quote:

From your posts I see you want to make Israel a country only for people of jewish religion and descent, therefore you want a racist theocracy.

I don't see how you get that from my posts!

LOL totally not what I think in reality

if you want to know, I'll talk to you about it in pm's...

real talks here always end up having people mis-understand everything...

so if you want to get a serious discussion about it pm me

___________________
TORAHTRANCE CREW!

SPURIOUS STATEMENTS

Journalists covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict aim to provide readers with a balanced picture by quoting official statements from both sides.

But with Palestinian spokesmen issuing increasingly disingenuous and mendacious statements, HonestReporting asks: Do all official statements merit uncritical coverage? When spokespeople utter statements that directly contradict established facts, hasn't a news outlet that amplifies such statements stopped reporting "balanced" news, and crossed the line into disseminating lies and propaganda?

A recent case in point: After the IDF killed Hamas leader Ismail Abu Shanab on Thursday (Aug. 21), a Hamas spokesman announced to reporters: "The Zionist enemy has assassinated the truce," so therefore "we consider ourselves no longer bound by this cease-fire."

It truly stretches the mind to imagine how last Tuesday's horrific bus bombing in Jerusalem ¯ perpetrated by a Hamas terrorist ¯ fits any definition of an ongoing cease-fire.

Even before the Jerusalem bus bombing, there was no shortage of bloody terror from Hamas, which claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing in Ariel two weeks ago. Additionally, the IDF has reported no less than 300 terror attacks throughout Gaza, the West Bank, and Israel proper since the beginning of the supposed "cease-fire." A telling graphic, illustrating these attacks by daily occurrence, is available on the IDF website.

One TV reporter, Michael Holmes from CNN, did provide due comment on Hamas' spurious claim on Thursday: "Hamas called CNN's Gaza office and said that the cease-fire was over...if you were near West Jerusalem the other night, you would wonder what sort of cease-fire was it in the first place anyway."

Yet many other media outlets felt compelled to report the Hamas spokesman's statement as fact:

-- The Chicago Tribune headlined its Aug. 22 report: "Hamas Abandons Truce After Israel Kills Leader."

Comments to Chicago Tribune: [email protected][/email]

-- The LA Times headlined: "Truce Ended After Israeli Airstrike"

Comments to LA Times: [email protected]

-- The (London) Independent stated: "Palestinian militant groups suspended their two-month-old ceasefire last night after Israel assassinated a Hamas leader in Gaza and sent tanks and infantry back into West Bank cities."

Comments to Independent: [email][email protected]

By disseminating the Hamas statement while omitting contradictory facts, news outlets provide a mouthpiece for terrorists to brazenly deny their murderous acts, and falsely frame Israel as the "anti-peace" force in the conflict.

___________________
Signature Suspended as it was deemed offensive.

What do you think about this mike?

quote:

Jewish peace winner attacks Israel Monday 01 September 2003, 23:34 Makka Time, 20:34 GMT Jewish historian Reuven Moskovitz, who was awarded a prestigious peace prize, fired a broadside at Israel during his acceptance speech. The outspoken award winner used the glittering occasion to launch an attack on Israel's policies which have caused misery for millions of Palestinians. And he called on Europe to exert pressure on Ariel Sharon to stop the persecution of Palestinians. "All Israel's governing politicians have transformed the lives of the Palestinian people into an intolerable hell with their sanctions and expulsions," he said at Monday’s award ceremony. Germany's Aachen Peace Prize was also won by Palestinian-born activist Nabila Espanioly, but it was Moskovitz who stole the show. Moskovitz, 75, said the acts of violence by young Palestinians and fanatics could not be justified, but he said they were often a result of hopelessness and indignation. Originally from Jerusalem, Moskovitz called on Europe to put pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Providing hope The 2000 euro ($2190) award was given to the two for providing "hope on the path to conciliation and peace between Jews and Palestinians", according to the Aachen Peace Prize Association chairman, Gerhard Diefenbach. Espanioly, a native of Nazareth who holds an Israeli passport, was cited for her 25-year fight for the rights of Palestinian women and children living in Israel. Also honoured for its work was a German group called Religious for Peace, which first came together around 20 years ago to protest at the deployment here of Pershing nuclear missiles but also campaigns against social injustice. The Aachen Peace Prize was founded in 1988. Last year's winners were German teacher Bernhard Nolz and US congresswoman Barbara Lee.

http://english.aljazeera.net/Articl...peace+prize.htm

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

If you know anything about this man you wouldn't be surprised at these comments.

He is a hardcore leftist... HARDCORE!

