For nicky g, re: the media bias against Israel that I had charged

[Gamblor]

Julie Burchill, a columnist for the (UK) Guardian, one of Europe's most influential dailies, has published an open letter recognizing that paper's anti-Israel bent (what she calls a "dirty little secret masquerading as a moral stance") has simply gone overboard:

If there is one issue that has made me feel less loyal to my newspaper over the past year, it has been what I, as a non-Jew, perceive to be a quite striking bias against the state of Israel. ~ Nov. 29, 2003

The NY Times and *BBC* have both, for the first time, appointed ombudsmen to serve as internal watchdogs for accurate reporting on the conflict.

Not necessarily proof, but certainly swings the pendulum in my direction.

A little more:
The Photo that started it all (http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/reports/The_Photo_that_Started_it_All.asp)

Reuters: On Nov. 18, two Israeli soldiers were killed outside Bethlehem and a number of Palestinians were wounded in Gaza. Reuters had pictures of both events, but journalists who subscribe to Reuters' photo service were encouraged to publish the Palestinian victims in this email:

Dear User of the Reuters Pictures Archive,

Please find below a single picture presentation showing two Palestinians rushing a wounded Palestinian to hospital in the Rafah refugee camp in the southern part of the Gaza strip, November 18, 2003:

http://www.honestreporting.com/images/gazavictim.jpg

Or take this Oct. 3 Reuters photo and caption:

http://www.honestreporting.com/images/hamas.flags.jpg

Members of the Islamic movement Hamas burn the Israeli and the U.S. flag over a model of the Star of David during a march through the streets of the Jabalya refugee camp in Gaza and vow to continue the three-year-old uprising for statehood.

Hamas makes it perfectly clear in their official charter (http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html) that their goal is the destruction of the State of Israel, and not merely an independent Palestinian state. Legitimate liberation struggles do not target innocent civilians in a systematic manner. Yet Reuters persists in this charade, justifying the horrific terrorist acts.

On the BBC:

This year, the Beeb was brought to its knees by domestic controversy, but found time to promote and broadcast a film (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/correspondent/2837671.stm) that makes the outrageous claim that Israel used nerve gas against Palestinians in the Khan Younis refugee camp. EDIT: To put a democratic and free country on par with a ruthless dictator such as Saddam Hussein is ludicrous, no matter what the weapons are.

And in September, when a terrorist killed two Israelis while they were eating a holiday meal (and was then felled by a nearby soldier), the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3144102.stm) headlined the event: "Three Dead in West Bank Attack."

Thanks to honestreporting.com

[Chris Alger]

"Hamas makes it perfectly clear in their official charter that their goal is the destruction of the State of Israel, and not merely an independent Palestinian state."

This is true, although it doesn't imply genocide or even ethnic cleansing, a fact admitted by the persistent Zionist definition of any Arab majority or more substantial minority in Israel as amounting to the "destruction" of the Jewish state.

And since there can't be an "independent Palestinian state," much less the ideologically Islamic state that Hamas wants, on the same land as a Jewish state, it follows that Hamas's determination to "destroy" the "State of Israel" isn't substantively different than the Zionists' determination to "destroy" what the League of Nations called "the Government of Palestine" prior to the Zionists' actual destruction of Palestine in 1947-49, followed by the 1967 subjugation by the Jewish state of what remained of the former Palestine.

Accordingly, all media references to Zionists wanting "independence" for Israel or a "right to exist" are, in fact, no better than the half truths you're complaining about. The Jewish state by definition and historic fact required the destruction of mostly Arabic Palestine. It is therefore propaganda for the press to repeat Zionist claims without the same qualification you demand when describing the rejectionist Palestinian factions. I'm constantly reminded by Israeli partisans when I use the historic term for the land that "there is no such thing as Palestine." Quite so. Every media reference to Israeli rights and aspirations should also point out that Israel and its Zionist predecessors also demanded and obtained the permanent destruction of Palestine, indeed its erasure from the map, according to you.

