MEDIA BIAS?...who us?

[zenith-nadir]

From: Clashes Erupt at Jerusalem Shrine - Fri Apr 2, 2004 05:45 AM ET - Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=VHLHE3V0VTII0CRBAEKSF FA?type=worldNews&storyID=4735480&section=news)

I will quote the entire article because it is short.

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli police stormed the square outside al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites, on Friday after Palestinians stoned police and Jewish worshippers at Judaism's Western Wall nearby, police and witnesses said.

Police said they used stun grenades in an effort to disperse hundreds of stone throwers at the end of Friday Muslim prayers outside the flashpoint shrine in Jerusalem's walled Old City.

Jewish worshippers at the Western Wall below were quickly evacuated after the stone-throwing began.

There was no immediate word of casualties.



Ok, I am so ***** pissed off at this moment I don't know how to begin. This is the t-y-p-i-c-a-l media-spin B.S. Israel endures every day.

1) Who rioted outside al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites? Israeli police?...or ...Palestinian Muslims rioting at the end of Friday Muslim prayers?

2) Who attacked without provocation outside al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites? Israeli police?...or ...Palestinian Muslims rioting at the end of Friday Muslim prayers?

3) Who desecrated the al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites and Judaism's Western Wall nearby by rioting? Israeli police?...or ...Palestinian Muslims rioting at the end of Friday Muslim prayers?


But alas, the palestinians are only "throwing stones", not "rioting" not "attacking unprovoked", not "desecrating" Islam's holiest sites and Judaism's Western Wall AFTER PRAYERS...it is only the Israeli police who get the juicy adjectives like "storming one of Islam's holiest sites"



Here is how the story should read if Reuters wasn't run by goose-stepping nazis ;

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - At the end of Friday Muslim prayers outside the al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites, Palestinians rioted and stoned police and Israeli worshippers at Judaism's Western Wall nearby, police and witnesses said.

The unprovoked attack by hundreds of palestinian muslim worshippers outside one of Islam's holiest sites was STOPPED by Israeli police who used stun grenades in an effort to disperse hundreds of rioting palestinians.

Worshippers at the Western Wall below were quickly evacuated after the stone-throwing began.

There was no immediate word of casualties.

Media bias at it's apex.... :mad:

[zenith-nadir]

CNN isn't much better but at least they admit some facts;

Israeli police enter holy site to quell protests - Friday, April 2, 2004 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/02/mideast/index.html) JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Israeli police entered a Jerusalem holy site and used stun grenades and rubber pellets to quell Palestinians throwing rocks at police and Jewish worshippers at the end of Friday prayers at the Al Aqsa Mosque, according to a police spokesman.

Around 12:30 p.m. (5:30 a.m. ET), several hundred Palestinians started throwing rocks at the police standing on the outer side of the Mughrabi gate, the spokesman said.

Israeli police said rocks and shoes were thrown onto the Western Wall, where Jewish worshippers were praying, and that prompted police to move onto the grounds. Throwing shoes is an insult in the Arab world.

The police entered the mosque area, but not the mosque itself, and forced the assailants back, police said.


At CNN the Israeli police "entered" not "stormed" as in the Reuters article. At CNN the Israeli police "quelled" "Palestinians throwing rocks" and not "stopped a riot" by palestinians at "Islam's holiest site". At least at CNN the Israeli police are not the "aggressors" at "Islam's holiest site" as is the case in the Reuters news article.

[shemp]

So what happened before the alleged Palestinian rock-throwing? And what happened before that? And before that? And etc. etc. etc.?

You would like us maybe to think that the Palestinians just appeared out of nowhere and threw rocks for no reason? The cycle of violence goes back hundreds of years, baby, and it's not going to stop tomorrow. Of course, your solution is to build a giant wall and make a Jewish fortress. Well, fortresses crumble eventually. Isn't it better to seek peace? Your solution is no solution at all, just another incitement to violence.

[shemp]

Let's get something clear about my position on Israel: you've got two sides, both crazy religious fanatics, who both claim the same territory. History says that in this situation, one side will eventually be defeated. The side with numbers usually wins. If Israel continues to pursue a course of violent engagement, it will eventually be destroyed by sheer numbers, as soon as the U.S. loses interest in playing the Middle East game. If Israel wants to survive, the only course is to seek lasting peace. The violence that is going on there now is the fault of BOTH sides, not just one as you love to portray it.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by shemp
So what happened before the alleged Palestinian rock-throwing? And what happened before that? And before that? And etc. etc. etc.?You would like us maybe to think that the Palestinians just appeared out of nowhere and threw rocks for no reason? This is the type of UTTER hypocrisy that I am speaking about. YES SHEMP, THE PALESTINIANS CAME OUT OF al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites, AND STARTED A RIOT. END OF STORY. Accept it.

It's apologists like you who do a disservice to the palestinians. You lie to cover for their inexcusable actions and then have the balls to say **** like; You would like us maybe to think that the Palestinians just appeared out of nowhere and threw rocks for no reason?.

Ok Shemp what did the Israeli police or the jews praying at the Western Wall do to PROVOKE the attack by hundreds of Palestinians worshippers at the al-Aqsa Mosque today? Was it letting them pray at the al-Aqsa Mosque? Was it giving them access to the al-Aqsa Mosque? Was it the jews at the Western Wall were praying too loudly? Help me understand your bizzare justifications...I am all ears....

[shemp]

My point was that things don't happen in a vacuum. Both sides constantly provoke each other through their mutual claims of territory and religious sites.

Please explain again how the Israeli "War is Peace" policy is going to bring lasting peace to the Middle east?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by shemp
History says that in this situation, one side will eventually be defeated. The side with numbers usually wins. If Israel continues to pursue a course of violent engagement, it will eventually be destroyed by sheer numbers, as soon as the U.S. loses interest in playing the Middle East game.

Hey, Shemp, I'll take that bet.

