bush is a liar

Now, write down what of the above options you think can be considered correct.




scroll down





scroll down



Well, as any moderatly intelligent 5 year old should have answered, the correct options are B, and if it is deemed interesting enough, followed by C.

You see, when it comes to true vs. false, the only fact the newspaper has an obligation to check is whether Bush actually said that the moon is made of green cheese. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant.

If the newspaper thinks the claim warrants furter investigation, it can check it itself. If it finds that the moon IS made of green cheese, they should report that the moon is made of green cheese. At THAT point, the newspaper puts its credibility on the line vis-a-vi the material properties of the moon.

I know the example was a bit complicated, but I don't know how I can dumb it down more for you.

Why does Israel not want the UN involved: part1

The UN is nearing the function of league of nations.

?

It does not enforce anything unless america tells it to.

Until america lets it. And Russia, China, France and England. It is called a veto.

It is ruled by political forces. arabs have 22-1 majority.

Fascinating. So Sweden, for example, isn't a member? I could have sworn we were. Not to mention the other 150 or so countries of the world.

Israel is banned from ever entering the security council.

Well, duh! You don't let a child molester run a kindergarten.

Basically, if the UN would actually enforce and help, I would be 100% for the UN coming here and stopping the bloodshed.


However, let us see what happenned in LEbanon?

The UN came. It quietly observes Hezballa actions against Israel, without preventing it, or protesting, or informing Israel.

It even refused to cooperate with Israel, when it requested evidence regarding the kidnapping of 3 of it's soldiers and 1 citizen by hezballa.

What it does do, is sit there and

1) supply things to Hezballa, which make it a habit to rob UN bases for stuff: clothes, appliances, even vehicles IIRC. (my sources are interent versions of ruski newspapers)

2) make sure to protest and film every time Israel retaliates to the mortars and shots (and soon rockets) that Hezballa launches at Israel.



So why is it that we don't trust the UN to do anything, except ignore palestinian terrorism while prevent Israel from doing the minimum to combat it???

I don't know...

Now, this is what happens when you get your news from the Daily Hatred or whatever it is you read. If you had read real news, you would have known that the UN mission to Lebanon was created to oversee the Israeli withdrawal in 2000 and to help the Lebanese goverment to take control of the vacated areas.

For more information, look at, for example:

http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unifil/unifilB.htm

I know alot about how journalism works

LOL! Oh, you are KILLING me!!!!!

CyberGnu imagines that bias everywhere but america and insists on that.

Nope. Most european newspapers are acceptable. I don't want to make a statement about them though, since I don't read them. IMO, swedish newspapers are very good and impartial, but it would be pointless to use them as a frame of reference since none of the pro-israelis here reads swedish.

So far he has accused: the jersualem post, and die welt. let's see if I can find something which will make him accuse his le monde sweetheart.

No, Siro, because I base my view on impartiality, a quality, not content. If le Monde writes something that is very negative to the palestinian side, I accept it, because I trust Le Monde to be impartial.

I don't expect you to get it.

[CyberGnu]

Reposted from the other thread:

The American media DID know that there are al-qaida members in the palestinian camps. It was just played down by policy makers. Another proof of (shh) bias.

Sky news and BBC addressed a shootout between al-qaida and fateh forces in a lebanese camp.

If that happenned then... there must be al-qaida factions there!

Apparently fateh realised that the al-qaeda links are getting obvious, and decided to throw a shoot out to demonstrate they are "against terrorism" and to dis-associate themselves from al-qaida.

This is what real news agencies have to say about it:

DAMASCUS, Syria, Sept. 3 (UPI) -- U.S. Assistant Secretary of State David Satterfield downplayed Tuesday an Israeli news report that some 200 al Qaida members had settled in Palestinian refugee camps in south Lebanon with Syrian permission.

Asked to comment on the report in the Ha'aretz newspaper Monday, Satterfield said he did not comment on news reports, adding, "A number of press reports are not based on facts."

Palestinian and Lebanese officials called the Ha'aretz report baseless.

The newspaper reported that between 150 and 200 al Qaida operatives, including senior commanders, had settled in the Ein el Helweh camp in Lebanon with tacit Syrian approval. Syria, which has an extensive military presence in Lebanon, is the main power broker in that country.