We all know that no leftist in the world likes military intervention in any conflict.

Maybe he'd support an Israeli initiated terror group to take the attention of the war on terror (which makes the Arab-'Palestinians' look like the underdog) off Israel.

He is living in an anti-Semitic society, and has been sucked into being a self-hating Jew. There have been many studies that show that some holocaust survivors have been traumatized so roughly that they do anything to disaffiliate themselves from a Jewish identity; assimilation.

The organization that awarded him this "peace" prize is very suspicious in itself. Its bias anti-Israel nature is plastered throughout their website.

So to answer your question Cyrus, I think Noam Chomsky will be the next to be awarded this "prestigious" prize.

___________________
Signature Suspended as it was deemed offensive.

Last edited by melech_mike on Sep-03-2003 at 19:48

EDITORS CONSIDER THE "T-WORD"


For the past three years, HonestReporting has led the campaign to demand that news agencies refer to Palestinian terrorists as "terrorists," and cease using euphemisms like "militants" and "activists."

Amidst growing pressure from media monitors, newspaper editors are finally addressing this matter head-on.

Last week, editors at two of Florida's largest newspapers ¯ Manning Pynn of the Orlando Sentinel and Philip Gailey of the St. Petersburg Times ¯ each boldly tackled the question: Why does my own news department refer to al Qaeda as "terrorists," and Hamas or Islamic Jihad as "militants," if all three of these organizations use mass murder of civilians to further their ideological goals (a paraphrase of the US State Department definition of terrorism; all three organizations appear on the State Department's official list of terrorist groups)?

The two editors asked the same question, but reached startlingly different conclusions:

1) St. Petersburg Times' Philip Gailey:

¯ Defining terrorism: "For me, it's not a hard call. Acts of terror are committed by terrorists, and the horrific bus attack on Israeli civilians, like the dozens of suicide bombings that preceded it, was an act of cold, indiscriminate terror... I don't think militants set out to deliberately kill children."

¯ Remaining balanced: "I'm all for fair and balanced reporting...but I also believe that words do matter. And if the word 'terrorism' is to have any real meaning, then blowing up a bus crowded with women and children must be condemned for what it is ¯ an act of terrorism."

¯ Effect on coverage: As noted on the website of Florida media monitors PRIMER, The St. Petersburg Times has not only followed Gailey's lead and begun using the term "terrorists" to describe Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but is even changing the language of incoming Associated Press and New York Times wire reports to meet their new editorial commitment to call terror by its name.

Comments to: [email protected][/email]

* * *

2) Orlando Sentinel's Manning Pynn:

¯ Defining terrorism: The term "terrorist," claims Pynn, only applies to al Qaeda, since the term "imputes to the person or organization being described the motive of trying to instill fear." Moreover, Americans were "so shocked" by 9/11 that they "almost universally applied the term 'terrorism' to what had happened."

Pynn suggests, absurdly, that Hamas and Co. aren't trying to "instill fear" when they blow up civilian buses and restaurants. And the general degree of human shock, Pynn submits, is much lower when the innocent civilian victims happen to be Israeli ¯ or Americans in Israel, for that matter.

Pynn then makes the basic error of equating the Palestinians' intentional targeting of civilians with the collateral damage of Israeli strikes against terrorists. Says Pynn, sarcastically: "By that standard, of course, any nation at war could be labeled 'terrorist' when attacks take civilian lives."

¯ Remaining balanced: Pynn recalls that "the United States was not at war when it was attacked on 9/11; Israel and the Palestinians have been engaged in armed conflict for decades," and moreover, Palestinians are "resisting occupation." The use of the word "terror" in the context of Israel would therefore be "judgmental" and jeopardize "impartial news reporting" of an ongoing conflict.

The logical counter-argument is articulated by Dr. Bruce Epstein of Florida: By substituting the word "militant" for "terrorist," a newspaper is no less "judgmental" ¯ painting suicide bombers of packed restaurants and buses as legal, legitimate and even moral.

Pynn also fails to recognize that even in the context of war, deliberate violence against unarmed and non-threatening civilians is illegal under international law, which treats terrorism as a separate, wholly immoral use of force. The Sentinel itself recognizes this when covering the ongoing Iraq war and the U.S. occupation of Iraq ¯ on August 30, the Sentinel referred to the car bombing of an Iraqi mosque as the probable work of the al Qaeda "terrorist network." Why, according to Pynn's logic, did al Qaeda not suddenly become a "militant organization" when the US declared war on Bin Laden and occupied Iraq?

