Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Rolex on August 04, 2006, 06:28:01 AM
-
Here is a link to a piece contrasting the differences between the US media and other coverage of Palestinian-Israeli relations. It may challenge some beliefs.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696
-
Link is too long and has been ....ified. you need to edit it, and use Tinyurl (http://tinyurl.com/) rolex-san :)
PS: That being said... I don't think them numpties here are interrested in having another POV. LIES IT MUST BE ALL LIES!!!111:furious :cry
-
Of course, your own willingness to hear and adopt an opposing point of view is beyond question.
Heck, it's never even been mentioned.
:D
-
LOL This is a blatant one sided left wing propaganda piece that merely makes excuses for Palestenian violence, disorganization and stupididity. The first person they interview is none other than USA hater #1 writer/proffesor Noam Chomsky... They follow him by interviewing some lesbian writer for from the Village Voice and then some Israeli Army deserter... Then they feature a guy who thinks Mike Moore's Farenheit 911 is too conservative... Then of course no piece of US basing propaganda could be without Robert Fisk.. Etc etc etc...
Its hillarious that they present this one sided leftist tirade as a film arguing AGAINST allaeged jew corporate media propagnada...
:rofl
-
Or, You can blindly accept whatever the right spews as absolute gospel
Thats ok. the left is just as guilty.
It is amusing how we all claim the media to be less then accurate unless we agree with what they say.
both sides do this
that being said. I've only watched the first 10 minutes. but havent been able to identify anything that was less the factual
And we wonder why they are angry
Same as we wonder why our inner city people are angry.
Poverty tends to make people angry.
Just ask the French and Russians
THAT being said
Based on how the occupied territories have been run over the last 30 years
I see the Germans taught their former victims well on how to manage people they hate
-
told ya so... ©
-
Actually I was replying to GRUNHERZ
so really so far there is a 50/50 responce
Even though Im more of a in the middle man myself
-
So, let me see if I understand.
The Israelis are surrounded on all sides by a hostile Arab population that has as its explicitly stated goal the destruction of Israel and the expulsion of the Israeli people from the region.
The Israelis in return are reacting in ways that are making it tough on those people. They have made agreements several times to back off in return for promises by the Arabs to cease hostilities, and in every case have had to clamp back down because the Arabs have violated those promises.
I don't see the problem. In my view, the Israelis are acting reasonably. In their place, I would advocate harsher measures.
culero
-
Aw c'mon Sain! I'll admit to being close-minded if you will! I promise!
You go first.
-
Ok about 3/4 of the way through it now. Still havent seen anything that can be reguarded as
(A)- Inaccurate
(B)- propoganda
-
Originally posted by culero
So, let me see if I understand.
The Israelis are surrounded on all sides by a hostile Arab population that has as its explicitly stated goal the destruction of Israel and the expulsion of the Israeli people from the region.
The Israelis in return are reacting in ways that are making it tough on those people. They have made agreements several times to back off in return for promises by the Arabs to cease hostilities, and in every case have had to clamp back down because the Arabs have violated those promises.
I don't see the problem. In my view, the Israelis are acting reasonably. In their place, I would advocate harsher measures.
culero
but the question has to be asked. Why is the population so hostile?
Watch the fillm. No matter what side your on it still presents some interesting questions as to how the entire thing is portrayed in the media
-
That's a masterful fact-based point by point rebuttal of the presentation Grun.
-
Read this: www.zionism-israel.com/zionism_history.htm (http://www.zionism-israel.com/zionism_history.htm)
It's at LEAST as accurate as the site you posted.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Aw c'mon Sain! I'll admit to being close-minded if you will! I promise!
You go first.
Nope :D
At least not on this matter.
I'm just saying that it's better to have a peek at both sides of the coin than trusting the one that is repeatedly shown to you. I have aproximately the same info/news feed you have and probably have the same initial view on it... But I'm ready to take a peek at another one if it's presented to me.
I just can't go for the:
A side = GOOD!!!
B side = BAD!!!!*
that just doesn't exist as far as I'm concerned. Profiit, profit, profit... it has to be somewhere in there for someone, even if I'm not aware of what or who it profits to, I know it's there.... on both sides. It's human nature.
*BGBMAW friendly translation
-
Thx Rolex
-
I do something different. I get my info from the people that are serving in the Middle East and leave the media out of it.
-
Sain, in all seriousness, I have long realized that there are two sides to the argument over who bears the most responsibility for the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Take a gander at my site. It's a good read...not more than 30 minutes in length, and more even-handed than a lot of other sites on this topic that I have perused.
There are some Muslims who don't understand why so many other Muslims spend so much time obsessing over what a tiny population of Jews is doing in a tiny portion of the Middle East.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Momus--
That's a masterful fact-based point by point rebuttal of the presentation Grun.
Hard to rebut something point by point without having seen the film in its entirety.
