Author Topic: Media and the Middle East.  (Read 1552 times)

Offline Rolex

  • AH Training Corps
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Media and the Middle East.
« Reply #45 on: August 05, 2006, 12:22:11 AM »
I took great care with every word of the two simple sentences in the post introducing the video. Two simple sentences intended to be neutral.

No adjectives were harmed while writing it. It was not presented as great, lousy, interesting, important, truthful, laughable, inciteful, well made, poorly made, leftist, rightist, apologist or denialist. I used no emotional language to implore anyone to watch it. It was presented as neutral as I could possibly write it.

Yet, it germinated some emotional responses, a few labels, a sprinkling of ad hominem, a smattering of misunderstanding and even sprout things unrelated to the issue.

The issue is the effect of propaganda, selective word choices, marketing and PR on the neutrality of news reporting for the purpose of molding support for government policy, not the causes and solutions to the problems of the middle east.

Pushing away from the bar of neutrality now, I do think US TV news is over processed with 'personalities' and I find it difficult to watch more than a few minutes of it. For me, it oozes facade.

I process information being offered me more by listening to the words rather than watching the face of the messenger. I try my best to filter out the emotion and try to stick with the essential content. (I didn't realize that one of the people talking on the video was a lesbian reporter because I listened more than watched. I didn't see the graphic in the video, "Insert Name - Lesbian Lefty Reporter.")

I'm conscious of words and how easily people are influenced by them, and at the same time not influenced by them. They can hear or read the ones they want, not hear or read the ones they don't. They can selectively misunderstand or understand, and even see or hear words never written or spoken. That is why I posted the video.

I have no influence to change events in the middle east, so my opinion has no value to anyone, even me. I just prefer my news to be delivered straight from the farm, with no words added for flavor or color. I'll flavor it myself, thank you very much.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2006, 12:26:04 AM by Rolex »

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Media and the Middle East.
« Reply #46 on: August 05, 2006, 01:07:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Rolex
Pushing away from the bar of neutrality now, I do think US TV news is over processed with 'personalities' and I find it difficult to watch more than a few minutes of it. For me, it oozes facade.

...

I just prefer my news to be delivered straight from the farm, with no words added for flavor or color. I'll flavor it myself, thank you very much.

I'm 100% with you. This is the reason I don't have a TV for 6 years now. The radio and papers are much more efficient than TV and for entertainment I have other means. The only problem is watching sports which I do at a friends or in the pub.

TV news, shows and commercials disgust me. These days its down to a new low.
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline Momus--

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Media and the Middle East.
« Reply #47 on: August 05, 2006, 03:48:19 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Its full of extreme leftists only spouting the typical pro-palestenian one sided out of context arguments you see all the time at the commie leftist anti war rallies - only they put it on a film with decent production values.

Thanks for proving my point yet again.  You still haven't addressed a single point in the film; you've just rationalised your emotional objections to it by labelling the contributers as "lefties" in another argumentum ad-hominem.

Shuckins, I thought this was an interesting statement from you:

Quote
If you study the matter closely enough, you will discover that the "Palestinians" are not the only other ethnic group in Israel.  There are several others, who the Israelis do NOT "oppress."


What does this actually mean? Are you saying that oppression is mitigated in the case of one ethnic group because it isn't extended to other ethnic groups?

Quote
A hundred years ago, the "Palestinians" were a realative small group of about 200,000 people of various ethnic backgrounds..


I'd question where you got that figure.  An analysis of Ottoman sources for the region gave a figure of around 600,000 inhabitants in 1900, of which 94% were of Arab ethnicity. That's according to the the American historian Justin McCarthy. If you've got  a reputable source that contradicts this can you share it?

Quote
..who resettled there either voluntarily or were forced to by the Turkish government..


I'm not sure where you got this information. The Ottoman's to my knowledge actually discouraged mass immigration into Palestine on the grounds that all the land was already occupied.  Moreover, the question of pre-partiton Arab immigration is by no-means as favourable to your position as you are suggesting. Once more, according to Ottoman census information, in 1906 over 90% of palestinian muslims were living in their place of birth and less than 2% had been born outside Palestine.  These figures come from this source.

