Never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity

[zenith-nadir]

Abba Eban the Israeli dipolmat once said "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." Well let's see if that is true.....

CAMP DAVID ACCORDS 1978 - "All necessary measures will be taken and provisions made to assure the security of Israel and its neighbors during the transitional period and beyond. To assist in providing such security, a strong local police force will be constituted by the self-governing authority. It will be composed of inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza."

ISRAEL-PLO RECOGNITION 1993 - The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES ON INTERIM SELF-GOVERNMENT ARRANGEMENTS - OSLO 1 - 1993 - In order to guarantee public order and internal security for the Palestinians of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Council will establish a strong police force, while Israel will continue to carry the responsibility for defending against external threats, as well as the responsibility for overall security of Israelis for the purpose of safeguarding their internal security and public order.

AGREEMENT ON THE GAZA STRIP AND THE JERICHO AREA 1994 - Except for the Palestinian Police referred to in this Article and the Israeli military forces, no other armed forces shall be established or operate in the Gaza Strip or the Jericho Area. Except for the arms, ammunition and equipment of the Palestinian Police described in Annex I, Article III, and those of the Israeli military forces, no organization or individual in the Gaza Strip and the Jericho Area shall manufacture, sell, acquire, possess, import or otherwise introduce into the Gaza Strip or the Jericho Area any firearms, ammunition, weapons, explosives, gunpowder or any related equipment

AGREEMENT ON PREPARATORY TRANSFER OF POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1994 - Israel and the Palestinian Authority will ensure that their respective systems contribute to the peace between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples and to peace in the entire region, and will refrain from the introduction of any motifs that could adversely affect the process of reconciliation.

THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN INTERIM AGREEMENT ON THE WEST BANK AND THE GAZA STRIP 1995 - Except for the Palestinian Police and the Israeli military forces, no other armed forces shall be established or operate in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Except for the arms, ammunition and equipment of the Palestinian Police described in Annex I, and those of the Israeli military forces, no organization, group or individual in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip shall manufacture, sell, acquire, possess, import or otherwise introduce into the West Bank or the Gaza Strip any firearms, ammunition, weapons, explosives, gunpowder or any related equipment.

WYE RIVER PLANTATION MEMORANDUM 1998 - In the provisions on security arrangements of the Interim Agreement, the Palestinian side agreed to take all measures necessary in order to prevent acts of terrorism, crime and hostilities directed against the Israeli side, against individuals falling under the Israeli side's authority and against their property, just as the Israeli side agreed to take all measures necessary in order to prevent acts of terrorism, crime and hostilities and against their property. The two sides also agreed to take legal measures against within their jurisdiction and to prevent incitement against each other by any organizations, groups or individuals within their jurisdiction.

SHARM EL-SHEIKH MEMORANDUM 1999 - The two Sides will, in accordance with the prior agreements, act to ensure the immediate, efficient and effective handling of any incident involving a threat or act of terrorism, violence or incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis. Each side shall immediately and effectively respond to the occurrence or anticipated occurrence of an act of terrorism, violence or incitement and shall take all necessary measures to prevent such an occurrence; Pursuant to the prior agreements, the Palestinian side undertakes to implement its responsibilities for security, security cooperation, on-going obligations and other issues emanating from the prior agreements, including, in particular, the following obligations emanating from the Wye River Memorandum: continuation of the program for the collection of the illegal weapons and apprehension of suspects.

PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI SECURITY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (TENET PLAN) 2001 - The PA will move immediately to apprehend, question, and incarcerate terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza and will provide the security committee the names of those arrested as soon as they are apprehended, as well as a readout of actions taken. In keeping with its unilateral cease-fire declaration, the PA will stop any Palestinian security officials from inciting, aiding, abetting, or conducting attacks against Israeli targets, including settlers. The PA will undertake preemptive operations against terrorists, terrorist safe houses, arms depots, and mortar factories. The PA will provide regular progress reports of these actions to the security committee. The PA and GOI will move aggressively to prevent individuals and groups from using areas under their respective control to carry out acts of violence. Palestinian and Israeli security officials will make a concerted effort to locate and confiscate illegal weapons, including mortars, rockets, and explosives, in areas under their respective control In addition, intensive efforts will be made to prevent smuggling and illegal production of weapons.