Your point regarding the totality of the situation is well taken, though... not the ancient feud so much as that day and place. It's entirely feasible that some provaction, real or imagined, took place.

The problem arises in the absence of such details, though, and there's usually an absence. Barring any revelations to the contrary, I am generally inclined to give the Israelis the benefit of the doubt moreso than the Palestinians, for the simple reason that the Israelis were still praying and the Palestinitians had apparently just finished praying. And from what I've generally heard gets preached in some mosques, the possibility of fired-up Palis and a target of opportunity does make sense.

Aside to ZN: I generally agree with you on media bias in these cases, but this article didn't look skewed to me. The only line that really mattered, in my opinion, was that there were no casualties. That reflects very well on the Israelis, though I'm sure it will be lost on the Three Stooges... as will my reasons for analysing the situation as I have.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by shemp
My point was that things don't happen in a vacuum. Both sides constantly provoke each other through their mutual claims of territory and religious sites. Ok Shemp, how is Israel letting palestinians pray at the al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites, provocative? How were the palestinian rioters "provoked" AFTER PRAYER at the al-Aqsa Mosque to attack Israeli police and jewish worshippers SHARING the temple mount with them? Hey, convince me I am wrong, I am not opposed to rational debate.



MEANWHILE...

1) On September 28, 2000, Likud leader Ariel Sharon went to visit the Temple Mount, the palestinian resonse was the current 3-year “Al Aksa-Intifada”.

2) On Monday, December 22, 2003, Egypt's foreign minister was assaulted and insulted as he tried to worship INSIDE of Islam's most sacred shrines, the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

3) On Friday April 2, 2004 several hundred Palestinians started throwing rocks at the Israeli police and worshippers at Judaism's Western Wall.


So which way is it shemp? Is the Al Aqsa Mosque sacred EXCEPT to riot in and attack muslims and jews? Or perhaps once again this is an irrational act that has no provocation and perhaps the palestinians were goaded to riot through prayers at the al-Aqsa Mosque. Why would muslims desecrate the al-Aqsa Mosque? Isn't palestinian riots at the al-Aqsa Mosque frowned upon by OTHER muslims? or is it accepted because "things don't happen in a vacuum"?

Explain shemp...

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Jocko
Aside to ZN: I generally agree with you on media bias in these cases, but this article didn't look skewed to me. The only line that really mattered, in my opinion, was that there were no casualties. That reflects very well on the Israelis, though I'm sure it will be lost on the Three Stooges... as will my reasons for analysing the situation as I have. That is my point Jocko. The Israeli police protected lives and stopped a riot without casualties, Palestinian or Israeli. But alas the media spin is the Israeli police; "stormed" the square outside al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites... They would not have "stormed" had there been NO RIOT.

The media spin is blatantly anti-Israel, the cause is glossed over as "stone throwers", rather than a palestinian riot on the holiest ground on Earth!, (see: Church of Nativity Seige), and the "effect" is the subject;[QUOTE] "Israeli police stormed"

[zenith-nadir]

Just to illustrate the bias again so I can assure you I am not smoking crack while popping "E"...

BBC - Friday, 2 April, 2004 - Clashes erupt at al-Aqsa mosque (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3593599.stm)

Israeli police have stormed the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and fired tear gas after Palestinian youths reportedly threw stones after Friday prayers. So Israeli police "stormed" Temple mount after Palestinian youths "reportedly" threw stones. The effect is the subject, not the cause. Hell the cause is only "reported" not a fact yet.

It continues to say;Many worshippers took refuge in the al-Aqsa mosque - one of Islam's holiest sites - but some young men in the doorway threw stones at the police.So the mean old police made the poor old worshippers take refuge in the al-Aqsa mosque. Damn those racist apartheid zionist police! Media bias plain and simple to discredit the party of the "effect" and not the party reponsible for the "cause".

[zenith-nadir]

Why am I so pissed?

Because the media reports Israeli police on the holiest site in Islam. A fact. Across the Arab world the pictures will be Israeli police fighting M-U-S-L-I-M-S around the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Just like the media spun the Israelis "forcing" the "innocent" palestinians-with-AK-47s-and-grenade-launchers take "refuge" the Church of the Nativity.

What kind of reaction do you think there will be amongst the 1.3 billion M-U-S-L-I-M-S tonight as they watch the news...will they see the initial palestinian riot?, "cause", or the "zionists" firing tear gas? "effect".

YET, the Israeli police would not be firing tear gas had palestinians not started a riot and threw rocks at worshippers praying at judaism's holiest site. But that is now irrelevant, the tail now wags the dog. :mad:

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Just to illustrate the bias again so I can assure you I am not smoking crack while popping "E"...

BBC - Friday, 2 April, 2004 - Clashes erupt at al-Aqsa mosque (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3593599.stm)

So Israeli police "stormed" Temple mount after Palestinian youths "reportedly" threw stones. The effect is the subject, not the cause. Hell the cause is only "reported" not a fact yet.

It continues to say;So the mean old police made the poor old worshippers take refuge in the al-Aqsa mosque. Damn those racist apartheid zionist police! Media bias plain and simple to discredit the party of the "effect" and not the party reponsible for the "cause".

Two specific points:

Firstly "storming" does not always carry a negative connotation, certainly in the British media. For examples see coverage of the Iranian embassy siege in 1980. This is almost universally referred to as the storming of the Iranian Embassy.

Unless you are suggesting that the correspondent actually witnessed the stone throwing, what words do you expect him to use about it other than reported? He has two contradictory stories and mentions them both in his report (from the Israeli police spokeman via AFP and from a member of the Islamic board).

Perhaps you would prefer a news media required to report only the "facts" that you agree with, but I would prefer mine to give an unbiased picture and draw my own conclusions. That is what he has done by including the two different stories about what happened.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Two specific points:Firstly "storming" does not always carry a negative connotation, certainly in the British media. For examples see coverage of the Iranian embassy siege in 1980. This is almost universally referred to as the storming of the Iranian Embassy.But Jaggy the Israelis are NOT "storming" the Al Aksa Mosque in a takeover attempt. "Police are stopping a riot", not "storming". Sorry, the BBC characterization is biased.


Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Unless you are suggesting that the correspondent actually witnessed the stone throwing, what words do you expect him to use about it other than reported? So the Israelis "stormed" the Al Aksa Mosque for fun? Something to do on a friday evening in Jerusalem?

"Gee Manachem let's go on a rampage and storm the Al Aksa Mosque, I'm bored and I got all these great tear gas grenades burnin a hole in my pocket"..."Ok, I'm bored too, do you think our government will be mad if we "storm" the holiest site in Islam today cuz we've got nothing better to do?"..."Naaaaa".....

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Perhaps you would prefer a news media required to report only the "facts" that you agree with, but I would prefer mine to give an unbiased picture and draw my own conclusions. That is what he has done by including the two different stories about what happened I disagree with the BBC characterization of the incident. Not the facts. The image the BBC paints is Israeli police "storming" the mosque while firing tear gas at "youths". Not the Israeli police stopping a riot.

[Graham]

How do we know the Palestinians were rioting?

Because you say so?

If you want to discredit these news sources, you need to post alternative sources.

More credible alternative sources preferably but any at all would be a start.

Graham

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Graham
How do we know the Palestinians were rioting?Because you say so?If you want to discredit these news sources, you need to post alternative sources. More credible alternative sources preferably but any at all would be a start.Graham How do you know the Israeli police wanted to "storm" the Al Aksa Mosque unprovoked? Because you say so? More credible alternative sources preferably but any at all would be a start. zenith-nadir ;)

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
But Jaggy the Israelis are NOT "storming" the Al Aksa Mosque in a takeover attempt. "Police are stopping a riot", not "storming". Sorry, the BBC characterization is biased.


So the Israelis "stormed" the Al Aksa Mosque for fun? Something to do on a friday evening in Jerusalem?

"Gee Manachem let's go on a rampage and storm the Al Aksa Mosque, I'm bored and I got all these great tear gas grenades burnin a hole in my pocket"..."Ok, I'm bored too, do you think our government will be mad if we "storm" the holiest site in Islam today cuz we've got nothing better to do?"..."Naaaaa".....

I disagree with the BBC characterization of the incident. Not the facts. The image the BBC paints is Israeli police "storming" the mosque while firing tear gas at "youths". Not the Israeli police stopping a riot.

No, you disagree with the BBC report because it is not biased in your favour. It is a reasonable, unbiased report which may be why you don't like it.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
No, you disagree with the BBC report because it is not biased in your favour. It is a reasonable, unbiased report which may be why you don't like it. As I said I disagree with the characterization of the incident. Not the facts.

For the sake of arguement....In Edinburgh is it common for the police to "storm" a bunch of "youths" in a mosque for no reason? Is that how they get their kicks? Or in Edinburgh do the "youths" in a mosque usually have to do something which caused the police to storm them? How does it work in there?

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Graham
How do we know the Palestinians were rioting?

Because you say so?


JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli police stormed the square outside al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites, on Friday after Palestinians stoned police and Jewish worshippers at Judaism's Western Wall nearby, police and witnesses said.

I think stoning police and worshipers qualifies as rioting.

While we're talking about media bias, how about only mentioning al-Aqsa mosque in relation to Islam without any mention of it's importance to Judaism?

[Graham]

Originally posted by Mycroft




I think stoning police and worshipers qualifies as rioting.

While we're talking about media bias, how about only mentioning al-Aqsa mosque in relation to Islam without any mention of it's importance to Judaism?

The latter is more likely poor journalism than malicious bias, IMHO.

As regards the former, if throwing stones and rioting are the same thing the Zenith Nader has no complaint since all of the articles clearly state that stone throwing was occuring.

Graham

[daenku32]

zenith, you are arguing over semantics.

If they said "rioting", someone might complain that "they weren't tipping over cars!"

Anyone with an average or higher intelligence can tell that the police was doing their job.

Besides, using word like "unprovoked" means that you believe it MUST have been unprovoked. Media doesn't necessarily know if it was unprovoked.

[daenku32]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
As I said I disagree with the characterization of the incident. Not the facts.

For the sake of arguement....In Edinburgh is it common for the police to "storm" a bunch of "youths" in a mosque for no reason? Is that how they get their kicks? Or in Edinburgh do the "youths" in a mosque usually have to do something which caused the police to storm them? How does it work in there?

Excatly what part of "after Palestinians stoned police and Jewish worshippers" in the Reuters news implied that the Police started it?

[zenith-nadir]

Graham - The latter is more likely poor journalism than malicious bias, IMHO.Here's the difference. Two sentences;

1) BBC Quote : "Israeli police have stormed the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and fired tear gas after Palestinian youths reportedly threw stones after Friday prayers". What comes to mind? What aggressive act is reported first?

2) Actual chain of events : "Palestinian youths in Jerusalem riot on the Temple Mount after Friday prayers, Israeli police respond with tear gas" What comes to mind? What aggressive act is reported first?


daenku32 - Excatly what part of "after Palestinians stoned police and Jewish worshippers" in the Reuters news implied that the Police started it?.Same thing. Two sentences;

1) Reuters Quote : "Israeli police stormed the square outside al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites, on Friday after Palestinians stoned police and Jewish worshippers at Judaism's Western Wall nearby, police and witnesses said". What comes to mind? What aggressive act is reported first?

2) Actual chain of events : "Palestinians stone police and Jewish worshippers at one of judaism's and Islam's holiest sites on Friday, Israeli police responded with tear gas and arrests.". What comes to mind? What aggressive act is reported first?

[demon]

ZN
"THE PALESTINIANS CAME OUT OF al-Aqsa Mosque, one of Islam's holiest sites, AND STARTED A RIOT. END OF STORY. Accept it."