I was merely stating how people blindly accept whatever their side be it right or left what is presenting to them as though it were gospel
So far from what Ive seen the film itself is a masterful fact based point by point rebuttal
Really its neither left nor right from a political standpoint
But to provoke independant thought. (yea yea I know. alot of people here are incapable of that without first checking with their political party first)
Basically it shows news clips as we normally see them here, as well as newsclips as to how they are presented elsewhere.
The contrasts are interesting
What is shown here. what isnt and more importantly HOW things are portrayed that shape our opinions.
Example. they mention how during a particular time period where the situation is discrobed as "Relitive calm" No Isrealies were killed but some 36 Palastinians were, 23 of them women and children.
Of course no mention of this is made by our media
Now think about it.
flip flop it. If it were 36 Isrealies that were killed, with the same ratio (26 women and children)
Would it still be presented as "Relitive Calm"?
And why is it only discribed as "Calm" when no Isrealies are dieing?
Seems to me "Calm" would be a good discription of the situation of nobody were dieing on either side
-
Ok...so we get one version of an event through our media's presentation of a film clip...and people in other countries get a different version of the same event through their media's presentation of that event.
If we concede the point that our view is distorted then we also have to concede the point that their view may also be distorted, no matter how well it may be presented.
Remember the international out-cry over the Israeli's building the security fence? I thought it was an amazingly low-key response to an almost insoluble security problem. They were walling people out, funnelling them through secured check-points so that it would be easier to spot suspected terrorists trying to sneak into the country.
You would have thought, from reading the foreigh press, that they had just built a massive concentration camp.
-
You will get no argument from me on any of that Dred. I just thought it was funny that Grun was screeching about the video when a quick look at the time he posted indicates he couldn't have watched the whole thing if indeed he watched more than five minutes of it. :D
Yes Shuckins; that is a reasonably neutral site as far as it goes. It doesn't however even go near to touching the issues the link Rolex posted, so I'd question if you even watched it either?
-
Shuckins,
I'm at work right now, so... other than a 5 minute break, and a one liner here or there... not feasible ATM. I will have a look this week end.
Cheers!
-
No shortage of hate blinded morans in the world:
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player05.html?080306/080306_bs_word&Big_Story_My_Word&John%20Gibson%27s%20My%20Word&acc&Opinion&-1&new
-
Ok... I watched that whole thing.
A parade of lefties all spoke about the injustice of the Islaelis... they show check points and beatings and curfews... all out of context. A area(s) of a country that would make northrern ireland at it's worst seem peacefull and full of brit lovers.
Why a curfew for a year? why checkpoints? why beatings of these young men... you don't see them beating women or old men or children... why is it allways the young men... the young men who look just like the bombers and shooters in the Israel marketplaces?
And.... what good does giving oland back do? the jordanians and syrians and other arab counrtries are occupying "palestinian" land (whatever that is) and they aren't giveing it back and they aren't allowing the "palestinians" to live in their land.
The "palestinians" (and other arabs) are poor, not because of the jews... but because of their fanatical religious leaders and arab neigbors
But in the end... it boils down to...(and even the video sorta admitted it)
That the jews enemies will settle for nothing less than driving the jews out and into the sea and the death of every single one of em. The enemies of the jews are fantaical fundamentalist sociopaths with the sole goal of murder on their mind. The only option for the jews is to have a buffer zone because the arabs will never help the jews in achieving a peace by stopping the terrrorism.
The jews have made peace with the terrorists before and it didn't work because the terrorist leaders can't control the sociopaths.
I see no solution save for the jews to have a buffer zone.
if you watch the video closely you can only come to this conclusion or....
That the jews have gone insane as a people and are only making a buffer zone because they love the torture..
The video focuses on whatever brutality it sees and acts like it is happening in a vacumn.
The video took nothing from my admiration of the jews and did not make me hate the funamentalist terrorists any less..... possibly more because...
I blame the terrorists for the plight of the "palestinians" and I blame the surrounding arab states that allow terrorists to foment the violence but will not lift a little finger to help these people with real aid.
lazs
-
The Arabs and Palestinians have their own propaganda agencies as well. They are active in Europe and the U.S. Their views have gained more traction and support overseas than they have here.
That does not mean that their interpretation of events is any more fair and balanced than that offered by the American press. Perhaps our journalists are less prone to being taken in by their arguments.
Many countries have also made it clear to the Palestinians that little foreign aid and economic support will be forthcoming until the violence stops. Part of the suffering of the innocent Palestinian population MUST be laid at the feet of the more violent and intransigent elements within that population.
This film is a bit old, in that it makes no mention of the fact, or at least I don't remember hearing it, that the Israelis went into the West Bank and into Gaza and demolished many of the settlements that had been built illegally in response to international pressure.
I don't believe Arafat lived up to a single promise he made at Helsinki.
-
No, this problem can only be solved in one way. Fight to the death. It is going to bleed forever unless one side or the other ceases to exist. I think both sides realize this and thats why they are unwillling to give the other any kind of strategical advantage through 'peace' efforts. The isrealis beat down the palestinians cause they know if the palestinians had the club, they would beat down the isrealis. Interesting getting to see an opposing veiwpoint though, I get so sick of our media filters here in the US.