THE PERFORMANCE BASED ROADMAP TO A PERMANENT TWO-STATE SOLUTION TO THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT 2002 - In Phase I, the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence according to the steps outlined below;... Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel’s right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere. All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel. Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.



There are ten different treaties Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have agreed to over the past t-w-e-n-t-y s-i-x years. Every single one of them calls for the unequivocal end to violence and terrorism while making visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain palestinian groups or individuals from conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis. It is demonstratively proven that has not happened. Therefore one can be fairly accurate in the position that after all those peace treaties Arafat and the Palestinian Authority are not interested in the least to arrest, disrupt, and restrain members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fateh, Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades.

In fact, instead of arresting, disrupting, and restraining members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fateh, Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades, Hizbollah, Arafat and the palestinian Authority are;

Palestinian Groups Ask Hamas to Join Ruling Body - Tue Apr 6, 2004 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=574&e=6&u=/nm/20040406/wl_nm/mideast_dc_79)
Arafat hints at Hamas role in ruling Gaza - April 07, 2004 (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/413063.html)
'We're at Your Service,' Hizbollah Tells Hamas - Mar 27 2004 (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040327/wl_nm/mideast_hizbollah_dc_1), (remember Hizbollah killed all those American soldiers and embassy personel in Beirut)
Hamas Says U.S. Not in Its Sights for Now - Mar 25, 2004 (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=3&u=/nm/20040325/ts_nm/mideast_hamas_usa_dc_1).


As I quoted way back in the beginning, "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity." So the question really is how many opportunities should the Palestinian Authority be given before it dawns on people that Arafat has no intention of honouring any the peace treaties he has previously signed?




(prediction: a_u_p, Demon and the fool will blame Sharon, the settlements and the wall)

[a_unique_person]

I blame Sharon, the settlements and the wall.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I blame Sharon, the settlements and the wall. And that is all anyone should ever expect from you.

[Mr Manifesto]

Of course, there isn't any way to tell how true all this is, since you have a history of spouting bullsh!t (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870396857#post1870396857) without correcting yourself.

(scroll down to my post for the link to Snopes)

[The Fool]

No, I don't blame Sharon, the settlements and The wall...but all sides habit of killing children is a little annoying.


from some lefty arab loving woo woo site..
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1001-05.htm

In the bloody violence of the Israeli-Palestinian war, the most tragic victims are the very young, now considered 'fair game'

by Robert Fisk

In one of its most shocking reports on the Israeli-Palestinian war, Amnesty International today condemns both sides in the conflict for their "utter disregard" for the lives of children – 250 of them Palestinian and 72 Israeli – who have been killed over the past year.

In a 29-page report containing some of the most painful evidence amassed on child-killing in the occupied territories and Israel, the organization blames Israel for "excessive and disproportionate use of lethal force" and "reckless shooting" in residential areas, and Palestinians for "direct and indiscriminate attacks", including suicide bombings.

The solemn list of dead children that Amnesty has collected shows just how ingrained child-killing has become. There is Sami Jazzar, shot in the head by an Israeli soldier on the eve of his 12th birthday in Gaza, 11-year-old Khalil Mughrabi, killed by an Israeli sniper in Gaza – one of his friends survived after being shot in the testicles by a high-velocity round – and 10-year-old Riham al-Ward, killed in her Jenin schoolyard by an Israeli tank shell.

Then there are Raaya and Hemda, aged 14 and two, killed with their parents by a Palestinian suicide bomber in a Jerusalem pizzeria, Shalhevet Pass – just 10 months old – shot by a Palestinian sniper in Hebron, and Avia Malka, killed by Palestinians who fired on and threw grenades at cars in Netanya. She was nine months old.