Were you there?
If not, what makes you so certain as to the train of events?
If it had been reported as you would have liked it to have been reported you would have had no problem.
Because it wasn`t reported the way you wanted it to be reported ie wacko Palestinians go crazy with their stones and pointy sticks at poor law abiding Israelis, you get a cob on.

When most people don`t even know what the occupied territories are, or the ratio of Israeli killings to Palestinian killings, or the huge amounts of aid that Israel sucks leech like from the US, or Israeli`s constant flouting of international law and the Geneva Convention do you honestly think many people take you seriously about "typical" anti-Israel bias in the media?
You take a lot of people for idiots around here ZN with crap like this, people on both sides of the Palestine/Israeli/USA issue.

[Grammatron]

If you really want to see media bias check out this title.

"Sharon Says Arafat May Be Target, Zionist Police Storm Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound "

From http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=4/3/2004&Cat=2&Num=013

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Graham
The latter is more likely poor journalism than malicious bias, IMHO.

I think most bias is not malicious, and that's true on any subject. That doesn't make the bias any less.

Originally posted by Graham As regards the former, if throwing stones and rioting are the same thing the Zenith Nader has no complaint since all of the articles clearly state that stone throwing was occuring.

Graham

Bias in news reporting is rarely a matter of factual accuracy as much as it is on emphasis. I believe that on politically charged issues, extra care should be taken.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by demon
Were you there?If not, what makes you so certain as to the train of events?

Reuters - "...after Palestinians stoned police and Jewish worshippers at Judaism's Western Wall nearby"

CNN - "to quell Palestinians throwing rocks at police and Jewish worshippers at the end of Friday prayers at the Al Aqsa Mosque.

BBC - "after Palestinian youths reportedly threw stones after Friday prayers."

Tehrantimes - "Stone-throwing by Palestinian youths after Friday prayers at east Beit-ul-Moqaddas’ Al-Aqsa mosque compound, prompted a rare raid by Israeli police"


Originally posted by demon
If it had been reported as you would have liked it to have been reported you would have had no problem.
Yes. If it had been reported like the Tehrantimes reported it;Stone-throwing by Palestinian youths after Friday prayers at east Beit-ul-Moqaddas’ Al-Aqsa mosque compound, prompted a rare raid by Israeli police, who fired stun grenades, tear gas and rubber bullets on hundreds of Palestinians holed up inside the mosque, an AFP reporter witnessed.Notice something? The Israeli police didn't "storm" Islam's holiest site F-I-R-S-T. The story is in chronological order. Israeli police responded in a rare raid, which is true, to stone-throwing Palestinians. Funny how the Tehrantimes gets the events in proper order and does not use flowery adjectives like "storm" in fact they tell the truth and call the event a "rare raid" unlike the bias of the BBC or Reuters. Ironic.

[epepke]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Tehrantimes - "Stone-throwing by Palestinian youths after Friday prayers at east Beit-ul-Moqaddas’ Al-Aqsa mosque compound, prompted a rare raid by Israeli police"

Interesting that the Teheran Times reported this most accurately.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by epepke
Interesting that the Teheran Times reported this most accurately. Thats my point. I don't have issue with the facts, just the way they are characterized and chronologically represented.....obviously a bias exsists at the BBC and Reuters.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by shemp
Let's get something clear about my position on Israel: you've got two sides, both crazy religious fanatics, who both claim the same territory. History says that in this situation, one side will eventually be defeated.


Hey, for once I agree with you. But then you go and ruin it all:


The side with numbers usually wins.


Not in modern warfare. The side that wins is the side with greater industrial capacity. You're an idiot for ever suggesting otherwise. And Israel is miles ahead of the Palestinians on industrial capacity.


If Israel continues to pursue a course of violent engagement, it will eventually be destroyed by sheer numbers, as soon as the U.S. loses interest in playing the Middle East game.


This is a misperception shared by the Palestinians, who do not realize the truth: if pushed to it, the Israelis will utterly destroy the Palestinians rather than be destroyed themselves, and that's completely reasonable. The Palestinians had best wake up to this fact: nothing keeps them from extermination other than Israel's restraint.


If Israel wants to survive, the only course is to seek lasting peace. The violence that is going on there now is the fault of BOTH sides, not just one as you love to portray it.

Israel is indeed not faultless, but pursueing peace will lead to failure, because the Palestinians mistakenly believe as you do that they will win eventually, so they have no interest in peace. If Israel wants peace, it must pursue victory. Because it is only if the Palestinians realize that they are doomed to defeat that they will ever be interested in peace.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
Because it is only if the Palestinians realize that they are doomed to defeat that they will ever be interested in peace.

1948 - Arabs lost.
1956 - Arabs lost.
1967 - Arabs lost.
1973 - Arabs lost.
1988 - Intifada #1 Palestinians lost.
2000 - Intifada #2 Palestinians are losing.
1964-2004 - Arab-palestinian terror war against Israel, Israel still exsists, Arabs lost.


The only Arabs that have accepted defeat are Egypt and Jordan, all other Arab nations are still technically at war. Go figure.

[Skeptic]

You would like us maybe to think that the Palestinians just appeared out of nowhere and threw rocks for no reason?

Well, there was a reason: the preachers in the prayers told them they should stone the "sons of dogs and pigs" (i.e., the jews) who dare to "desecrate" the holy Arab land with their presence. Stoning the jews is a religious duty.

Why do you ask?

The truth is, the source of the conflict is the utter refusal of the Arabs to live in peace with the jews, or to be satisfied with anything less than "throwing the jews into the sea". Yes this genocidal agression is shrugged off as a matter of no consequence.

As for "seeking peace"--that was tried before. Every single agreement with the "peace loving" Palestinians was broken the moment it was convenient for them, with renewed violence and calls to throw the jews into the sea.

To "seek peace" with the Palestinians is like "seeking peace" with Hitler. The goal is the same (genociding the jews) and the tactics are the same (signing and then breaking agreements, and talking of "peace talks" while waging war). There's no point to it.