This question has also been addressed by Yehoshua Porath, who is Professor of Middle-East History at Jesusalem Hebrew University. This is what he says:

Quote
the Arab population began to grow again in the middle of the nineteenth century. That growth resulted from a new factor: the demographic revolution. Until the 1850s there was no "natural" increase of the population, but this began to change when modern medical treatment was introduced and modern hospitals were established, both by the the Ottoman authorities and by the foreign Christian missionaries. The number of births remained steady but infant mortality decreased. This was the main reason for Arab population growth..

..Under the British Mandate, with still better sanitary conditions, more hospitals, and further improvements in medical treatment, the Arab population continued to grow....

...In spite of the Jewish immigration, the natural increase of the Arabs—at least twice the rate of the Jews' — slowed down the transformation of the Jews into a majority in Palestine. To account for the delay the theory, or myth, of large-scale immigration of Arabs from the neighboring countries was proposed by Zionist writers.


Source.

Quote
As for misappropriation of land...this is, to some extent a red-herring.  In the early 1900's, Jews who settled in Palestine sometimes entered into land deals with Palestinian familes to purchase land.  These land sales were considered legitimate by the Turkish government.  Yet, after the transaction was complete, and the Jews moved in to occupy the land, the Palestinians refused to give it up...as if they thought they had the right to keep it and occupy it.


Even allowing for the fact that disputes like this may have taken place, I'd like to see some evidence that it involved any significant amount of land. What is your source for this? Also, if land transfers of this type are such a strong basis for the zionist claim to the land, how is it that at the time of the partiton, i.e. 4 decades after the Ottoman period, only 8% of the land in the territory was owned by jewish interests? Source.

Offline Shuckins

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
Media and the Middle East.
« Reply #48 on: August 05, 2006, 08:08:58 AM »
Momus,

My statement about Arab population was based on information found at the web-site I posted in my first response at the top of this thread...but I was in a hurry while typing my other statement and I made a mistake when mentioning the date.

The figure of 200,000 Arabs was for the beginning of the nineteenth century...so it was actually 200 years ago and not the 100 I mentioned in a later post.  You are right...at the beginning of the 20th century there were 500,000 Palestinians living in the British mandate.

The statements I made about the misappropriation of land come from the same web-site.  The refusal of the Arabs to give up land even after they had sold it came from there...although the amount of land is not mentioned in that article.  That statement is part of a much larger discussion about the problems the early zionist settlers faced when trying to acquire land for settlement;  problems that continue to this day.

The statement I made about the Arab population being ethnically diverse was based on some things I read many years ago, and not on the article I quoted above.  I couldn't find the source of that statement now if my life depended on it.  I never saw any reason to question it, given the fact that large numbers of people in the middle east were uprooted by the violence of World War I and the Turks had a history of treating some ethnic groups with great brutality.  Their treatment of the Armenians in particular reinforced my conclusion that the Turks were capable of uprooting or even attempting to exterminate ethnic groups when it suited them.  So I never pursued verification of the statements about the ethnic backgrounds of the "indigenous" populations of Palestinians.

The Druze are a large ethnic and religious group in northern Israel which has been there for hundreds of years.  They have not been "oppressed" or "dispossessed" by the Israelis.  The Druze are allowed to have their own courts, full voting rights, and are allowed to serve in in the IDF.  The Druze have been loyal to the Israeli government since its inception, and the Israeli government has treated them accordingly.

Contrast this to Israeli "treatment" of the Palestinians.  Palestinians who are permanent residents within Israel elect members to the Knesset, have voting rights, and yet do not serve in the IDF.  Why is that?  Because they refuse to.  There is a great deal of resentment toward Palestinians who refuse to take part in the defense of the nation and yet expect full voting rights.  The Israelis complain, with some justification in my opinion, that it is unfair for them to delay their own start in productive adult life with three years of compulsory military service, and yet the Palestinian citizens are not bound by the same regulations and still are allowed to vote.

The point is the Israelis, while often dealing with Palestinians in occupied areas with a heavy hand, have made numerous attempts to reconcile their differences with Palestinians permanently settled within Israel and incorporate them into the national structure.

Regards, Shuckins

Offline DREDIOCK

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17773
Media and the Middle East.
« Reply #49 on: August 05, 2006, 08:47:55 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Rolex
I took great care with every word of the two simple sentences in the post introducing the video. Two simple sentences intended to be neutral.