Amnesty's condemnation has rarely been so scathing. "The pattern of killings of children which has become so entrenched and widespread in the past two years developed against a background of impunity for the perpetrators of such crimes," it says.

Despite repeated claims to the contrary: "No judicial investigation is known to have been carried out into any of the killings of children by members of the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] in the occupied territories, even in cases where Israeli government officials have stated publicly that investigations would be carried out." None of the Israeli soldiers responsible for these crimes is known to have been brought to justice, Amnesty says.

It also attacks Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority for imprisoning militants for political purposes rather than submitting them to fair trials for the killing of children. It says the assertion by Palestinian armed groups that international law imposes no constraints on them is untrue. "No violations by the Israeli army, no matter their scale or gravity, can ever justify the targeting and killing of Israeli children or any other civilians by Palestinian groups."

Of course, this is all garbage...nobody that ZN gives unqualified unquestioning support in perpetuity could ever kill children....

Nope... If it wasn't for those damn arabs the middle east would be one big dance party.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Of course, there isn't any way to tell how true all this is, since you have a history of spouting bullsh!t (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870396857#post1870396857) without correcting yourself.

(scroll down to my post for the link to Snopes) Well one can Google each peace treaty and see the text I have provided is accurate. But that would involve independant thought and research and not just snopes.com Mr Manifesto. ;)

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Well one can Google each peace treaty and see the text I have provided is accurate. But that would involve independant thought and research and not just snopes.com Mr Manifesto. ;)

:roll: :roll: :roll: "Independant thought"! "Research"! That's a laugh. You've copped every opinion you have on Israel from like-minded websites and newsgroups.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by The Fool
from some lefty arab loving woo woo site..
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1001-05.htm
by Robert Fisk


Here's what Robert Fisk said about Jenin, from his own website;

Robert Fisk: Mr Powell must see for himself what Israel inflicted on Jenin (http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles64.htm) The Israeli army is still keeping the Red Cross and journalists from seeing the evidence of the mass killings that have taken place there. "Hundreds'' – on Israel's own admission – have died, including civilians. Why, for God's sake, can't Mr Powell do the decent thing and demand an explanation for the extraordinary, sinister events that have taken place in Jenin? So Robert Fisk is another psuedo-journalist-propagandist who claims that "Hundreds'' died in Jenin at the hands of the Israelis, AND the Israelis admit it! Even when it has been verified by the world that "Hundreds'' did not die at all. Just an F.Y.I. the fool next time you decide to quote the Jenin-massacre-propogandist Robert Fisk.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
:roll: :roll: :roll: "Independant thought"! "Research"! That's a laugh. You've copped every opinion you have on Israel from like-minded websites and newsgroups. Keep digging, you'll eventually realize you are in error and only compounding your self-inflicted and well-deserved ridicule.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir



Here's what Robert Fisk said about Jenin, from his own website;

Robert Fisk: Mr Powell must see for himself what Israel inflicted on Jenin (http://www.robert-fisk.com/articles64.htm) So Robert Fisk is another psuedo-journalist-propagandist who claims that "Hundreds'' died in Jenin at the hands of the Israelis, AND the Israelis admit it! Even when it has been verified by the world that "Hundreds'' did not die at all. Just an F.Y.I. the fool next time you decide to quote the Jenin-massacre-propogandist Robert Fisk.

IIRC, the IDF didn't allow any independent sources to investigate the site. The UN report was based purely on what it could report, which wasn't much at all.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Of course, there isn't any way to tell how true all this is, since you have a history of spouting bullsh!t (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870396857#post1870396857) without correcting yourself.

(scroll down to my post for the link to Snopes)

Interesting link. Snopes lets Clinton off of the hook for any action taken by any country against terrorism during his watch.


But some observers say the site is colored by a liberal political bias and that the Mikkelsons have been too quick to label politically incorrect news stories as urban legends.
http://www.insightmag.com/news/2002/04/01/National/Online.Rumor.Mill.Spins.Its.Own.Myth-207209.shtml

Liberal Bias? Snopes? No, it can't be!