My own view is that the media shouldn't be required to constantly reiterate the obvious. However, a more balanced description of the implications of Israeli "legitimacy" and "right to exist" might blunt some of the more nonsensical claims. These would include claims that the Isrealis have everything reason to fear that the Palestinians in some future century rise up and do to Israel what Israel did to Palestine. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have no good reason to be outraged by Israel, the historic "victim" of this conflict.

[Gamblor]

I'm going to ignore the first half of your post as it amounts to the usual rhetorical crap you spew - Palestine was never rejected by the Zionists, in fact, it was only West Palestine that was rejected. East Palestine remains a Palestinian state today, except it's now called Jordan.

own view is that the media shouldn't be required to constantly reiterate the obvious.

It certainly doesn't mean the captions should lie by claiming the uprising is NOT about an Islamic state on the land in what is now Israel.

If history has taught us anything about Jews, it's that being a minority has gotten them nowhere but killed.

[Chris Alger]

"I'm going to ignore the first half of your post as it amounts to the usual rhetorical crap you spew - Palestine was never rejected by the Zionists, in fact, it was only West Palestine that was rejected."

No, the Zionists of the 1920's complained loudly about Churchill's decision to create the Emirate of Transjordan but were powerless to do anything about it. What do you suppose the revisionists wanted to "revise"? Their slogan through the 1960's was "two banks to the Jordan: one is ours and the other too."

"It certainly doesn't mean the captions should lie by claiming the uprising is NOT about an Islamic state on the land in what is now Israel."

First, the captions you identified made no such "claim." Second, the current "uprising" or intifada is not about any "Islamic state" but about Isreal's withdrawal from the occupied territories, as the Palestinian rejectionist factions have insisted from the beginning. Time and again the Palestinians have offered to lay down arms in exchange for complete withdrawal and an end to Israeli terror attacks, yet Israel has never taken them up on it, not once.

"If history has taught us anything about Jews, it's that being a minority has gotten them nowhere but killed."

Another example of the self-pity pathology. It follows from this statement that Jews in the U.S., the second most successful minority group in the country, have gotten "nowhere but killed." It's positively insane.

[Gamblor]

Another example of the self-pity pathology. It follows from this statement that Jews in the U.S., the second most successful minority group in the country, have gotten "nowhere but killed." It's positively insane.

The Jews of Germany in the 1920s and 30s were far more assimilated than Jews of America, and look where it got them.

And one swallow does not a summer make.

Time and again the Palestinians have offered to lay down arms in exchange for complete withdrawal and an end to Israeli terror attacks, yet Israel has never taken them up on it, not once.

So now you're taking the word of terrorists and dictators over the word of democratically elected politicians.

Have you not considered the fact that these are the same people who send out (read: finance/train/brainwash) teenagers to blow themselves up with the express purpose of killing as many Israeli citizens (Jew or otherwise) as possible? Would you have a Palestinian State controlled by these same people? How can Israel allow that and maintain the integrity of its security?

Whatever the motivation, does it not strike you as possible that if their moral compass does not include prohibitions against murder, then it might not include a sanction against lying, and that in their minds, the occupation is all of Israel?

[ACPlayer]

How can Israel allow that and maintain the integrity of its security?

The Zionist answer to this question is Ethnic Cleansing. And Like a good neighbour the IDF is there. Good luck.

[Chris Alger]

"The Jews of Germany in the 1920s and 30s were far more assimilated than Jews of America, and look where it got them."

Are you seriously contending that the holocaust was at least partly the result of Jewish assimilation?

"So now you're taking the word of terrorists and dictators over the word of democratically elected politicians."

Aside from the logic of who might have the greater need and incentive to lie, the Israeli government is not "democratically elected" by the people that have to obey its dictates. There is no Israeli democracy in the occupied territories, no right to vote or of public participation in the Israeli law-making process. If there were there would be no occupation. In the occupied territories, Israel is a dictatorship, and a rather nasty one at that.