The Israeli report called into question assumed Syrian cooperation with U.S. intelligence agencies to root out al Qaida network, which the United States blames for the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Satterfield said combating al Qaida was "an utmost priority" and "we are exerting efforts for cooperation with all countries, including Syria."

Syria has provided security information that U.S. officials have said has "saved the lives of Americans."

Satterfield was expected to visit Lebanon later Tuesday for similar talks with the Lebanese officials.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020903-101833-9836r

Or, how about the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2230924.stm

Well, again - you are working according to your own prejudices. you don't like what you hear, plus your beloved and trusted "free media" hasn't played it up - so you chose to believe it was fake.

You can't tell prejudice from logical reasoning? Well, I'm not suprised.

Why would die welt fabricate it?

Maybe they are incompetent. Maybe they have a political agenda. You know, like the JP, for example.

Furthermore , it is interesting that you assume that they elected to investigate it.

I would assume that CNN and BBC would investigate Saeb Erecat's lies, but - whoops! they don't. They report it as it is.

See above. A real newssource would have investigated it.

[CyberGnu]

BTW, I'm assuming the answer to this question

Gnu: When you make the claim that I never give sources, depiste the abundance of sources in the archive, I can only conclude that you are doing this to waste my time.

However, in a gesture of goodwill, I propose this: I dig up the reference, if you'll apologize for your accsuation afterwards. Are you man enough for that?

is, 'No, Siro is not man enough to put his money where his mouth is'.

[Ned]

CyberGnu, Why is the UN still in Lebanon then? Shouldn't they be helping to suppress the Hezbollah? Or is that the Lebanese Army's (aka Syrian army) job?

[CyberGnu]

It is the lebanese armys job.

The UN has the position that violations of the border is reported to the offedning party. When Israel goes over the border, a formal complaint is lodged to the Israeli goverment. When the Hizbollah goes over the border, a complaint is lodged to the lebanese goverment.

If you read some of Israels complaints to the UN general assembly, you can see that the Israeli goverment is fully aware of the situation. The complaints they lodge is not against the UN observation force, or even the UN, but against the Lebanese goverment.

[CyberGnu]

Since siro can't tell the difference, I wish to point out

THIS IS AN EDITORIAL

It has no news value. None of the claims in this text are supported, or pretended to be supported.

But it can make you think, which is the point.

Fictions Embraced by an Israel at War
By DAVID GROSSMAN


ERUSALEM — A dangerous and deceptive plot line has become superimposed on the story that Israeli society tells itself about its conflict with the Palestinians. Since the outbreak of the current intifada two years ago, it is as if the Israeli mind has turned to a new page in the chronicle of the conflict and, at the same time, erased many of the pages that preceded it.

It's as if the 33 years of repression, occupation and humiliation that Israel imposed on the West Bank and Gaza between June 1967 and September 2000 vanished with the wave of a magic wand. The majority of Israelis take comfort today in believing that the horrifying deeds committed by Palestinian terrorists in the last two years somehow "balance the books" for those long years of subjugation and that all the guilt for the current state of affairs rests on Palestinian shoulders. Furthermore, they believe, the suicide bombings, and the broad support they have received from the Palestinian population, have revealed things about the Palestinians that ex post facto justify the injustices of the occupation. In a contorted way, many Israelis believe that the new wave of Palestinian terrorism has granted their country absolution for its problematic past.

Of course, the Israeli occupation is not the entire story. During those 33 years the Palestinians contributed their share to the march of blood and folly by being intractable in their positions and murderous in their actions. And we must not forget that the Six-Day War was not a war that Israel wanted. Yet, despite this, the historical story that Israel chooses to tell itself is astoundingly obtuse and superficial.

The story that now reigns nearly unchallenged in the media and political discourse obliterates more than 33 years of roadblocks, thousands of prisoners, deportations, and killings of innocent people. It's as if there were never long months of closures in cities and villages, as if there had been no humiliations, no incessant harassment, no searches of houses, no bulldozing of hundreds of homes, no uprooting of vineyards and olive groves, no filling up of wells and, especially, no construction of tens of thousands of housing units in settlements and large-scale confiscation of land, in violation of international law.