Here's a list of their topics on GW Bush:


"Make the Pie Higher!" poem is composed of actual quotes from George W. Bush.

The domain GeorgeWBush.com hosts the legitimate web site of President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign.

President Bush made an amusing comment during about "balls" during his carrier landing.

President Bush prayed with an injured Special Forces soldier at Walter Reed Medical Center.

George W. Bush once described rapper Eminem as "the most dangerous threat to American children since polio."

Internet résumé outlines George W. Bush's business and political careers.

Newspaper publishes death notice requesting that memorial gifts for the deceased "be made to any organization that seeks the removal of President George Bush from office."

A 'Google bombing' effort has tied the phrase 'miserable failure' to President Bush's biography in the Google search engine.

In 2003, President and Mrs. Bush helped hand out Christmas gifts to children of inmates.

Transcript records President Bush's remarks to reporters at a New Mexico restaurant.

President Bush paid for the funeral of a 6-year-old boy who drowned near his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

And here's a list of their topics on Bill & Hillary Clinton:


Hillary Clinton was named after world-famous mountain climber Sir Edmund Hillary.

edited due to malfunctioning keyboard

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
IIRC, the IDF didn't allow any independent sources to investigate the site. The UN report was based purely on what it could report, which wasn't much at all. Oh, I see it's the IDFs fault that Robert Fisk, a 'journalist', is reporting unsubstanciated claims about a faked event. How dare the IDF make him do that.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
Oh, I see it's the IDFs fault that Robert Fisk, a 'journalist', is reporting unsubstanciated claims about a faked event. How dare the IDF make him do that.
Who faked it ZN? And which part of the article I posted of his is false? The number of children killed? I know that the IDF does not shoot people for no good reason, so what is the good reason for all these dead children?


maybe the whole thing is just a fake...Maybe the whole occupation of the west bank and Gaza is not happening and it is all just peacefull olive farms....Amnesty is most likely making it all up....Or Arafat, yes....it must be Arafats fault.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by The Fool
Who faked it ZN?The p-a-l-e-s-t-i-n-i-a-n-s faked the "massacre in jenin" you fool.

UN says no massacre in Jenin - Thursday, 1 August, 2002, 14:47 GMT 15:47 UK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2165272.stm)

Originally posted by The Fool
And which part of the article I posted of his is false? Robert Fisk was proven 100% wrong when he reported far and wide about the "massacre in Jenin". He quoted sources that didn't exsist and events that didn't happen. Ergo, he lacks credibility and none of his stories can be trusted. Only a 'fool' would trust a proven liar.

Originally posted by The Fool
The number of children killed? I know that the IDF does not shoot people for no good reason, so what is the good reason for all these dead children? maybe the whole thing is just a fake...Maybe the whole occupation of the west bank and Gaza is not happening and it is all just peacefull olive farms....Amnesty is most likely making it all up....Or Arafat, yes....it must be Arafats fault. Well you continue to hate the Israelis fool, and while your simple mind is focused like a laserbeam on the jooooooze, Hamas will brainwash more palestinian mothers and children to become suicide bombers and Arafat will steal more aid money. Luckily they have folks like you fool, fighting and running interference for their "cause".

[a_unique_person]

And as I said, from the same article



The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, said the report's aim of finding out exactly what happened in Jenin had been blocked by Israel's decision to refuse access to UN investigators.




I guess that only 52 dead doesn't constitute a massacre. Guess they were only Palestinians.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I guess that only 52 dead doesn't constitute a massacre. Guess they were only Palestinians.

It says Palestinian militants sought by the Israeli military were placed in heavily populated areas, putting civilians at risk.

"Palestinian groups are alleged to have widely booby-trapped civilian homes, acts targeted at IDF personnel but also putting civilians in danger," the report adds.

Massacre: The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly.

It's all a matter of scale. If a crazed gunman walks into a post office and kills 52 people, that's a massacre. In a major military operation involving thousands of soldiers when initial reports of ten times that number are later shown to be false, it’s not.

[Skeptic]

I guess that only 52 dead doesn't constitute a massacre.

