it is openly obvious that cyrusking is anti-israel, meaning not against israeli policy, but just generally against israel. All his posts showing extreme cynicism, using popagandist methods to sway the less knowledgeable to the side of agreeing that israel is the problem.

Once again, here is reality, presenting a different side

lets probe the future: i predict "oh this guy just showing that Israel is the victim, but what about the poor palestinians!"

or maybe

"they are obviously not objective, because they take israel's side!"

LOL

blow me...

sick of all this middle east BS!!!

anyone who has family in the middle east, whither in iran, or syria, or israel for that matter! know's that finding the REAL truth here is like finding the truth of what will happen during a presidental campaign!

those same people know when someone is truly against one party or the other based on their views.

That is an example of this forum.

moderators should finally ban people that continue with this propaganda!!

Orwellian media coverage
By Doron Kescher August 27, 2003


On reading this morning's newspaper and Internet headlines, I was reminded of an episode described in George Orwell's landmark book Nineteen Eighty-Four:

"There had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grammes a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it." [George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four]

The protagonist wondered how it could be that the whole world was overcome with collective amnesia over an event which for all intents and purposes should still be so fresh in their minds? The assumption drawn is that the masses either wanted to or needed to believe what they were being told.

On reading this morning's papers, I was confronted with the following headlines dealing with Israel's dispatching another Hamas terrorist to the eternal barbeque:

"Islamic Militant Groups Say Truce Is Dead After Israeli Strike" (New York Times, August 21, 2003);
"Hamas ends cease-fire" (CNN Online Edition, 21:24 GMT August 21, 2003);
"Israel Kills Hamas Leader, Militants Abandon Truce" (Reuters, August 21, 2003);
"2 militant groups end Israel truce" (International Herald Tribune, August 21, 2003);
"Hamas ends cease-fire after leader killed" (Toronto Globe and Mail, August 21, 2003);
"Cease-fire over, say militants as missiles kill Hamas leader" (Sydney Morning Herald, August 22, 2003).

The media's interpretation of the story is more than subliminal: Hamas ended its cease-fire* after Israel killed one of its leaders. This is the message that has come from the mouths of Hamas representatives, and has been mindlessly parroted by the world media.

It is unbelievable that not a single journalist around the world considered the suicide bus bombing of August 19, 2003 - in which 20 Jews were slaughtered and more than 100 maimed - to be an end to the so-called cease-fire. Not a single journalist considered the previ