 


Rolex,

Thanks for posting the video.
The O'club has been on the dryer side of bland as of late IMO
Made for great discussion material which the O'cub has been sorely missing for a while.

Whatever your stance.
Was a fun argument everyone
Death is no easy answer
For those who wish to know
Ask those who have been before you
What fate the future holds
It ain't pretty

Offline lukster

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
Media and the Middle East.
« Reply #50 on: August 05, 2006, 09:27:22 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Rolex
I just prefer my news to be delivered straight from the farm, with no words added for flavor or color. I'll flavor it myself, thank you very much.


Where exactly do you find this "unflavored news"?

I think it naive to imagine there is such a source. Better to view as much as you can through a filter of scepticism imo.

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Media and the Middle East.
« Reply #51 on: August 05, 2006, 09:32:52 AM »
dred... do you understand the difference between extreme lefties and plain old garden variety lefties?  

klinton and most of our media are simple garden variety lefties... not near extreme enough for the whackjobs in the video.

your "solutions" are no solutions at all.... you could remap the area a hundred times and it would make no difference.... when arabs take "palestinian" land the "palestinians" get herded out and all say..."thank you sir... may I have another?"

When the jews take land from other arabs... it is suddenly an affront aginst the "palestinians"....   It is not the jews who have made them all refugees and who are keeping them poor... their arab muslim brothers are doing nothing but using them to foment terror.

you admit that you have no solutions... I would guess that you admit that because of their religion the "palestinians" will never be happy till every jew is dead?  

The only solution is to have a buffer zone and for the other arab states to give back the land they took and to carve out a "palestinian" state from their own lands and the ones they stole..

And then... the "palestinians" can really show us what a modern vibrant people they are and quit blaming the jews for their poverty and ignorance and the violence in the region.

Dred accused me of seeing what I want.... I accuse him of the same.  He sees a video with some of the most extreme people of any country making it and speaking and he acts like it is some revelation of new facts.

We all have seen the destruction and the deaths on both sides and we all have made up our minds.   I got no new information from the video but did recognize that a lot of the info was scewed... that all of the violence was simply "video bites" of situations with no explanation.  

Not even the worst Fox news piece I have ever seen was so blatant.  

If the violence and violations are so blantant.. they why dred..  did they have to have tiny little bites?  if the accusations of the video are correct and not blown out of proportion... each event would stand some examination...    

lazs

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Media and the Middle East.
« Reply #52 on: August 05, 2006, 09:35:47 AM »
Quote
The Druze are a large ethnic and religious group in northern Israel which has been there for hundreds of years. They have not been "oppressed" or "dispossessed" by the Israelis. The Druze are allowed to have their own courts, full voting rights, and are allowed to serve in in the IDF. The Druze have been loyal to the Israeli government since its inception, and the Israeli government has treated them accordingly.


The big difference is that the Druze were, and are, a tiny minority. There are about 80,000 of them today (out of a total Israeli population of 6 million or so). There's no discussion about the Druze "demography problem" in Israel, because there isn't one.

At the time of partition, the UN partion plan would have created a Palestinian state with 804,000 Palestinians and 10,000 Jews, and a Jewish state with 538,000 Jews and 397,000 Arabs. It's easy to see the demographic problem there, and Jewish leaders talked extensively about the problem of a Jewish state with near equal numbers of Jews and Arabs.

In fact, the right of return, which Israel has fought so hard against ever since, is exactly the same problem as was presented at partition. You cannot have a "Jewish, democratic state" (which is what Israel defines itself as) unless you have a substantial Jewish majority. The Druze have never been a threat to that, the Palestinians most definately are.

Quote
Contrast this to Israeli "treatment" of the Palestinians. Palestinians who are permanent residents within Israel elect members to the Knesset, have voting rights, and yet do not serve in the IDF.


Some of them do, of course. The majority don't.

Quote
Why is that? Because they refuse to. There is a great deal of resentment toward Palestinians who refuse to take part in the defense of the nation and yet expect full voting rights. The Israelis complain, with some justification in my opinion, that it is unfair for them to delay their own start in productive adult life with three years of compulsory military service, and yet the Palestinian citizens are not bound by the same regulations and still are allowed to vote.