52 dead after three days of heavy fighting in a densly-populated area? The great majority of them armed men? Not a massacre, by any stretch of the imagination--no more than the hundreds of Americans dead in Iraq in a year were "massacred". KILLED, yes; massacred, no.

But of course, I am just denying those Americans were massacred because they're "only Americans". How inhumane of me.

P.S.

I still haven't seen your answer to my question if you think israel has a right to exist.

You tried to slither away from answering by saying that israel does exist; but accepting that israel exists and denying its right to exist is exactly the same thing as calling for its destruction--for the same reason accepting that someone has money and denying he has the right to that money is saying that he is a thief.

So, I ask again: does israel have a right to exist?

P.S.S.

You blamed Palestinian terror, among other things, on "the Apartheid wall" (and more generally, on its victims, the jews, instead of its perpetrators). The Palestinian terror campaign started in Sept. 2000 (or even earlier, in 1996, when Arafat unleashed Hamas to blow up buses). The fence isn't even complete yet.

Does israel have time-travel technology, to enable something not yet done in 2004 to be the "cause" of something that started in 2000?

[gnome]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Liberal Bias? Snopes? No, it can't be!

Here's a list of their topics on GW Bush:


"Make the Pie Higher!" poem is composed of actual quotes from George W. Bush.

The domain GeorgeWBush.com hosts the legitimate web site of President Bush's 2004 re-election campaign.

President Bush made an amusing comment during about "balls" during his carrier landing.

President Bush prayed with an injured Special Forces soldier at Walter Reed Medical Center.

George W. Bush once described rapper Eminem as "the most dangerous threat to American children since polio."

Internet résumé outlines George W. Bush's business and political careers.

Newspaper publishes death notice requesting that memorial gifts for the deceased "be made to any organization that seeks the removal of President George Bush from office."

A 'Google bombing' effort has tied the phrase 'miserable failure' to President Bush's biography in the Google search engine.

In 2003, President and Mrs. Bush helped hand out Christmas gifts to children of inmates.

Transcript records President Bush's remarks to reporters at a New Mexico restaurant.

President Bush paid for the funeral of a 6-year-old boy who drowned near his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

And here's a list of their topics on Bill & Hillary Clinton:


Hillary Clinton was named after world-famous mountain climber Sir Edmund Hillary.

edited due to malfunctioning keyboard

I think your list is a bit short. Just search up "Clinton" on their site and you will find several more links than that.

But simply counting links cannot really decide the balance of their treatment of both administrations... no matter how much Ann Coulter might want to use that method of proof, you have to look at the content to make a judgment.

I am a frequent visitor to the Snopes site, and I can testify that they are not blindly pro-liberal or pro-conservative. They have included plenty of stories that would indicate a conservative bias IF you are assuming they answer based on their politics rather than their research.

Personally, I do not think they are most of the time--I believe they respond according to what their actual research leads them to believe. I see hints of personal leanings one way or another from time to time--they're only human--but nothing at all systemic.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/crossed.asp

Here's an interesting one.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm

The original link was strongly against Michael Moore's statements. The revised edition contains some apologies and clarifications. However, if they were firmly "liberal biased" at the expense of the facts, they would surely have supported Moore all along.

I won't say they never have a bias--but I can safely say that any such bias rarely leads to distortion of truth on their site... and they operate with a great deal of intellectual integrity.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
So Robert Fisk is another psuedo-journalist-propagandist who claims that "Hundreds'' died in Jenin at the hands of the Israelis, AND the Israelis admit it! Even when it has been verified by the world that "Hundreds'' did not die at all. Just an F.Y.I. the fool next time you decide to quote the Jenin-massacre-propogandist Robert Fisk.If you looked at the dates of the reports, you would have seen that Robert Fisk made the claim before the UN report. In fact he made it just after the incident took place and based himself on the reports of the Israelis. So what should he have reported?

Perhaps: "Even though the Israelis and Palestinians report hundreds of civilian casualties, my psychic powers tell me that in August the UN will issue a report that says it can only verify 52." ?