[rockoon]

The media is mostly apologetic in regards to Israel. The state of Israel is as bad as the Palestinians and I am frankly embarassed that my government pumps so much money into their country without anything of real merit to show for it.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by rockoon
The media is mostly apologetic in regards to Israel. The state of Israel is as bad as the Palestinians and I am frankly embarassed that my government pumps so much money into their country without anything of real merit to show for it. Just so you can make an informed decision here are some recent American foreign aid totals for 2003;


Israel gets about $2.1 billion per year
Egypt annually gets around $1.3 billion
Colombia, the third-largest beneficiary, gets around $540 million per year.
Jordan gets about $250 million in economic support and $198 million in military financing in FY 2003.
Peru, Ukraine, and Russia each receive about $200 million annually in economic and military aid.
Pakistan will get $200 million in economic aid and $50 million in military support.
Arafat’s Palestinian Authority benefits from $70 million a year in U.S. aid through U.N. refugee assistance programs, as well as an additional $75 million administered to water, housing, employment, and democracy programs.
Yemen will receive $10 million in U.S. economic support.



But USAID to the Palestinian Authority ceased in 2004 because;

Washington Times - January 08, 2004 (http://washingtontimes.com/world/20040107-110323-1224r.htm) Palestinian organizations are refusing to accept U.S. foreign aid this year, rather than sign a pledge promising that the money will not be used to support terrorism.

"This requirement is a worldwide requirement, not just for Palestinians," said Portia Palmer, a spokesman for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). "The majority of the [nongovernmental organizations] worldwide have signed it."

The Palestinian Red Crescent, which has received about $300,000 a year in U.S. aid in the past, refused to sign the pledge and will forgo U.S. funding this year.

[davefoc]

ZN there are literally hundreds if not thousands of stories on the web describing the violence and harassment of Palestinians by the Israeli settlers. The IDF seems unable or unwilling to curtail this kind of thing.

Do you see that even if the stories are only partially true that the cause of the stories is that the Israelis are subsidizing extremist settlers to occupy land that is generally not recognized as Israeli and these settlers act as provocateurs. These settlers have religious and economic motivations for maintaining the constant state of hostility between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Until these settlers are removed there can be no just peace. The US has become a co-conspirator in this injustice because it is the US aid that allows the Israelis to continue to lavish huge subsidies on these settlers and huge military expenditures to protect these settlements.

Can you acknowledge at even the most minimalist level that if the situation was reversed and the Palestinians were using superior military force to maintain settlements inside Israel that you'd see that as a grave violation of Israeli rights.

Do you have any comments on any of these stories?
http://www.bobmay.info/oct122002farming.htm
Yesterday I got a call from my friend Alison who works at the Bethlehem Bible College. She told me that her husband George's family farm had been damaged by a group of Israeli settlers. Settlers came in the dead of night and bulldozed a road to and through the family property uprooting small trees, snapping fences, and destroying rock walls.

http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ViewsPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article^l2426&enZone=Views&enVersion=0&

Israeli newspaper article discussing the settlements

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/janfeb03/0301015.html

Mary Hughes-Thompson has a new category to add to her résumé: veteran of the War of Olives. The retired TV writer and licensed private pilot arrived home in Los Angeles battered from a severe beating by armed Israeli settlers Oct. 27 on the West Bank.

While it seemed incomprehensible that muscular teenage men would beat an elderly woman, the 68-year-old grandmother said, they did—and they seemed to enjoy it.


http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel/hebron6-07.htm
But in the H2 area of Hebron, as in other Israeli-controlled areas in Hebron district such as the Baqa`a valley, it is clear that the majority of physical attacks are initiated by Israeli settlers, and that the IDF has consistently failed in its obligation to protect Palestinian civilians from attacks by Israeli settlers.

http://www.cpt.org/hebron/HebChronology.htm
Cliff Kindy and Jeff Heie are detained for nine hours while accompanying a water tank truck sent by the city government to fill the cistern belonging to the Abu Haikel family. The municipality had stopped delivering water to people who lived near Israeli settlements because Israeli settlers had broken the windshield of the water truck too many times. As a result of the detention, international attention is drawn to the CPT project in Hebron, and the Israeli public demands an investigation into why there is a water shortage in Hebron when the settlements around Hebron have plenty. The arrests also bring CPT into contact with the Society of St. Yves, which offers free legal help to the team and eventually represents several families in Hebron.

[zenith-nadir]

So now we are talking about settlers allegedly attacking palestinians and not palestinians rioting on the Temple Mount after friday prayer?

Turnspeak involves taking an incident and then turning things around 180 degrees in order to justify the event. (ie: "Palestinians riot on Temple Mount because "settlers" attack palestinians in the West Bank")

And the "stories" you quote davefoc come from the Human Rights Watch, The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs - which publishes a grand total of 10 magazines a year, Christian Peacemaker Teams AND News and Views from Bethlehem by Bob the Methodist? Those are your credible unbiased sources? Yikes...

I especially like the article you link from IsraelInsider News, but mysteriously do not quote from;So who are these Israeli settlers? - By Neill Lochery - The stereotypical image of the 180,000-plus Israeli settlers who inhabit the West Bank and Gaza Strip is of machine-gun-totting, Arab-hating Jews, hey, funny, davefoc just did that..., Politically they are characterized, by an increasingly hostile media, as extremist and the major Israeli obstacle to peace.Anyhow I am not going to validate your turnspeak. On friday after prayers p-a-l-e-s-t-i-n-i-a-n-s, not settlers, rioted on the temple mount.

meanwhile;

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040402/lthumb.jrl80204021503.mideast_israel_palestinians_ jrl802.jpg
"An Israeli woman praying at the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest site, reacts as she waits to be evacuated following stone-throwing from Muslim worshippers"

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040402/lthumb.jrl11004021451.mideast_israel_palestinians_ jrl110.jpg
"An elderly Jewish worshipper is helped by an Israeli riot policeman to flee the Western Wall, Judaism's holiest site, during a confrontation at the Al Aqsa Mosque compound, in Jerusalem's Old City, Friday, April 2, 2004"

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040402/s/r1513019654.jpg
"Jewish worshippers cower against the western wall to protect themselves from stones during heavy clashes between Palestinians and Israeli border police in Jerusalem's Old City April 2, 2004."