-
white... if you will look.. those "oppossing viewpoints" were made by American born and bred lefties... you can get their "opinion" quite eaisily in books and internet sources.. they are not censored in the least.
No solution I have ever seen will make fundamentalist nutjobs sane. this video has no solution.. the simply want the Israelis to stop defending themselves and suck it up till they no longer exist...
Does anyone here think that if every jew on the face of the earth suddenly disapeared that all of the middle east would be a peacefull and loving place?
Would you live there?
comes down to... who would you rather live under... fundamentalist muslims or Israeli law? Who would you rather have as a neighbor?
None of those lefty professors would want to live in an israel that stopped defending itself I can gurantee that.... none of the anti-semites on this board would live under muslim rule.
Cracks me up.. the same guys who go apopleptic when I say that we should end womens suffrage... are all a twitter over the wonderful muslims who stone women to death over showing an ankle of chin or having sex.
The hypocracy is hard to get over... hard to see their points when they champion the sociopaths and religious whackjobs whose sole purpose is to convert or kill.
lazs
-
well said lazs
believe it or not i agree 100%
:aok
-
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."
The Druze are just one example.
A hundred years ago, the "Palestinians" were a realative small group of about 200,000 people of various ethnic backgrounds who resettled there either voluntarily or were forced to by the Turkish government.
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.
The argument over the land has been going on ever since.
-
Like I say, its a fight to the death solution. I only wathced half of the video and yes, it was as left as it gets, but my point is, the ISrealis arent about to stop puonding the palestianinas into the dirt, because they know what the palestinians would do if they ever got on thier feet. So, I, personally cant fault the palestians for trying to rise up against the oppressors just as I cant fault the isrealis for keeping them hogtied.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Poverty tends to make people angry.
It makes them desperate
-
Please study the below chart:
My guess the "need for democracy" would be below "physiological needs" for most leftist...
(http://www.itiadventure.com/Maslow.jpg)
-
I now understand why the BBC is considered a regional bureau of Aljazeera, it actually NAMES Palestinian dead. Damn turrst lovers.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Ok...so we get one version of an event through our media's presentation of a film clip...and people in other countries get a different version of the same event through their media's presentation of that event.
If we concede the point that our view is distorted then we also have to concede the point that their view may also be distorted, no matter how well it may be presented.
Exactly true.
and somewhere in the middle of the two stories. Is the truth
-
"The bigger the lie the more people tend to believe it." - Joseph Goebels
A pretty despicable guy to quote but he was good at his job. Every side of every conflict has their own propoganda. That's how we motivate our populations and potential allies and get young people willing to go catch a bullet for folk and fatherland. The fact is the truth is usually somewhere in the middle well removed from the propoganda of the opposing sides. If one were to listen only to Arab media most would tend to side with the Arabs. I don't mean listen to it for a day or a year but to have never heard anything else or tried to look outside of it. The same could be said for British media re: British issues, Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan, the United States or whoever. Having been born a citizen of the United States I am exposed for the most part to U.S. propoganda, or as we call it today, the U.S. spin . Often some facsimile of the truth starts to reach the general population, if they care to look at it, a few years or decades after some clash of arms or pivotal event - after the passions of the day have passed for the most part and leaders gone from power. By that time a large portion of the population doesn't care anymore because it didn't involve them or - they just don't care anymore period. In terms of U.S history one need only start to examine events in the late 20th century and work backward in our history. If you need examples than nevermind.
The point is you'll never know the truth of most issues if you only read one newspaper, watch one news channel or listen to one side of anything.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
You will get no argument from me on any of that Dred. I just thought it was funny that Grun was screeching about the video when a quick look at the time he posted indicates he couldn't have watched the whole thing if indeed he watched more than five minutes of it. :D
Yes Shuckins; that is a reasonably neutral site as far as it goes. It doesn't however even go near to touching the issues the link Rolex posted, so I'd question if you even watched it either?
And I agree with you.
My point about not being able to re butt it had more to do with the fact that I hadnt seen it in its entirety either.
so it would be hard for me to re butt anything either.
but the fact he couldnt have possibly watched it Does speak volumes.
Amazing how lobotomized people are to their party, or in their support for one side or the next (which is usually shaped by their political party)
(Not to only pick on Grun. As I see the same thing from the other side as well.)
Laz is showing a pretty classical example of this. While he watched the entire thing (or so he claims, but Ill not dispute that)
He didnt seem to take notice that these so called "American born and bred lefties" were also critical of how the Clinton administration dealt with it either
Not to mention that in its entirely was critical of our media which we all (including Laz) have claimed is slanted far left covers and skews the situation in favor of the Israelites
and contrary to what Laz claims I did not see a single incident where any of these "American born and bred lefties" championed the terrorists. In fact I did see several say it was wrong.
"The video focuses on whatever brutality it sees and acts like it is happening in a vacuum."
As opposed to only focus on whatever brutality they do against the Israelites?