And even though the report doesn't call it a 'massacre', it's hardly favourable to the Israelis. Shooting ambulances, what's up with that?

If you say Robert Fisk is a 'Jenin-massacre-propagandist', why don't you show a report by him that still claims hundreds of civilian deaths that is dated after august 2002.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by gnome

I think your list is a bit short. Just search up "Clinton" on their site and you will find several more links than that.
I didn't search, this was two levels from the main menu. Several of the Bush links had substantial effort put into them and had stories of some political weight. The hillary clinton story was pure fluff.

But simply counting links cannot really decide the balance of their treatment of both administrations... no matter how much Ann Coulter might want to use that method of proof, you have to look at the content to make a judgment.
You know Ann Coulter? Could you introduce me? As to the content, see above.

I am a frequent visitor to the Snopes site, and I can testify that they are not blindly pro-liberal or pro-conservative. They have included plenty of stories that would indicate a conservative bias IF you are assuming they answer based on their politics rather than their research.

Because, of course, you are not blindly pro-liberal or pro-conservative and are therefore a reasonable judge of such things.

Personally, I do not think they are most of the time--I believe they respond according to what their actual research leads them to believe. I see hints of personal leanings one way or another from time to time--they're only human--but nothing at all systemic.
I feel safer knowing that there really aren't alligators living in the sewers.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/crossed.asp

Here's an interesting one.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm

The original link was strongly against Michael Moore's statements. The revised edition contains some apologies and clarifications. However, if they were firmly "liberal biased" at the expense of the facts, they would surely have supported Moore all along.
Only a complete idiot could agree totally with all of Michael Moore's assertions. He is truly that far off the mark. The folks who run Snopes are obviously not idiots. However, what the editor was angry over were remarks about Bin Laden or the Bin Laden family. For some reason, the only people in this modern day tragedy that liberals can seem to be angry with are either Bin Laden or Bush, so no, this does not get the conservative seal of approval.


I won't say they never have a bias--but I can safely say that any such bias rarely leads to distortion of truth on their site... and they operate with a great deal of intellectual integrity.
How can you tell when they do not have a bias? When their story supports your assertion?

I'm not saying that the folks at Snopes aren't good researchers. From the little I've read off of their site, when it comes to political coverage, they don't merely report the facts. They include some opinion in their rationale on certain subjects. Snopes is a great site, but I just don't buy into the belief that it is an all-knowing oracle of truth and neither does the author of the article I quoted.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Earthborn
If you looked at the dates of the reports, you would have seen that Robert Fisk made the claim before the UN report. In fact he made it just after the incident took place and based himself on the reports of the Israelis. The Israelis NEVER reported a "massacre" in Jenin. Show me that Israeli massacre "report" you say exsists and Robert Fisk quoted from.

Originally posted by Earthborn
So what should he have reported?Facts instead of wild speculation and lies. It's kind of bad form as a journalist to make up reports and events.

Originally posted by Earthborn
And even though the report doesn't call it a 'massacre', it's hardly favourable to the Israelis. Shooting ambulances, what's up with that?You are so naive.


In October 2001 Israeli security forces arrested Nidal Nazal, resident of Qalkilya, a Hamas terrorist and the brother of Nasser Nazal - a senior Hamas terrorist in the city. Nidal worked as an ambulance driver for the Palestinian Red Crescent. In his investigation Nidal confessed to the transfer of weaponry for terrorists and using his freedom of passage granted to him due to the fact that he was an ambulance driver. Furthermore, Nidal used this privilege in order to act as a messenger of Hamas HQ in different Palestinian cities.
On March 27, 2002 IDF forces arrested Islam Jibril, a Tanzim operative at a checkpoint near Ramallah. Jibril was arrested while driving a Red Crescent ambulance containing an explosive belt and explosive devices. During his investigation Jiblril confessed that the bombs were handed to him in Nablus by Mahmud Titi, a senior Tanzim operative in the Samaria area who was killed by security forces. The explosive belt was hidden underneath a stretch carrying a sick Palestinian boy aside his family members.
The Palestinian Red Crescent, which has received about $300,000 a year in U.S. aid in the past, refused to sign a pledge promising that the USAID money for 2004 will not be used to support terrorism and will forgo U.S. funding this year. ( Palestinian groups refuse funds (http://washingtontimes.com/world/20040107-110323-1224r.htm) )


Originally posted by Earthborn
If you say Robert Fisk is a 'Jenin-massacre-propagandist', why don't you show a report by him that still claims hundreds of civilian deaths that is dated after august 2002.Why, so I can validate his backpedaling?....sorry not my responsibility.