The new narrative leaps back through the manipulative fog created by the prime minister and his cabinet, his supporters and his various spokesmen straight to the Six-Day War, our pinnacle of justice. And looking forward from that point in 1967 there is a kind of desert devoid of history, devoid of responsibility, devoid of blame, until we suddenly emerge from the miasma right at the Oslo accords, the proposals that Ehud Barak made to Yasir Arafat at Camp David and, after Camp David, like thunder on a bright and sunny day, the second intifada.

According to this story, the Palestinians suddenly exploded in September 2000 in an uncaused natural eruption, spewing out lava and ash and igniting the entire region. They had no logical reason for exploding and there was no prior Israeli provocation. Ehud Barak made them a generous offer, and they betrayed him with an outburst of violence — because they, by their nature, are motivated solely by destructive, irrational forces that make impossible any future compromise with them.

This theory is also the basis of another right-wing claim that now seems to be accepted by the majority of Israelis. It is that the Oslo accords, and their supporters, were what in fact caused the second intifada. In other words, it wasn't the intolerable conditions in which the Palestinians lived for more than three decades. It wasn't the tacit support that most Israelis lent to the ongoing occupation, all the while persuading themselves that it was such an enlightened occupation that it was barely an occupation at all. It wasn't the refusal of every Israeli government before the second administration of Yitzhak Rabin to try to reach a true, if painful, accommodation with the Palestinians. It wasn't the doubling of the number of Israeli settlers in the territories in the years after Oslo. Nor was it the way in which Ehud Barak conducted the Camp David talks, presenting to Yasir Arafat as ultimatums proposals that, while they were generous compared with Israeli positions in the past, were entirely insufficient in Palestinian eyes.

None of these factors are now viewed as sufficient reason for a popular uprising by a subjugated and despairing people. No, it's the Oslo accords that are to blame, as if in the absence of Oslo the Palestinians would have come to terms with the Israeli occupation, accepting it tranquilly, even lovingly, to this very day; as if the Oslo agreements were a match, not a fire extinguisher.

Obviously, one of the reasons this story line has gained acceptance is that it seems to give a logical structure to a chaotic and threatening reality. Along the way, it also seems to justify the use of massive and unrelenting military force against the Palestinians.

But this view of reality is fraught with danger because it is simply not realistic. It's true that the Palestinians have committed serious errors and war crimes in the last two years. It also may well be true that, had they acted otherwise, they would have a state today. But if Israel is interested not just in punishing the Palestinians but also in extricating itself from the trap it's in, it must wake up and reinsert into the tragic story of the conflict those parts that have been expunged from its consciousness during the last two years. If we do not replant the recent intifada in its historical context, no chance of any minimal mutual understanding will sprout. And without context, we will never be truly cured.

David Grossman is the author, most recently, of "Be My Knife,'' a novel. This article was translated by Haim Watzman from Hebrew.

[Arrian]

*snip*

It's true that the Palestinians have committed serious errors and war crimes in the last two years. It also may well be true that, had they acted otherwise, they would have a state today. But if Israel is interested not just in punishing the Palestinians but also in extricating itself from the trap it's in, it must wake up and reinsert into the tragic story of the conflict those parts that have been expunged from its consciousness during the last two years. If we do not replant the recent intifada in its historical context, no chance of any minimal mutual understanding will sprout. And without context, we will never be truly cured.

This is the meat of it, in my opinion. Right now Israel's actions appear to be aimed at little else beyond revenge for the Inifada, round II. There is no "roadmap" toward peace, as it is often referred to by the media. Israeli leadership has a duty to its citizens to provide for their safety, and Sharon is not doing that. He says he is, and he sure is blowing lots of stuff up, but in the long run he is doing more harm than good.

Siro, back to the issue of the "goodwill" of the world press for a moment, if you please. When exactly was it mandated from on high that the media must have "goodwill" toward anything but the truth? Certainly there are biased publications out there, both for and against Israel, but do you actually believe there is some widespread, anti-semitic conspiracy?

I typically get actual news (as in the facts only) from AP or Reuters online. Then I check out various papers for editorials regarding those facts (Haaretz, Lebanon Star, The Guardian, Boston Globe, etc). My "rankings" are a reflection of the overall tone of the editorials over time. My ranking of the NYT is from past memory, not recent reading. Therefore it could be off. I may have boosted Haaretz a tad because I think a paper that routinely fires sharp criticism at its own government in time of war (and Israel is certainly on a wartime footing) deserves some respect.

-Arrian