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
As I said I disagree with the characterization of the incident. Not the facts.

For the sake of arguement....In Edinburgh is it common for the police to "storm" a bunch of "youths" in a mosque for no reason? Is that how they get their kicks? Or in Edinburgh do the "youths" in a mosque usually have to do something which caused the police to storm them? How does it work in there?

No it is not common - what is your point?

What is common is the BBC using the phrase "storm" to describe policing actions:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3597443.stm - about the Madrid police preparing to storm the terrorist hideout before the terrorists blew themselves up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/3362459.stm - Welsh police and a block of flats.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3279807.stm - Turkish police and a courthouse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3184368.stm - Czech police and nightclubs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3118170.stm - US police and a classroom seige.

Therefore it is absolutely apparent that the use of the term "storm" to describe the actions in Jerusalem is entirely consistent.

The BBC article makes it quite clear in which order the events are alleged to have occured. It also reports the other side of the story where it is claimed that the action was unprovoked. It then leaves it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
No it is not common - what is your point?What is common is the BBC using the phrase "storm" to describe policing actions:
Therefore it is absolutely apparent that the use of the term "storm" to describe the actions in Jerusalem is entirely consistent.The BBC article makes it quite clear in which order the events are alleged to have occured. It also reports the other side of the story where it is claimed that the action was unprovoked. It then leaves it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Take the first line of the Welsh story for example...Police have stormed a block of flats in a the north Wales village of Penmaenmawr after a man threw petrol bombs at them. now lets go over the first line in the Jerusalem story;Israeli police have stormed the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and fired tear gas after Palestinian youths reportedly threw stones after Friday prayers.The guy in Penmaenmawr threw petrol bombs, the "youths" in Jerusalem reportedly threw stones. How come the guy in Penmaenmawr did not reportedly throw petrol bombs?

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Take the first line of the Welsh story for example... now lets go over the first line in the Jerusalem story;The guy in Penmaenmawr threw petrol bombs, the "youths" in Jerusalem reportedly threw stones. How come the guy in Penmaenmawr did not reportedly throw petrol bombs?

Probably because the throwing of the petrol bombs is not disputed in that case, while the throwing of the stones is, as is mentioned in the original story.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Probably because the throwing of the petrol bombs is not disputed in that case, while the throwing of the stones is, as is mentioned in the original story.

Plus, after the fact, it's probably easier to to verify that petrol bombs were thrown than stones, since the latter leave little in the way of residual damage.

I think you're grasping at straws here, ZN.

Graham

[Tmy]

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040402/lthumb.jrl11004021451.mideast_israel_palestinians_ jrl110.jpg

"Jewish Blues Brothers impersonators use a stolen wheelchair as mini bulldozer to flatten Palistinian girls Barbie Doll dream house"



Since when is the news NOT biased. You dont the the when/where/hows from robots. More emotional , more bias. Think of 911 and the imbetted reporters. the reporters are wearing flag pins, and saying "God Bless America".

Theres always bias. Like the local newscasters backing the local sports teams.

[davefoc]

ZN.
Thank you, as usual, for your sincere responses to my posts.

You suggested that my post was an example of turnspeak, which roughly meant that I was trying to justify the behavior of the Palestinians in your story by bringing up other unrelated incidents. I think that was a reasonable inference from my post and I would like to clarify better what I intended by my post.

First, I thought the main point of this thread was the bias of the mainstream media against Israel in general.

Secondly, I thought your point by bringing up this particular incident was that it was another example of unprovoked violence by Palestinians and it provided further evidence of what appears to be your view that the Israelis are righteous and the Palestinians because of their violent, lawless ways are deserving of their treatment by the Israelis.

In response to your first point, I posted examples of literally hundreds of stories on the web relating to the actions by Israeli settlers that are excluded from US media coverage. I attempted to post stories that had western victims or witnesses because I thought it made the stories more credible. There were also similar stories on the web by Jewish Israelis that I didn't quote from because of a desire to keep the post from being too long. I see the unwillingness of the US press to put forth these stories as evidence of a bias in the opposite direction in the US media of the one you claim.

I have included a picture of some Israeli soldiers standing over some apparently dead Palestinians at the end of this post. I would suggest that the US media that you claim to be so pro-Palestinian would never consider posting this kind of picture because of their fear of criticism by the pro-Israeli lobby.

In response to your second point which you continue to try to make by posting stories of apparently unprovoked Palestinian violence I posted the stories to show that the allegedly unprovoked violence is not unprovoked. There are Israelis in Israel that believes all of Palestine including the west bank should be under permanent Israeli control. Their strategy for bringing this about is to provoke Palestinians into violent acts and then claim that Palestinians are so lawless and violent that they can not be allowed control of their own land.

Lastly, in response to your criticism about my failure to provide a quote from the ariticle on Israeli settlers: I didn't because I felt there wasn't one short quote that could provide a good sense of the tone of the article and to put forth any single quote would have been misleading about the gist of the article.

source for the picture:
http://www.allaboutpalestine.com/images/gifs/israeli-soldiers.gif

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Graham


Plus, after the fact, it's probably easier to to verify that petrol bombs were thrown than stones, since the latter leave little in the way of residual damage.

I think you're grasping at straws here, ZN.

Graham

I think that's the point. Who disputes that Palestinian-Arabs were throwing stones? If someone did dispute that, shouldn't that be in the article? Who disputes it, how credible are they?

[Graham]

Originally posted by Mycroft


I think that's the point. Who disputes that Palestinian-Arabs were throwing stones? If someone did dispute that, shouldn't that be in the article? Who disputes it, how credible are they?

I see what you're saying and I see what ZN is saying and, to an extent, I agree with both of you.