"Why a curfew for a year? why checkpoints? why beatings of these young men... you don't see them beating women or old men or children... why is it always the young men... the young men who look just like the bombers and shooters in the Israel marketplaces?"
If only the men are being beaten. Why is it that fully 2/3's of the deaths are of women and children?
Ohhh I get it. Beat the men. kill the women and kids
Laz. Im sorry but its obvious you only saw in that video what you wanted to see. And only look to discredit that which you dont want to see
Now while I admit the show was slanted in favor of the Palestinians. It did show another perspective that our own (left)media doesn't.
It does raise very legitimate points and questions
And if viewed with an open and independent mind. Will compel thought independent of what is spoon fed us
I have long said I am neither for nor against either side. And that I see the great evils being committed by BOTH sides.
Regardless of who started it. Neither side is an innocent party to this.
I see only a coupe different solutions as to the whole situation
A- they can share the area, and the power with each side having equal power. This is the best overall solution.
But it aint gonna happen So long as religion is the primary driving force
B-the entire area gets wiped clean and started over (poof)
Because so long as either side has their governments are based on religion Be it a Jewish only government. or a Islamic only government
Neither side is going to have peace
The future is interesting though.
Israeli Palestinian numbers are growing.
Eventually, if they are smart they will organize and demand the right to 1 man 1 vote and representation in the Israeli government.
Denying this will essentially alienate Israel from the rest of the worlds democracies, Including the USA
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
It makes them desperate
Desperate people tend to become angry people.
Thats why they call em
"the angry mobs"
"Desperate mobs"
"Angry mobs"
"angry mobs" sounds better too ;)
-
Originally posted by Momus--
You will get no argument from me on any of that Dred. I just thought it was funny that Grun was screeching about the video when a quick look at the time he posted indicates he couldn't have watched the whole thing if indeed he watched more than five minutes of it. :D
Yes Shuckins; that is a reasonably neutral site as far as it goes. It doesn't however even go near to touching the issues the link Rolex posted, so I'd question if you even watched it either?
I saw some 40 minutes of the video as I this morning before work. If I remember the video is maybe 1 hour 20 minutes long... Rolex posted the video about an hour before I replied. To think, i clickled on his post because he usually has something intelligent to say... Oh well, everyone lets you down from time to time..
And again as for the film...
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.
-
"Eventually, if they are smart they will organize and demand the right to 1 man 1 vote and representation in the Israeli government.
Denying this will essentially alienate Israel from the rest of the worlds democracies, Including the USA"
INSTEAD THEY ARE IDIOTS AND CONTINUE TO THINK THAT THEY WILL GET WHAT THEY WANT BY BLOWING ISRAELIS UP
-
I just watched that whole thing.
At one point they say Israel took the West Bank from the Palestinians during the 6 Day war. That is not true. Jordan controlled the West Bank prior to the 6 Day War, not the Palestinians. The Palestinians weren't even a player in the 6 Day War.
They also describe Israel's occupation and settlement of occupied territories as illegal and base that on Geneva Conventions (?) that forbid the settlement of territories gained by the use of illegal force. I dont consider pre-emptive strikes against an enemy that is clearly assembling and about to attack you as *illegal*.
The West Bank was taken from Jordan after Jordan attacked Jerusalem and Netanya.
UN resolutions are also mentioned as a means of stopping various Israeli actions. Regardless of whether or not America used it's veto power to stop these resolutions, I dont believe they would have changed a thing. UN resolutions are worthless imo unless the UN is willing to back them with force if need be. And we all know how often that happens.
I dont agree with some things I saw in that video: 1) Where the IDF soldier has a Palestinian by the back of his hair and slams his head into a wall. 2) When the IDF soldier was hitting the Palestinian while holding a rock.
Israel in general, the IDF and Israeli police need to be above that kind of behavior. When a suspected Palestinian militant is arrested for example, the folks doing the arrest should only be doing the arrest, not acting as judge, jury and executioner.
The entire video was a propaganda effort on behalf of the Palestinians imo. When Israeli violence is cited or curfews mentioned, no reasons are given for the Israeli actions.
Israel's demolition of homes is also discussed. When Palestinians apply for a building permit, and if they dont get one and build anyways.....the Israeli's demolish the building. If the law requires a building permit, and you build without a permit you are in violation of the law. Israel's response to these violations is to demolish the building.
-
They also describe Israel's occupation and settlement of occupied territories as illegal and base that on Geneva Conventions (?) that forbid the settlement of territories gained by the use of illegal force. I dont consider pre-emptive strikes against an enemy that is clearly assembling and about to attack you as *illegal*.
The Geneva Conventions say no such thing. It's provisions apply in case of war or armed conflict, for whatever cause it's fought.
There is no doubt amongst mainstream international legal opinion that the settlements are illegal, even the US judge appointed to the world court, Thomas Buergenthal (a Jewish Auschwitz survivor) says of the settlements:
"Paragraph 6 of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention also does not admit for exceptions on grounds of military or security exigencies. It provides that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”. I agree that this provision applies to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and that their existence violates Article 49, paragraph 6."