More importantly, Israel has never considered withdrawing in exchange for peace. Both major parties have always expressly rejected it, generally on the grounds that Israel is "threatened" by Jordan, a country who's last military foray against Israel consisted of two days of retalliatory fighting 35 years ago, with whom Israel has enjoyed an unbroken peace treaty and full mutual recognition relations since 1994 and whom, in any event, would remain forever on Israel's eastern border, forever in the military shadow of Israel's nuclear-backed military collossus. The Jordanian "threat" is what Sharon means when he refers to the Green Line as the "Auschwitz borders." Same with those FLAME ads that show Israeli vulnerability at its "narrow waist."

"Have you not considered the fact that these are the same people who send out (read: finance/train/brainwash) teenagers to blow themselves up with the express purpose of killing as many Israeli citizens (Jew or otherwise) as possible?"

No, the "purpose" they "express" is to pressure Israel to withdraw from the territories and to refrain from killing people in them.

"Would you have a Palestinian State controlled by these same people?"

I would not. Are you suggesting that if a state's leadership consists of those with a proven record of deliberate, premeditated killing of civilians then that state has no right to exist, and that the people living in it have no right to elect their own leaders?

"How can Israel allow that and maintain the integrity of its security?"

By refraining from doing the thing that undermines its security: the occupation.

"Whatever the motivation, does it not strike you as possible that if their moral compass does not include prohibitions against murder, then it might not include a sanction against lying, and that in their minds, the occupation is all of Israel?"

If you mean Hamas and the other rejectionist fronts, there is no question in my mind that the believe that Israel, or "Israel" as they say, is merely an occupying terrorist army no matter where in the holy land it locates itself.

But that is not what they mean by withdrawing from the territories, as they have made clear both in words and deeds (e.g., the several cease-fires they have entered into where Israel has refused to reciprocate, much less withdraw). It is true that they will undoubtedly "struggle" to "liberate" the rest of Palestine, but it is also clear that what modest support their terrorism enjoys from the Palestinian masses would evaporate if it meant Israeli re-occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, especially since any Israeli "withdrawal" would also include years of foreign troops and monitors in Palestinean areas, something the PA has requested for years. In other words, upon withdrawal the rejectionists would lose their cause celebre and be relegated to the sidelines of Palestinian life, assuming they avoided outright liquidation. Numerous polls show that few Palestinians want an Islamic theocracy or a perpetual death struggle with Israel that they cannot possibly win.

[Gamblor]

Are you seriously contending that the holocaust was at least partly the result of Jewish assimilation?

No, I am contending, that assimilation and economic success are no guarantee of security, as you contend here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=449013&page=0&view=co llapsed&sb=5&o=14&vc=1):

Another example of the self-pity pathology. It follows from this statement that Jews in the U.S., the second most successful minority group in the country, have gotten "nowhere but killed." It's positively insane.

Aside from the logic of who might have the greater need and incentive to lie, the Israeli government is not "democratically elected" by the people that have to obey its dictates.

Nor is it democratically elected by the people that have to destroy it to succeed in their goal. Whether or not the state itself is Islamist is irrelevant when Arab leaders talk of the grand, sweeping, pan-Arabian peninsula. They still carry this dream, to the detriment of Israeli Jews.

No, the "purpose" they "express" is to pressure Israel to withdraw from the territories and to refrain from killing people in them.

Actually, their purpose is here (http://www.pmw.org.il/new/).

This ain't commentary or rhetoric. This is truth.

But that is not what they mean by withdrawing from the territories, as they have made clear both in words and deeds

Is that so (http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/slideshowimages/slide1.html)?

[Chris Alger]

There's a slight difference between saying being a minority has gotten Jews "nothing but killed" and saying that assimilation is no panacea.