That said, to quote Mel Gibson in one of his less holy (and, oddly, less bloody) productions, it's "Thin, very thin".

Graham

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Tmy
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040402/lthumb.jrl11004021451.mideast_israel_palestinians_ jrl110.jpg

"Jewish Blues Brothers impersonators use a stolen wheelchair as mini bulldozer to flatten Palistinian girls Barbie Doll dream house"


Tmy you illustrate something that's pretty important in this conflict. That is, how easy it is to manipulate a picture for propaganda purposes. You do it for humor, but plenty of others have no problem re-captioning a photo to advance a political agenda.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Graham
I see what you're saying and I see what ZN is saying and, to an extent, I agree with both of you.Graham

Originally posted by davefoc
ZN.Thank you, as usual, for your sincere responses to my posts. You suggested that my post was an example of turnspeak, which roughly meant that I was trying to justify the behavior of the Palestinians in your story by bringing up other unrelated incidents. First, I thought the main point of this thread was the bias of the mainstream media against Israel in general.I am always amazed when a muslim can come out of a mosque after Friday "prayers" and start a riot. Sorry but the irony does not escape me in the least.

Anyhow to the topic at hand..., headlines are the first, and sometimes only, news items seen by readers and should provide the essence of a news story. While they must capture the reader's attention, headlines should always be accurate and specific.

Reuters - Clashes Erupt at Jerusalem Shrine

CNN - Israeli police enter holy site to quell protests

BBC - Clashes erupt at al-Aqsa mosque


Notice something? The headlines do not mention who started the riot. The don't even say riot, they say "clashes". And they don't even say who "clashed" except CNN, who names Israeli policemen to quell "protesters".

Dictonary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=clashes) defines clashes as "To collide with a loud, harsh, usually metallic noise or to come into conflict; be in opposition or to create an unpleasant visual impression when placed together. So yes, there was a conflict at the Temple Mount, a "clash". But not one headline puts the responsibility where it is due, rioting palestinians at Islam's holiest site. Had there not been a riot, there would be no clashes.

Anyhow I tire of this subject, I just thought it was extremely interesting that not one headline said palestinians started a riot in Islams holiest site yet they all are happy to announce Israeli police "stormed" Islams holiest site....

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by davefoc
In response to your first point, I posted examples of literally hundreds of stories on the web relating to the actions by Israeli settlers that are excluded from US media coverage. I attempted to post stories that had western victims or witnesses because I thought it made the stories more credible. There were also similar stories on the web by Jewish Israelis that I didn't quote from because of a desire to keep the post from being too long. I see the unwillingness of the US press to put forth these stories as evidence of a bias in the opposite direction in the US media of the one you claim.

That's one possible explanation. Another would be that US press has higher standards of credibility than your average blogger does.

[davefoc]

Mycroft said in response to my suggestion that the failure of American media to cover the harassing activities of the Jewish settlers is an example of US media bias:
That's one possible explanation. Another would be that US press has higher standards of credibility than your average blogger does.

I can not dispute this idea with facts. For the most part I agree that the sources of information about the excesses of the Israeli settlers are less reliable than main stream media. Unless of course a settler massacres numerous Palestinians like what happened a few years ago and then the story is picked up in the mainstream media.

I personally find the stories somewhat credible. I have read through some writings of militant Israeli settlers and these make it seem plausible that the people that generate this kind of vitriolic and at times religious writing would be capable of some of the criminal activities they are accused of. In addition the stories coming as they do at times from both Western and Jewish observers gives them some credibility as well to me.

But let's say that there is no truth at all to the stories and the settlers are working all the time to peacefully coexist with the Palestinians. Do you see that the settlements still pose an enormous problem for Israel? The fact is that fairly or not the settlements provide a ready source for anti-Israeli propaganda and while the settlements exist and are being expanded the enemies of Israel can use them to incite anti-Israeli violence?

This is the web site of a Jewish organization working to end the Israeli policy of settlement in the occupied territories:
http://bringthemhome.btvshalom.org/

A section of this site's petition to end the settlement policy of Israel:

For the past 35 years, more than 200,000 Israeli citizens have been induced by special economic incentives to settle in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. A recent comprehensive survey* of settlers found that nearly 80% were motivated by a desire to create better lives for themselves and their families and not by ideological or religious reasons. That dream, however, quickly became a nightmare of constant terror, sniping, murderous incursions into settlements, and suicide bombings. Simultaneously, enormous suffering has been inflicted upon the Palestinian population.

The relentless campaign to settle hundreds of thousands of Israelis amidst millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip threatens the moral foundation of the State. One year after the 1956 Sinai Campaign, Israel¹s first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion explained to IDF officers the reasons for Israel¹s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula. Nearly fifty years later, his speech serves as both warning and grim prophecy.

[I]t was clear that our remaining in Gaza, while the entire world ostracized us would lead to ... finding ourselves in a hostile sea of terrorism. Our military authorities would have had to shoot terrorists on a daily basis. ... We would not have been able to withstand this. For the State of Israel, such a reality would have become a catastrophe ... . Possibly, this would have destroyed us, not militarily, but morally - and in my opinion our morality underpins our very existence.

David Ben-Gurion, Yihud ve-Yi'ud (Tel Aviv) 1971 p. 294
(Translation: Dr. Shai Feldman and Michael Davis)

The settlers have never enhanced Israel's security. On the contrary, their vulnerability to attack has resulted in the loss of nearly a thousand Israeli soldiers and civilians in the last 35 years and hundreds in just the past two years. Those who live on land expected to be negotiated as part of the new State of Palestine -- especially those in settlements that are distant from Green Line Israel and are surrounded by much larger Arab populations -- are an obstacle to peace; their continued presence prevents a viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by davefoc
Mycroft said in response to my suggestion that the failure of American media to cover the harassing activities of the Jewish settlers is an example of US media bias:


I can not dispute this idea with facts. For the most part I agree that the sources of information about the excesses of the Israeli settlers are less reliable than main stream media. Unless of course a settler massacres numerous Palestinians like what happened a few years ago and then the story is picked up in the mainstream media.