-
In the video Nashwan the reference they use may or may not be the Geneva Conventions. I took very brief notes as I watched it and couldnt recall for sure if they used the Geneva Convention as a source for calling the settlements illegal, hence why I put the question mark in parentheses after *Geneva Convention*. I'm not gonna watch the first 40 minutes of that video just to find out who/what was their reference. Maybe someone else remembers that part more clearly?
They also describe Israel's occupation and settlement of occupied territories as illegal and base that on Geneva Conventions (?) that forbid the settlement of territories gained by the use of illegal force.
The rest of that statement is accurate as far as it applying to the video. The folks in the video say the settlements are illegal because illegal force was used to take them. If that isnt accurate, then it's another false statement made by the folks in that video.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
but the question has to be asked. Why is the population so hostile?
snip
Its been asked and answered ad nauseum. Its also IMO does not matter.
My view is that in the conflict between the Arabs and Israel, the Arabs are the aggressors. I will agree that Israel is and has been harsh in its responses, but I don't blame them for that. If it were me in their place, I would be much more harsh.
I'm not ignoring the fact that there are surely many in the Arab population who have not participated in violence toward the Israelis, but yet have suffered from Israeli responses. It may not be fair, but life isn't fair. They should blame their Arab brothers who did engage in violence for having provoked the Israeli responses, rather than the Israelis for having responded to violence done against them.
culero
-
Mideast's creed of victimization (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.hanson04aug04,0,7810538.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines)
Mideast's creed of victimization
By Victor Davis Hanson
Originally published August 4, 2006
Despite the claims of terrorist organizations, Israel's current two-front war is not just about land. After all, Hezbollah and Hamas fired rockets from Lebanon and Gaza well after Israel had withdrawn from both places.
Indeed, if sacred Arab ground were the driving force of the Middle East crisis, then surely Syria itself would now be willing to risk a shooting war over the all-important, Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Meanwhile, Cairo is still perhaps the nexus of virulent Arab anti-Semitism, even though Israel finished handing over Sinai to Egypt in 1982.
The world prayed that after the unilateral departure of Israel from Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005, and the recent elections in Beirut and the West Bank, it was witnessing an incremental evolution toward a lasting peace between rational, democratic states. Gradually, Israel was returning to its 1967 borders. In response, gradually, it was hoped, Israel's Arab neighbors would vote into office reasonable statesmen who would renounce terror and get on with the business of crafting workable economies and governments. But all that optimism presupposed a radical change in the Middle Eastern mentality. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened.
So, if the most recent war in Lebanon and Gaza is not about land per se, then whence arises the elemental desire to destroy Israel?
The answer boils down to Islamists feeling their reputation is at stake. Words like "honor" and "pride" are evoked - in the sense that they need to be regained - by every insecure radical in the Islamic world, from al-Qaida's Osama bin Laden to Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Fist-shaking crowds, fiery mullahs and terrorists all boast of not giving an inch to infidels, and of the restoration of the now-sullied honor of the Islamic people.
Why their hurt?
For about the last half-century, globalization has passed most of the recalcitrant Middle East by - economically, socially and politically. The result is that few inventions and little science now emanate from the Islamic world - but a great deal of poverty, tyranny and violence. And rather than make the necessary structural changes that might end cultural impediments to progress and modernity (such as tribalism, patriarchy, gender apartheid, polygamy, autocracy, statism and fundamentalism), too many Middle Easterners have preferred to embrace the reactionary past and the cult of victimization.
At one time or another, they have welcomed all the bankrupt ideologies that traditionally blame others for prior self-induced failure: fascism, communism, Baathism, Pan-Arabism and, most recently, Islamic fundamentalism.
When there is high unemployment, corruption, zero economic growth, endemic illiteracy and no freedom, mullahs, dictators and jihadists of the Middle East always seem to fault the ancient colonial power - Britain, France or Italy (though rarely Islamic Turkey) - that supposedly set them back more than a century ago. Or they try blaming the omnipotent United States, whose oilmen developed the riches of the Gulf and whose military has saved Muslims from Kosovo to Kuwait.
But above all, for decades leaders like Gamal Abdel Nasser, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat and Mr. bin Laden have scapegoated tiny Israel.
It is the closest Western bogeyman, and its Holocaust survivors transformed an area of desert into a technologically sophisticated Western state. Israel's astounding success is a constant irritant to many nearby Muslims, representing the infidel's ability to fashion a prosperous Middle Eastern society without oil revenues under democratic auspices.
Victimization turns out to be the real creed of the Middle East, uniting disparate *****es, Sunnis, dictators, theocrats and terrorists. "They did it to us" offers an easy explanation of why Islamic states are now weak and offer little hope to millions of their poor, who, ironically, emigrate to the much-pilloried West by the millions.
American cash aid, Israeli concessions, windfall petrol profits and, most of all, appeasement of radical Islamists can do nothing to alleviate these perceived grievances.