¯ Effect on Coverage: The double standard at the Sentinel persists ¯ but it now bears the stamp of approval of the paper's Public Editor.

Comments to: [email][email protected]



--- ON A LIGHTER NOTE ---

Meanwhile, in correspondence with HonestReporting, Joanna Mills, editor of BBC World Update, wrote: "It is the style of the BBC World Service to call no one a terrorist, aware as we are that one man's terrorist is another one's freedom fighter."

Yet BBC has finally found an act in the Mideast so heinous that it deserves being termed "terrorism." After a massive lizard roamed Beirut suburbs for weeks, eluding efforts to capture it, BBC ran the headline:

"Giant Lizard Terrorizes Beirut"

___________________
Signature Suspended as it was deemed offensive.

just as an outside observer: i dont understand why does some people mix milk,beef and cream in this thread,i mean this thread is about honest reporting which support the truth,what is so wrong with that?
anyway lets say cyrus,why do you bring stories about these stupid israelies that werent even smart enough to be in the israeli parlament?! i think it will be better to just open a diffrent thread for stuff that dont belong to this one

oh yes.... i forgot Viber. Anyone who is critical of your nation's actions, even when they are Isreali's, they are "stupid", "pieces of shit", or "pathetic"..... you truly are an 'outside' observer

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King oh yes.... i forgot Viber. Anyone who is critical of your nation's actions, even when they are Isreali's, they are "stupid", "pieces of shit", or "pathetic"..... you truly are an 'outside' observer

Forget him; address my post in regards to that article you posted.
Which i might add was posted in the wrong thread.

___________________
Signature Suspended as it was deemed offensive.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King oh yes.... i forgot Viber. Anyone who is critical of your nation's actions, even when they are Isreali's, they are "stupid", "pieces of shit", or "pathetic"..... you truly are an 'outside' observer

i didnt called you in that names becuse you are critical towords the government of israel but for other reasons..
all ive said is that what avraham burg thinks about israel got nothing to do with honest reporting,and therefor it will be nice to stick to the subject

anyway chill..

quote:

Originally posted by melech_mike If you know anything about this man you wouldn't be surprised at these comments. He is a hardcore leftist... HARDCORE! We all know that no leftist in the world likes military intervention in any conflict. Maybe he'd support an Israeli initiated terror group to take the attention of the war on terror (which makes the Arab-'Palestinians' look like the underdog) off Israel. He is living in an anti-Semitic society, and has been sucked into being a self-hating Jew. There have been many studies that show that some holocaust survivors have been traumatized so roughly that they do anything to disaffiliate themselves from a Jewish identity; assimilation. The organization that awarded him this "peace" prize is very suspicious in itself. Its bias anti-Israel nature is plastered throughout their website. So to answer your question Cyrus, I think Noam Chomsky will be the next to be awarded this "prestigious" prize.

He may be a hardcore leftist, but his accomplishments and intentions for peace amongst the arabs and Jews are to be respected. HE has done more for peace than sharon or should i say the whole Isreali cabinet has done in the past decades. Peace is his goal, not segregation and oppression!

quote:

Dr. Reuven Moskovitz was born in 1928 in the Schtetl Frumsiaca in the northern part of Romania. In spite of persecution and expulsion, he survived the Holocaust and emigrated to Palestine in 1947, where he became a co-founder of the Kibbuz Misgav-Am situated on the Lebanese border. After studying history and Hebrew literature at the University of Tel Aviv and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, he taught history. For almost 40 years, he has been warning against the danger of escalating terror and counterterror in the Middle East. He founded or co-founded several organisations in Israel which are doing practical peace work up to this day. So he is for example a co-founder of the peace village Neve Shalom / Wahat al Salam in Israel founded in 1972, where he also lived. Israeli Jews and Palestinians are living together with equal rights in this village, where they have a bilingual primary school (Hebrew and Arabic are equally spoken as official languages) and a peace school, where young Jewish and Palestinian Israelis often meet for the first time and use their joint seminar work for learning and practicing how to peacefully live together.

And can you tell me how and why this Aachen Peace Prize is something to be suspiscious about? I havent seen anything anti-israeli about their site..in fact it is driven by PEACE.. the point of their efforts!

http://www.aachener-friedenspreis.d...sh/english.html

Also, how is he living in an Anti-semetic society when in fact he has spent most of his life teaching in Israel? His passion is his culture...hes been researching it his whole life.

The thing he dislikes are the atrocities the Israeli government conducts.