Well, Dave, I don’t know what to say. Like you, I have read dozens of reports on the internet about settler violence against Palestinian-Arabs. Like you, I have tried to research them to learn the truth. Like you, I found the reports less than reliable, mostly anecdotal accounts from individuals usually sponsored by organizations that have a clear anti-Israel agenda. Unlike you, I am reluctant to place the label somewhat credible on these accounts.

Maybe that surprises you. After all, it’s clear there is a great deal of tension between settlers and Arabs. It certainly makes sense that tension would sometimes erupt in violence, and it wouldn’t be rational to assume the violence was always Arab against settler. But saying that it makes sense for something to be true isn’t the same as agreeing that something is true, and even if we can verify that some of these anecdotes are true, that still gives us no clue to how common it is, how representative of the situation these anecdotes are. Without that, how can one reasonably draw conclusions?

In my own studies of the Israeli/Palestinian-Arab conflict, I have come to the conclusion that the Palestinian-Arab campaign against Israel is mostly a media campaign, and in that media campaign truth is irrelevant. The bombings and the violence get the media attention, and it’s the violence Israel reacts to, but the real purpose is to keep the conflict on the stage of world opinion while vilifying Israel as much as possible. That’s why terms like apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide get bandied about even though they don’t apply, that’s why Sharon is made responsible for the massacres at Sabra and Shatila even though his connection is indirect at best (and Damour is never mentioned), that’s why Mohammed Al-Durah is still the Palestinian-Arab poster-boy for martyrdom even though he wasn’t really killed by Israeli soldiers, and Jenin is still referred to as a massacre even though there was no massacre.

The media campaign against Israel is based on taking real events and exaggerating them, reporting real events while excluding crucial information, and sometimes flat out making stuff up. It is because I have seen so much of that on other issues related to this conflict, that I cannot place significance on anti-Arab settler violence without corresponding evidence to back it up.

Originally posted by davefoc
But let's say that there is no truth at all to the stories and the settlers are working all the time to peacefully coexist with the Palestinians. Do you see that the settlements still pose an enormous problem for Israel? The fact is that fairly or not the settlements provide a ready source for anti-Israeli propaganda and while the settlements exist and are being expanded the enemies of Israel can use them to incite anti-Israeli violence?

The settlements are certainly a complex issue, but when you make statements like fairly or not you’re conceding that perception is more important than reality. While in politics this is arguably true, I am still reluctant to form opinions and make decisions based upon perception when I have good reason to believe that reality is somewhat different.

The propagandists that use settlements to promote anti-Israeli violence will always be able to find something to work with, that’s the nature of propagandists. The violence did not start with the settlements and would not end if the settlements were removed. The issue would simply be redefined or replaced or replaced with another issue.

Overall, the settlements are only a problem if you assume that the only possible solution to the conflict is a two-state solution, with an Arab state with no Jewish citizens, and that in enacting that solution, the settlements can not be relocated. I don’t think any of those assumptions should be taken for granted.

Originally posted by davefoc
This is the web site of a Jewish organization working to end the Israeli policy of settlement in the occupied territories:


Yes it is, I’ve looked it over and I think they are well intentioned.

Where I disagree with them is the idea that settlements should be removed as a unilateral measure. It is my opinion that Israel should do nothing that resembles concessions without cooperation and real effort from the Palestinian-Arabs, and that should be within the framework of a larger plan that leads to lasting peace and reconciliation.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Mycroft
The media campaign against Israel is based on taking real events and exaggerating them, reporting real events while excluding crucial information, and sometimes flat out making stuff up.

For instance: BBC - Sharon defers Palestinian state (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3601593.stm) Monday, 5 April, 2004 - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said his plan for a withdrawal from the Gaza Strip may delay the creation of a Palestinian state. In interviews with the Israeli media, Mr Sharon said: "In the unilateral plan, there is no Palestinian state".

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=defers&x=10&y=16)

Main Entry: 1de·fer
Pronunciation: di-'f&r
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): de·ferred; de·fer·ring
Etymology: Middle English deferren, differren, from Middle French differer, from Latin differre to postpone, be different -- more at DIFFER
1 : PUT OFF, DELAY
2 : to postpone induction of (a person) into military service

1)The headline clearly states "Sharon defers Palestinian state".

2)The dictionary clearly states that 'defer' means to put off or delay.

3)The article body clearly states "Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has said his plan for a withdrawal from the Gaza Strip may delay the creation of a Palestinian state."So the BBC headline says Sharon "has" defered a palestinian state. A lie. Then the article ONLY makes a hypothetical prediction that a pullout from Gaza "may" delay a palestinian state. But the lie has already been sold in the headline, "Sharon defers Palestinian state".

See the bias?, the headline is 1)wrong, 2)inflammatory and 3)a lie, for Sharon has NOT defered a palestinian state at all.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir


For instance: BBC - Sharon defers Palestinian state (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3601593.stm)

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=defers&x=10&y=16)



1)The headline clearly states "Sharon defers Palestinian state".

2)The dictionary clearly states that 'defer' means to put off or delay.

3)The article body clearly states So the BBC headline says Sharon "has" defered a palestinian state. A lie. Then the article ONLY makes a hypothetical prediction that a pullout from Gaza "may" delay a palestinian state. But the lie has already been sold in the headline, "Sharon defers Palestinian state".

See the bias?, the headline is 1)wrong, 2)inflammatory and 3)a lie, for Sharon has NOT defered a palestinian state at all.

Well, there's your first mistake. The creation of a Palestinian state has been deferred for about 30 years.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
For instance: BBC - Sharon defers Palestinian state (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3601593.stm)


While I agree that article is a bit odd, when I said media campaign I wasn't refering to traditional press as much as I was refering to the spin placed on events by the Palestinian-Arabs themselves, Arabic press, various pro-Palestinian-Arab activists and folks like AUP.