And yet there's another group in Israel that doesn't serve in the IDF, by and large, and that's the Haredim, ultra orthodox Jews. Rather than suspicion and discrimination, they receive extra support from the state.

Quote
The point is the Israelis, while often dealing with Palestinians in occupied areas with a heavy hand, have made numerous attempts to reconcile their differences with Palestinians permanently settled within Israel and incorporate them into the national structure.


Again, the difference being that they are much smaller in number. There are about a million of them, just under 20% of the Israeli population, and even then they are subject to extensive discrimination (both by the state and private businesses). It's only in the last couple of years that it's become illegal for state agencies to refuse to sell or lease land to Palestinians, for example.

The problem for the Palestinians (ie the residents of the West Bank and Gaza who are not Israeli citizens) is that they live on land that Israel wants, and controls, but they are far too numerous for Israel to absorb and remain a Jewish state. The numbers arean't totally clear, but on all the land Israel controls today (Israel itself, Gaza, the West Bank and Golan) Jews make up only about half the population. If it was to become one country with democracy for all, Jews would either be in a minority now, or very soon.

Quote
Nashwan they actually said *illegal force*. Watch the vid


Just watched that part, they say "colonised by illegal force". That's true, if overblown, because using force to take colonies is illegal under the GC.

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Media and the Middle East.
« Reply #53 on: August 05, 2006, 09:38:17 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Rolex
I took great care with every word of the two simple sentences in the post introducing the video. Two simple sentences intended to be neutral.

No adjectives were harmed while writing it. It was not presented as great, lousy, interesting, important, truthful, laughable, inciteful, well made, poorly made, leftist, rightist, apologist or denialist. I used no emotional language to implore anyone to watch it. It was presented as neutral as I could possibly write it.

Yet, it germinated some emotional responses, a few labels, a sprinkling of ad hominem, a smattering of misunderstanding and even sprout things unrelated to the issue.

The issue is the effect of propaganda, selective word choices, marketing and PR on the neutrality of news reporting for the purpose of molding support for government policy, not the causes and solutions to the problems of the middle east.

Pushing away from the bar of neutrality now, I do think US TV news is over processed with 'personalities' and I find it difficult to watch more than a few minutes of it. For me, it oozes facade.

I process information being offered me more by listening to the words rather than watching the face of the messenger. I try my best to filter out the emotion and try to stick with the essential content. (I didn't realize that one of the people talking on the video was a lesbian reporter because I listened more than watched. I didn't see the graphic in the video, "Insert Name - Lesbian Lefty Reporter.")

I'm conscious of words and how easily people are influenced by them, and at the same time not influenced by them. They can hear or read the ones they want, not hear or read the ones they don't. They can selectively misunderstand or understand, and even see or hear words never written or spoken. That is why I posted the video.

I have no influence to change events in the middle east, so my opinion has no value to anyone, even me. I just prefer my news to be delivered straight from the farm, with no words added for flavor or color. I'll flavor it myself, thank you very much.


IMO, Rolex the problem of using this video to discuss - in your words:

"The issue is the effect of propaganda, selective word choices, marketing and PR on the neutrality of news reporting for the purpose of molding support for government policy, not the causes and solutions to the problems of the middle east."

Is that that damn near every every person in that video has a clearly verifiable track record of extremist leftist and even anti-western political viewpoints. The video itself is propaganda and not at all neutral or condusive to open discussion.

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Media and the Middle East.
« Reply #54 on: August 05, 2006, 09:43:41 AM »
Quote
your "solutions" are no solutions at all.... you could remap the area a hundred times and it would make no difference.... when arabs take "palestinian" land the "palestinians" get herded out and all say..."thank you sir... may I have another?"


When was this, lazs?

Whilst the West Bank and Gaza were controlled by Egypt and Jordan, there was no attempt at colonisation of them. A West Bank farmer remained a West Bank farmer under Jordanian rule, and did not risk having his land taken to provide room for a colonist.

Quote
When the jews take land from other arabs... it is suddenly an affront aginst the "palestinians".


The difference is Israel is not simply running the occupied territories, it is colonising them, which doesn't leave much room for the Palestinians who live there.