Instead, there will be no peace in the general Middle East until Iranians and Arabs have true constitutional government, free institutions, open markets and the rule of law. Without these reforms, they will continue to fail, seeking easy refuge in the shreds of mythical ancestral honor - and in this pathetic neurosis of blaming nearby Israel for the loss of it.
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His e-mail is author@victorhanson.com.
More food for thought.
-
In the video Nashwan the reference they use may or may not be the Geneva Conventions. I took very brief notes as I watched it and couldnt recall for sure if they used the Geneva Convention as a source for calling the settlements illegal, hence why I put the question mark in parentheses after *Geneva Convention*.
It probably is the Geneva Convention, as it's the best known, and has the most specific prohibition of the settlements. There are other humanitarian laws being violated, but they're much more oblique.
The folks in the video say the settlements are illegal because illegal force was used to take them. If that isnt accurate, then it's another false statement made by the folks in that video.
Without having seen it, perhaps they mean the methods used to take the land, rather than the war. ie seizure of the land following the war.
For example, the Hague Convention of 1907 says:
"Private property cannot be confiscated."
"Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation."
"The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property. All seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings."
Israel has used expropriation orders to seize the land to build settlements, both from private individuals and Arab local authorities. That's specifically forbidden under international law, and that might be what the documentary is refering to by "illegal methods".
-
Nashwan they actually said *illegal force*. Watch the vid, it's a decent one, just slanted toward the Palestinian cause. You might be able to shed more light on this after watching it. This part is about 30 - 40 minutes into the video. Somewhere around there anyways heh.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
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?
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?
..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. (http://www.worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/top3mset/f4568529a34be69ea19afeb4da09e526.html)
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:
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. (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5249)
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. (http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm)
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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?
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.
-
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?
-
Originally posted by bozon
What has this got to do with the media?
Naturally, I blame the jews bozon... :rofl
-
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
-
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.
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? ;)
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.
Should they not be wiped out as at least being compliant in the terror?
At last, a final solution to the problem.
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.
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?
-
See rule #5 and 4
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
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?
Just because there are opposing points of view does not mean the "truth" is in the middle. In the case of the Palestinians vs Israel there are many truths. Same goes for the rest of the world. One "truth" for the Islamic facists is that the west would, or is, destroying their fundamentalist way of life. Exposure to the west's lifestyle has, and is, subverting many from the true practice of their faith. This is a "truth".
If you're of the western philosphy persuasion and believe in some form of democracy and freedom for all then you will likely have a different perspective on this "truth" than say a religious zealot who places obedience to God above all else.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
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
I your ability to step outside of the box. I know we disagree on everything else, but im with ya on this one.
-
like I said before, its a conquer or be conquered scenario. Just like the white man and the indians. If we leave the indian alone, he will scalp our women and children. The only choices are leave the new world or conquer the indians and take his land. The whole argument here is how the isrealis and palestinians present thier case. Niether takes blame for the murder of the children.
-
Nashwan,
I think that on a couple of your rebuttals to my statements you're basically splitting hairs.
Frankly, I found the video to be a very slick presentation of the same old tired claims and distortions made by the radical Palestinians and their anti-Israeli, radical, left-wing American apologists.
The film is propaganda, designed to portray the Israelis in a bad light. Scenes of brutality by Israeli soldiers are presented with no background in which to frame the incident. The commentators frame it for us. We're just supposed to accept their descriptions of the causes as fact.
This is a very old yet effective trick. Remember the famous photo of a South Vietnamese general using a pistol to blow the brains out of a North Vietnamese soldier. That shocked the entire world. Anti-war elements in the United States used this picture as proof of the cruelty and barbarity of the South Vietnamese government.
Many years after that incident, I read the full story of the incident that sparked that killing. The general had been on his way to visit a close friend and his family. The North Vietnamese regular and his squad had burst into the home of the general's friend and had massacred his entire family: men, women, and children. No one was spared. The soldier was captured. The grief stricken general pulled his pistol and shot him.
I've been gone all day so I'm too tired to summarize the information at the following web-site, so I'll just post the web-address and you can read it yourself. It's a pro-Israeli web-site, so you can call it propaganda if you wish, but if you're willing to view the video that started this thread, then you should, in all fairness, read the official Israeli rebuttal to many of the claims made against it by radical Muslims and their Western apologists. This site presents some facts that strike directly at some of the most common accusations made by western critics of Israeli policy.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf18.html#a
Regards, Shuckins
-
Thanks for that link Shuckins. I hadnt seen an Israeli rebuttal to Palestinian allegations before.
-
As relates to the title post, the photos of Adnan Hajj are now being exposed as doctored for effect. I also watched the video you linked Rolex. It comes across to me like a lot of clothes on the line on a windy day, but not too many clothes pins.
Still the bottom line was a worthy topic and ought to have been fairly treated. Not a word is said that Arafat pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars of Palestinian aid, but instead Israel is blamed for poverty. The mantra is repeated over and over that Israel has been the illegal occupier for 34 years with no mention of the 1967 six day war that brought about that state of affairs.
Here are two links for a "counterbalance" view.