I have no idea which of the 30 or so links on your Israeli propaganda website you are inviting me to look at.

The maps you point to are absolutely legitimate. The Palestinians claim Palestine as their homeland. Israelis claim "Eretz Israel," which encompasses at least the same territory. Unlike Israel, however, the Palestinians have agreed to compromise their claim and limit their sovereignty to less than one-fourth of the former Palestine, pending the outcome of negotiations to resolve borders, refugees, Jerusalem, settlements and other issues. The PLO and the agreed in the Oslo Accords not to take any step that would prejudice the final status of these negotiations, such as declaring indpendence. Identifying the occupied territories as "Palestine" would be such a step.

Israel refused to participate in good faith in these negotiations and three years ago abandon them altogether. To prevent them from restarting Israel has imposed unilateral conditions on the already pro-Israel Roadmap and undertaken the process of adding mroe settlements and stealing more land. It is Israel that has refused to renounce its claim, not the Palestinians.

[Gamblor]

The only Israeli demand is for the PA to stop inciting and supporting terrorism.

Again, is it so lost on you that the same people who finance oh, say, some uniforms for members of terrorist groups, might also lie about their intentions?

Camp David gave us a good idea of what Arafat is up to. The violence began a short while after Waterskiing and Arts and Crafts. Just before Incitement.

As far as Sharon goes, his job is to uphold the demands of the majority of his electorate. Which he has done. He no longer has the religious parties in his coalition, opting instead for secularists (Shinui) and dreaming peaceniks (Labour).

Remind me which sovereign state owns all that land that Israel is stealing.

Oh, and simply calling it propaganda doesn't mean it isn't true. Ignore the articles if you think they're propaganda. There's lots of PA TV clips from there, I don't see how you could go wrong picking any of them for a good idea of what they're thinking.

www.pmw.org.il/new (http://www.pmw.org.il/new)

Most exciting are the PA claims that Israel drops poison candies in front of schoolhouses, plants bombs in toys for children, and Jews drink the blood of Arabs. That one's my favourite. Barkeep, pass me a Bloody Yussuf.

[nicky g]

You should read a bit more by Ms Burchill before you go using her to endorse your theories. She's a lunatic self-avowed Stalinist (seriously) who uses her column in the Guardian for the sole purposes of winding up its mildly left-wing middle class readers.

As for the supposed BBC bias, there was a documentary on there a few weeks ago you would have appreciated, called "Terror Tourists" or something similarly ridiculous. It was about people travelling to Israel to be trained by the IDF (I think) in "counter-terrorism" as a holiday. They spent most of their time in West Bank settlements, patrolling with the IDF in the West Bank etc. There was absolutely zero mention of the occupation or any sort of context to the "terrorism" it kept referring to. You would have loved it.

"The NY Times and *BBC* have both, for the first time, appointed ombudsmen to serve as internal watchdogs for accurate reporting on the conflict. "

So I saw. Seems a shame to crumble so cravenly before the pro-Israeli agenda, especially for one of the most renowedly impartial broadcasters with far more experience of what consititutes objectivity that politicsed lobbyists, but looks like you can sleep more easily now.

Talking of media bias, every single report on the infamous poll I've read recently has misreported it to claim that a majority of Europeans rated Israel the number on threat to world peace, when in fact that wasn't the case (a majority of Europeans found Israel a threat to world peace, and more peope rated Israel a threat to world peace than any other country, but there was no question regarding what country was the number one/greatest threat, or anything at all about rating degrees of threat). I wonder who is spinning that particular line?

[Gamblor]

Where in that poll was the "Palestinian Authority" option?

[nicky g]

Isn't a state.

I'm on holiday. I can't believe I've gotten into this - I just meant to check my email. I'll give you the last word.

[Gamblor]

Hehe enjoy your holiday.

Merry Christmas (obviously making an assumption)

And Chag Sameach to your wife.