Quote
The only solution is to have a buffer zone and for the other arab states to give back the land they took


What land is that then?

Quote
and to carve out a "palestinian" state from their own lands and the ones they stole..


So the people who live on the West Bank, who have done so for generations, must leave so that other people can go to the West Bank to live?

As you are being so generous in saying other people can give the Palestinians land, perhaps the US could do so? Arizona, say. After all, the US has plenty of land.

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Media and the Middle East.
« Reply #55 on: August 05, 2006, 09:56:44 AM »
and again the thread is hijacked to proove that the palestinians are little angles oppressed by the Jews. If the Jews were not there the middle east would have been a blooming region of enlightment. Just like all the other 22 arab states.  

What has this got to do with the media?
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline GRUNHERZ

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13413
Media and the Middle East.
« Reply #56 on: August 05, 2006, 10:02:13 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by bozon


What has this got to do with the media?


Naturally, I blame the jews bozon... :rofl

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Media and the Middle East.
« Reply #57 on: August 05, 2006, 10:10:18 AM »
nashwan... all of the land in question was won in a war.   jordon and syria are now occupying land that was originaly designated for the "palestinians"

I don't see them giving any back.

As for the west bank.... I don't believe that any arab countries reconize a palestinian country...  I believe that the people that live there have proven to be terroist enemies of their neighbors with suicide bombings and shootings of women and children in public places...

If mexico were as poor a neigbor you can bet we would take their country away from em.   The only "palestinian" governments every recognized were outright terrorists organizations with the sole purpose to kill every jew on earth..

Soooo... How do you negotiate with such people?   Why are people who live under the government of PLO and hez-eboa even entitled to anything?

Should they not be wiped out as at least being compliant in the terror?   If you support a terrorist government then all you own is forfiet in the war.

And.....

Again I ask... who would you hand wringers want a a neighbor?   The so called "palestinians" or the Iraelis?  who would you rather live under?


lazs

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
Media and the Middle East.
« Reply #58 on: August 05, 2006, 10:24:01 AM »
Quote
nashwan... all of the land in question was won in a war. jordon and syria are now occupying land that was originaly designated for the "palestinians"


No lazs, they're not. Syria is occupying land that intended to be Syria. Jordan is occupying land that was split off from Palestine and given to the people who lived there.

Imagine if California split into two states, Northern and Southern. Neither would be "occupying" the other's land.

Quote
If mexico were as poor a neigbor you can bet we would take their country away from em.


Take their country away and see how poor they become. Alternatively, wait whilst they take yours, and see how poor a neighbour you become.

Will you surrender your guns to your Mexican overlords? ;)

Quote
Soooo... How do you negotiate with such people? Why are people who live under the government of PLO and hez-eboa even entitled to anything?


They lived under the government of the PLO because after 25 years of living under Israeli military occupation, Israel invited the PLO leadership back from Tunisia to rule them.

Quote
Should they not be wiped out as at least being compliant in the terror?


At last, a final solution to the problem.

Quote
Again I ask... who would you hand wringers want a a neighbor? The so called "palestinians" or the Iraelis? who would you rather live under?


I'm not prepared to live "under" either, and I suspect you wouldn't either. No more were the Jews in the 40s, or the Palestinians today.

Quote
and again the thread is hijacked to proove that the palestinians are little angles oppressed by the Jews.


Bozon, I don't think that's correct. Like the programme that this thread's about, countering an argument requires a counter argument, not a balanced one.

No one's suggesting the Palestinians are angels and the Israelis devils, although the reverse isn't true, there are plenty suggesting the Palestinians are devils and the cause of all problems.

The truth is somewhere in the middle, both sides have done many things wrong, and both are responsible for the state things are in now.

The programme this thread is about is an attempt to show the other side of the story, the one that doesn't get shown in the American media (and the views of Americans on this issue seem to suggest the programme is correct, and that view doesn't get presented). You won't get far countering propaganda with a balanced film. After all, is that what the Israeli government does, present a balanced view of the Palestinians?

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
Media and the Middle East.
« Reply #59 on: August 05, 2006, 11:01:13 AM »
See rule #5 and 4
« Last Edit: August 05, 2006, 11:15:33 AM by MP5 »