Relentless (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2533702461706761547&q=relentless)
Obsession (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2967276362246845611&q=obsession+jihad)
Nashwan says
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.
Well mate, the Peel Commission says you Brits mucked things up pretty well to get the ball rolling.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS
MANDATES
P A L E S T I N E
--------
REPORT
of the
PALESTINE ROYAL COMMISSION
presented by the Secretary of State for the Colonies
to the United Kingdom Parliament
by Command of His Britannic Majesty
(July 1937)
Distributed at the request of the United Kingdom Government.
..........
SUMMARY
_______
PART I: THE PROBLEM
Chapter I. - The Historical Background
A brief account of ancient Jewish times in Palestine, of the Arab conquest and occupation, of the dispersion of the Jews and the development of the Jewish Problem, and the growth and meaning of Zionism.
Chapter II. - The War and the Mandate
In order to obtain Arab support in the War [World War One], the British Government promised the Sherif of Mecca in 1915 that, in the event of an Allied victory, the greater part of the Arab provinces of the Turkish Empire would become independent. The Arabs understood that Palestine would be included in the sphere of independence.
In order to obtain the support of World Jewry, the British Government in 1917 issued the Balfour Declaration. The Jews understood that, if the experiment of establishing a Jewish National Home succeeded and a sufficient number of Jews went to Palestine, the National Home might develop in course of time into a Jewish State.
[Well DUH!!!!]
................
PART III: THE POSSIBILITY OF A LASTING SETTLEMENT
Chapter XX. - The Force of Circumstances
The problem of Palestine is briefly restated.
Under the stress of the World War the British Government made promises to Arabs and Jews in order to obtain their support. On the strength of those promises both parties formed certain expectations.
............................. .........................
The existing circumstances are summarized as follows.
An irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country. There is no common ground between them. Their national aspirations are incompatible. The Arabs desire to revive the traditions of the Arab golden age. The Jews desire to show what they can achieve when restored to the land in which the Jewish nation was born. Neither of the two national ideals permits of combination in the service of a single State.
The conflict has grown steadily more bitter since 1920 and the process will continue. Conditions inside Palestine especially the systems of education, are strengthening the national sentiment of the two peoples. The bigger and more prosperous they grow the greater will be their political ambitions, and the conflict is aggravated by the uncertainty of the future. Who in the end will govern Palestine?" it is asked. Meanwhile, the external factors will continue to operate with increasing force. On the one hand in less than three years' time Syria and the Lebanon will attain their national sovereignty, and the claim of the Palestinian Arabs to share in the freedom of all Asiatic Arabia will thus be fortified. On the other hand the hardships and anxieties of the Jews in Europe are not likely to grow less and the appeal to the good faith and humanity of the British people will lose none of its force.
...........................
Chapter XXII. - A Plan of Partition
While the Commission would not be expected to embark on the further protracted inquiry which would be needed for working out a scheme of Partition in full detail, it would be idle to put forward the principle of Partition and not to give it any concrete shape. Clearly it must be shown that an actual plan can be devised which meets the main requirements of the case.
............................. ........
10. Exchange of Land and Population
If Partition is to be effective in promoting a final settlement it must mean more than drawing a frontier and establishing two States. Sooner or later there should be a transfer of land and, as far as possible, an exchange of population.
.........................
Anybody interested in the Arab-Israel conflict might want to take a few moments to read the Peel Commission's report of 1937 as to the cause of the riots in Mandate Palestine the previous year. The report makes a number of recommendations and is candid about the origins of the problems.
Among other interesting recommendations are land transfer and population transfer, based on the successful population transfer of no less than some 1,300,000 Greeks and some 400,000 Turks after the Greco-Turkish War of 1922, as well as a two state solution.
Peel Commission (http://www.mideastweb.org/peelmaps.htm)
-
shukins... I don't really know why my reply got moderated but I have the same view as you that nashwan is splitting hairs.
I asked those who think the jews are to blame who they would rather live next to.. the jews or a fundamentalist muslim one run by hez-ebola.
I then asked em what their solution was. What is the solution?
There needs to be a buffer zone and the jews should not be allowed to settle it either.
As for kalifornia... I would not mind if kalifornia were split in half... it has been discussed many times and makes sense... It would be good to make it two seperate states opperating under two seperate state governments.
lazs
-
Well Lasz, they don't have a solution...at least, not a workable one.
Except, possibly, that the Israelis give up even more land, grant unrealistic "rights" to the "oppressed" Palestinians which jeopardize their own security, removal of the security fence, a drawdown of Israeli military forces, reduction of troop presence at crossing points between Palestinian areas and Israeli settlements.
The following is from an article by Bradley R. Gitz in today's Arkansas-Democrat Gazette:
"Israel is, consequently, caught in the ultimate Catch-22 of warfare: It cannot fully use its massive firepower from the air against Hezbollah for fear of killing Lebanese civilians, but it cannot fight with full fury on the ground for fear of both killing civilians and suffering casualties on its own side that sap morale and increase anti-war sentiment back in Tel Aviv.