[a_unique_person]

So, you accept that the IDF wouldn't actually let anyone in to check what happened.

[Skeptic]

And even though the report doesn't call it a 'massacre', it's hardly favourable to the Israelis. Shooting ambulances, what's up with that?

The fact that the Palestinians use ambulances as weapons-carriers to supply their fighters with arms and ammunition during battles. Of course once that is done, the ambulances lose their non-combatant status given by the geneva convention and are legitimate targets.

For the record, the israeli attack of Palestinian weapons carriers disguised as ambulances would be legitimate according to the Geneva convention even if the Palestinians themselves respected it, since the whole point of the convention is to protect noncombatants, not to make combatants involnerable if they decide to wear a certain insignia. But of course there isn't the slightest concern for the Geneva convention on the Palestinian side.

Have you ever heard of a Palestinian fighter who had a car full of jews in his sites but stopped the attack because the car was an Ambulance, school bus, or other such vechile supposedly protected by the Geneva convention? No, of course not; the entire idea of the Palestinian terror is to kill as many, not as few, innocents as possible. A baby in a stroller or a pregnant woman is a much more tempting target to the Palestinians than a soldier, as seen by the "kill ratio" of civilians to fighters in the latest terror war.

For such people to complain of israeli "disrespect" of the laws against noncombatant is the height of hypocracy, as their entire war is aimed, deliberately and openly, AT noncombatants; and, which is even worse, deliberately and openly exploits THEIR OWN noncombatants as fodder, as seen in the sending of 14- and 11-year-olds to commit suicide bombings. This is child-sacrifice on a level with the ancient Edomites who, according to the bible, used to immolate their children in a sacrifice to their god Molech.

(Both were stopped at roadblocks, by the way; so much for the "the roadblocks don't contribute to security and merely increase Palestinian resentment" argument. Both were treated far better by the israeli soldiers, who saved their lives, than by their senders who aimed to use them as expendable human missiles; what does it tell you about the Palestinians, when they treat their own children far worse than their enemies do?)

But then again, hypocracy is the Palestinians' middle name: when Yassin was killed, Arafat denounced israel for--get this--"using terror". Ah well; as Churchill told Roosevelt in a telegram when Hitler complained that the allied bombing of Rome was a "War crime": "We must take this criticism seriously. He can certainly be considered an expert on the subject."

[Skeptic]

Have you ever heard of a Palestinian fighter who had a car full of jews in his sites

...that should be "sights", of course.

[demon]

ZN:
"The Israelis NEVER reported a "massacre" in Jenin. Show me that Israeli massacre "report" you say exsists and Robert Fisk quoted from."


The early reports by the Israeli army estimated Palestinian casualties of 200.
"The IDF intends to bury today Palestinians killed in the West Bank camp (of Jenin). Around 200 Palestinians are believed to have been killed in clashes with israeli soldiers since the start of operations last week . . ."

(Ant Zigelman, Amos Harel and Amira Hass,Ha'aretz, April 12 2002)

"IDF spokesman Brigadier General Ron Kitri said on Friday there were some 200(bodies in Jenin), but then corrected himself with a much lower figure."

(Amos Harel and Gideon Alon, Ha'aretz, April 15 2002)

As the IDF had prevented outside observers from seeing the aftermath of their rampage through Jenin - as the article you cite makes clear - Fisk himself had no way of checking these figures and so chose to use lower rather than the much higher Palestinian estimates.