And with respect to Chomsky, criticizing him becuase of his objective and truthful analysis of current issues just goes to show how bias you are. But hey, its cool to bash Chomsky if you are a Jew, why? Becuase Israel is "innocent" and he betrays all jews by criticizing it.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

Last edited by Cyrus King on Sep-04-2003 at 16:38

TARGETED KILLINGS: ARE THEY EFFECTIVE?


Over the past two weeks, six IDF helicopter strikes have eliminated 11 Hamas leaders in Gaza. The latest hit, on Monday (Sept. 1), killed Khader al-Husari, a senior Hamas operative who was at that very moment transferring weapons to be used in attacks against Israel. The al-Husari strike was the latest application of what Israeli Defense Minister Mofaz has termed "a new chapter" in Israel's battle against the terrorist organizations: "Since the Palestinian Authority is not acting against these organizations, we will take care of them."

As frequently noted by HonestReporting, the media regularly construct a gross moral equivalence between these IDF missile strikes and Palestinian terrorists' indiscriminate murders of Israeli civilians ¯ the media's "cycle of violence." As a result, IDF strikes are presented as not only unjustified, but also ineffective in achieving their desired goal.

But in fact, recent events indicate that just the opposite is true ¯ the targeted killings are working. Here's a summary of their recent effectiveness:

1) Deterrence: Hamas terrorists are now in hiding, rather than openly organizing more bombings of Israeli buses and restaurants. Hamas has released a statement to its members, urging them to turn off cellular phones, stay home, and never travel together. They are even encouraged to wear disguises, since, as the directive states, "you do not know who is following you. It could be the store owner, or your neighbor, or someone in a car."

2) Requesting another hudna: Over the last few days, Hamas leaders have sent messages to both the PA and Egypt in an effort to revive the hudna (tactical cease-fire). Apparently, only when the terrorists are feeling the heat personally do they weigh the cost of their ongoing terror against Israelis.

3) Separation from PA: Hamas is convinced that the Palestinian Authority assisted Israel in the recent wave of targeted killings - as one Hamas leader said, "It is clear to us that no one in Ramallah [PA headquarters] is crying over what happened in Gaza." The targeted killings therefore drive a wedge between Hamas and the PA, which is precisely what is called for in the road map as a positive step toward regional peace.

4) Collateral damage minimized: The unfortunate downside of the targeted killings is the loss of innocent lives, but IDF technology is becoming incredibly sophisticated in order to lessen injury to Palestinian civilians. Collaborators now dab the terrorists' vehicles with an invisible dye that is detected by sensors on Israeli helicopters. The IDF recently stopped using an American missile that caused excessive damage; cameras on the tips of the new, Israeli missiles allow for "real-time" aiming. As an IDF insider said, "'We can abort up to a couple seconds before impact. On occasion the terrorist's face shows up on camera for final confirmation.''

5) Dispelling the great Palestinian illusion: Finally, the targeted killings allow both peoples to pursue a true, lasting peace on the diplomatic level. As analyst Yisrael Neeman writes, "There are those who claim there is no military solution to the conflict with the Palestinians. There is no exclusively political solution either, but rather a combination of the two. Terror must be defeated and afterwards the political solution can be worked out. Only then will the illusion of defeating Israel disappear, allowing for the Palestinians to negotiate in good faith."

Yet despite the clear strategic and diplomatic effectiveness of the targeted killings, Associated Press' recent assessment (Sept. 2) focused almost entirely on criticism of the approach. The AP title: "Critics: Israeli Strikes Doing More Harm."

The article quotes six pro-Palestinian spokespersons (and only one pro-Israeli) to repeatedly drive home its point: the IDF anti-terrorist strikes are "counterproductive," "extremely dangerous," "provoke more attacks," "add to resentment among Palestinians," "escalate [terrorist] responses," and are a mere "aspirin to cancer."

Given our five points above, why is the AP article so one-sided in criticizing the targeted killings?

Comments to: [email protected]

Michael Eisenstadt of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy summarizes well Israel's justification for targeted killings:

"Were Israel to use massive force to snatch 'wanted men,' the result would undoubtedly be heavy casualties on both sides ¯ but especially on the Palestinian side. Alternatively, relying only on arrests and passive defensive measures would likely lead to more mass casualty attacks in Israel...Israel's current approach ¯ which employs "targeted killings" as part of a comprehensive approach to fighting terror ¯ has proven reasonably effective, averts escalation, and compared to other options available, entails fewer risks to innocent civilians. For this reason, as long as the PA is not fulfilling its obligation to arrest Palestinians involved in attacks on Israeli civilians, Israel will likely feel compelled to continue such activities."

___________________
Signature Suspended as it was deemed offensive.