In the end, Israel has an obligation and moral duty to fight back against its enemies, but is constrained by various moral considerations from fighting back effectively.
The essential decency of Western civilization is our greatest source of strength and what most clearly differentiates us from the savages we fight against. But Israelis could, perhaps, be excused for wondering if those of us far removed from Hezbollah's rockets are going a bit too far in indulging our moral vanity at their expense."
Regards, Shuckins
-
The film is propaganda, designed to portray the Israelis in a bad light.
Agreed. But I'd say most of what people in the US, and to a lesser extent the UK, see about the Israel/Palestine issue is also propaganda, from the other side.
For example, if 3 people are killed in a suicide bombing in Israel, it will make the main TV news bulletins here, and probably in the US also (unless it's a very busy news day). 3 Palestinians killed by the IDF, even if they are innocent bystanders,rarely makes the news.
Scenes of brutality by Israeli soldiers are presented with no background in which to frame the incident.
Would you expect suicide bombings to be presented with "background" to frame the incident?
I've been gone all day so I'm too tired to summarize the information at the following web-site, so I'll just post the web-address and you can read it yourself. It's a pro-Israeli web-site, so you can call it propaganda if you wish,
It is propaganda. It's telling one side of a story. Can I point you to a more impartial site? It's the US State Department Human Rights reports, which they compile yearly, on every country in the world:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61690.htm
This site presents some facts that strike directly at some of the most common accusations made by western critics of Israeli policy.
Presenting some facts doesn't give a true picture. To give a made up example:
"My neighbour slashed a woman with a scalpel yesterday, leaving her needing 20 stiches", makes him sound like a nutter, saying he's a doctor and he performed a caesarian on her makes it sound very different.
One side of a story never gives you an accurate picture.
Well mate, the Peel Commission says you Brits mucked things up pretty well to get the ball rolling.
I think the British, so used to the good old British compromise, underestimated the determination of both sides to have it all, and the resistance to compromise. The original Balfour declaration, after all, called for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and nothing prejudicing the rights of non Jews already there.
Well Lasz, they don't have a solution...at least, not a workable one.
There is of course a solution, it's called "the two state solution". It's what just about every country in the world supports. Implementing it is something else entirely.
Except, possibly, that the Israelis give up even more land,
The land Israel is supposed to "give up" is that taken in 1967, that even Israel itself does not claim is part of Israel. How can they be "giving up" that which they say is not theirs?
grant unrealistic "rights" to the "oppressed" Palestinians which jeopardize their own security
The "rights" Israel has to give to the Palestinians is independence.
removal of the security fence,
A security fence is Israel's right. But it has to be on the border. It would be a lot more effective on the border, too. As the military historian Martin Van Creveld points out, the problem with the current wall is that Israel is on both sides of it. What he didn't add, probably because the current convoluted route wasn't proposed then, is that the Palestinians are also on both sides of it.
a drawdown of Israeli military forces,
I've never seen that suggested as part of a peace plan. The size of the Israeli army is up to Israel.
reduction of troop presence at crossing points between Palestinian areas and Israeli settlements.
Reduction of Israeli settlements. Then you won't need the army to guard them ;)
The essential decency of Western civilization is our greatest source of strength and what most clearly differentiates us from the savages we fight against. But Israelis could, perhaps, be excused for wondering if those of us far removed from Hezbollah's rockets are going a bit too far in indulging our moral vanity at their expense."
The biggest problem with Israeli tactics is that they don't work. Collective punishment of the Lebanese population has seen them rally round Hezbollah, because they are seen as the only ones who can stand up to Israel. Bombing of Lebanon has seen Hezbollah rocketing Israel, with 40 Israeli civilians killed.
What began as a border incident with 10 Israeli soldiers killed and captured has turned into 100 Israelis dead, over a thousand Lebanese dead, Israel's reputation in the world tarnished even more, Hezbollah's raised amongst the Arabs.
Look back to the news in the first couple of days of this. Hezbollah was being criticised throughout the Arab world. Israel has gone from being the victim to the agressor, and all because once again they have chosen precisely the wrong way of going about things.
You don't win a war against guerillas with overwhelming military force. It just doesn't work.
When Aerial Sharon came to power in Israel in 2000, promising to "let the IDF win", 4 Israeli civilians had been killed in Israel during the current intifada. By the time he left power, the figure was over 400. And Israel was seen as the bad guy.
What is the point of supporting tactics that don't just not work, but actually make the situation worse?
-
nashwan... you admit that the peice is a pure smear piece of propoganda but defend it by saying that all our news here (which you have no idea about) is just the same.... propoganda...
that we have no idea how many lebonese have been killed? that we don't see the lebonese dead? you have no idea what we see obviously.
You say that suicide bombers are not portrayed fairly? taken out of context? What context? that they are insane? we allready figured that out.
you have no solution. you admit as such but... you are against the solution that the people who have to live there come up with. They don't feel that your solution will prevent terrorists blowing their families up in the market place. I don't either.
If a strong hand did not work then the sadman could never have ruled iraq.
lazs