There was no independent verification at Jenin because the Israeli fascists did not allow even the UN to go and check for themselves. The UN then used their extraordinary ESP abilities to declare that no massacre had occurred. The Israeli fascists loved this as they now know that simply by preventing any independent access, they can continue to commit murder as they wish. Tom Hurndall and others have been murdered by the IDF in front of independent witnesses. You never talk about them!

As for the definition of "Massacre"
- "The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly."
Fisk is untrustworthy because the Jenin assessment produced by the UN estimated not hundreds dead but only 51 ! Lets not forget also
- that the UN team were denied access by the IDF which would have allowed a thorough investigation.
- the crimes committed by the IDF have been detailed by Amnesty and Human Rights Watch as follows
1. A significant number of civilians killed in circumstances directly related to the forceful methods used by Israel during its offensive.
2. The massive destruction of civilian homes and sometimes indiscriminate use of helicopter fire used in the camp.
3. The use of Palestinian civilians by the Israeli army to carry out some of its most dangerous tasks in the camp.
4. The blanket denial of medical and humanitarian access to the camp during and after the military operation.

Crimes under international law ZN, and a massacre by any reasonable definition, whether the dead are counted in their hundreds or represent a mere trifling such as 51 men, women and children.

Even if considerations of international law dont interest you, Sharon's Foreign Minister Shimon Peres baulked at the destruction. It appears even his concern is more heartfelt than your own.
"However many wanted men we kill in the refugee camp, and however much of the terror infrastructure we expose and destroy there, there is still no justification for causing such great destruction."
(Shimon Peres, 9 April 2002)

The idea that Fisk or anyone else is not to be trusted because he used the adjective massacre (correctly) but failed to maintain impeccable numerical accuracy amidst such coordinated criminal carnage and destruction as Jenin 2002 yet again goes to show how utterly devoid of concern you are for the victims of illegal, immoral, criminal violence.

edited to add:
"As a result of the severe restrictions on movement, human rights workers and journalists were unable to observe the conduct of the parties and provide independent reporting on that conduct. Some journalists reported being fired at by members of IDF." - Report of the UN Secretary-General

[gnome]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

I didn't search, this was two levels from the main menu. Several of the Bush links had substantial effort put into them and had stories of some political weight. The hillary clinton story was pure fluff.

My point is that your sampling was not representative of their total coverage of Bush/Clinton on their site.


You know Ann Coulter? Could you introduce me? As to the content, see above.

Perhaps you're familiar with her counting hits on Lexis/Nexus to draw conclusions about bias in reporting?

Because, of course, you are not blindly pro-liberal or pro-conservative and are therefore a reasonable judge of such things.

I like to think that I'm not blindly pro- either side. As a reader of their site, I feel qualified to give my own opinion on their level of bias. I don't count myself as an authority.

Only a complete idiot could agree totally with all of Michael Moore's assertions. He is truly that far off the mark. The folks who run Snopes are obviously not idiots. However, what the editor was angry over were remarks about Bin Laden or the Bin Laden family. For some reason, the only people in this modern day tragedy that liberals can seem to be angry with are either Bin Laden or Bush, so no, this does not get the conservative seal of approval.

I am not trying to win them the "Conservative seal of approval"... I am simply giving contrary examples to the theory that their reporting is liberally biased.

How can you tell when they do not have a bias? When their story supports your assertion?

There is such a thing as "critical thinking skills."... I can disagree with them without concluding a bias... and often feel that way.

I'm not saying that the folks at Snopes aren't good researchers. From the little I've read off of their site, when it comes to political coverage, they don't merely report the facts. They include some opinion in their rationale on certain subjects. Snopes is a great site, but I just don't buy into the belief that it is an all-knowing oracle of truth and neither does the author of the article I quoted.

If you ask them, they'll say the same thing--that they are not an all-knowing oracle of truth and not to treat them as such.

If they are reporting the facts correctly, where is the harm in presenting an opinion or two...? The article seemed to dismiss their usefulness in examining the facts behind political rumors, and this is what I am refuting.