 |
|
- Groucho -
|
|
I think you're missing the point, NYE. Siro posted what the IDF says is evidence of PA terrorist activities. It isn't. Are the Israelis justified in invading Pal territory? Different issue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kamrat X
 |
How thoughtfull and unexpected.
You are aware that you are biased, I hope.
You have still to prove that the pals are as credible as the Israelis.
You decide that the Israelis are not credible based on your fantasies.
quote:
Siro, maybe if the IDF actually had evidence that backed up their allegations people would be more sympathetic. As it is, you've got an IDF claim of "proof beyond doubt" of the PA "masterminding" terror with absolutely no proof of any PA involvement in the planning of a terrorist act. The evidence that they do have does not look good for the PA but the IDF has trumpeted it as being far more damaging than it is. The stuff you've put up in this thread looks more like a teenager's idea of spin doctoring than any kind of persuasive case. |
1. I only presented the allegantions. The evidence themselves are quoted together with the allegations and also scanned on the pages.
2. Obviously most evidence can't be released as it would compromise agents and methods. For instance, I'm 100% sure we can bug any phone or cellular phone, but we won't dream of admitting it officially.
3. I brought the two first examples I saw, omitting the actual evidence and bringing only allegations. Visit www.idf.il
quote:
The first set of "evidence" shows that a Pal. General attempted to stop the family of a suicide bomber from saying she was associated with Al Aksa.
How is that proof of the Palestinian Authorities involvement in the actual act itself? There is no evidence that they supplied her with the bomb, helped her get into Israeli territory or trained her in any way. All it shows is that their spin doctors wanted to manage the terrorists communications AFTER THE FACT. Which they failed miserably at, by the way. |
If you would have read the letter on which this is based, you would have seen that they talk of her brother, also a wanted terrorist, as "useful material" or something (i forget).
It further asks the people to lie about official version of events, proving our point that the Palestinains are chin deep in lies and propoganda.
quote:
The second set of "evidence" is even more flimsy. What the IDF shows us is a letter complaining that armed pals were using a school to shoot at Israeli drivers and an official at the school complained to the PA. That's it. Were those armed gunmen sent to the school by the PA? No evidence. Did the PA supply, train or otherwise overtly assist those gunmen? No evidence. Hell, there isn't even any evidence as to whether the PA tried to remove those gunmen (I assume they didn't try, but my point is the IDF didn't show any evidence one way or the other). |
The IDf shows a letter from a PA official to another PA official, talking about the terror activities, proving that the terror activities there occur with the PA's knowledge and approval.
Notice that the PA official asks not to stop the activity to prevent hurting the kids, but tone it down so it won't be discovered.
It suggests that this is hapenning with the knowledge and support of the PA.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:19
|
|
I find it disturbing how the OT is painted in black and white. I thought I had joined this community because it was sort of sophisticated, but sophisticated people aren't supposed to think in black and white. The problem is you find black-and-white painters on both sides of this argument. It will never stop, and it creates offense and hate between people that might normally be in a totally different relation to each other. Bad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
- Groucho -
|
|
quote:
It suggests that this is hapenning with the knowledge and support of the PA. |
I totally agree that the letter shows that the PA had knowledge. I'm not that sure about support though. What evidence is there that the PA didn't try to stop these gunmen and failed? I don't think that actually happened, but where is the evidence?
But even granted that it shows some level of support, how does it prove that the PA "masterminded" the gunmen's activities?
It doesn't. And that is why it's hard to take the IDF seriously because the conclusion they say the evidence supports just isn't there.
Personally, I think the PA suspected it didn't have the strength or support to contain the terrorists without losing their power base so they turned a blind eye to teracts in the hope that Israel would fold. Not so much masterminding as "not stopping". The whole strategy seems to have backfired massively on them and well it should, they were hoping to profit from terrorism. But they weren't "masterminding" terrorism and I think the IDF knows it. Of course, that's just my opinion. I'm not pretending to have proof of anything.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tau Ceti
|
 |
Kyoto, Japan
Nov 1999
time: 14:19
|
|
Parties to a conflict are notoriously unreliable news sources. They may not publish outright lies (and I have nothing to suggest that the linked articles are - there is probably quite a lot of truth to them), but they certainly only tell one side of the story, and are not likely to publish anything that makes them look bad.
I did not trust western media during the Gulf war. I did not trust them during the Kosovo war. I do not trust Sri Lankan media about anything that has to do with the civil war there (if those casualty reports were anywhere near accurate, there should hardly be a Tamil left alive). I do not trust Arab news, nor do I trust Israeli. Why should I? They are all trying to justify their own view; the information flow is strictly controlled.
I know Sirotnikov touts the Israeli media as 100% free and objective, and considers them the only unbiased source for news, but it seems even the Israeli media themselves are beginning to doubt that:
Ha'aretz article
quote:
The war looks different abroad - and maybe so do the facts
By Aviv Lavie
At the height of the newspaper wiretapping scandal, when the pages of the two daily tabloids were turned into a battlefield of insults and distortions lacking any basic journalistic standards, there were those who proposed that the only way to save the newspapers' honor would be to leave the reporting in the hands of outside news agencies. Lately, it appears to be time to raise the idea again - for coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
A journey through the TV and radio channels and the pages of the newspapers exposes a huge and embarrassing gap between what is reported to us and what is seen, heard, and read in the world - not only in the commentaries and analytical pieces, but also in the reporting of the dry facts.
Israel looks like an isolated media island, with most of the reporters drafted into the cause of convincing themselves and the reader that the government and army are perfectly justified in whatever they do. Some have actually been drafted - Yedioth Aharonoth has started running a regular column by its reporter, Guy Leshem, who reports with determination from the heart of the West Bank, straight from his military reserve service. This is another step in erasing the line between the defense framework and the editorial framework that is supposed to report and criticize.
An Israeli citizen interested in a more complex picture of reality has to rely on the remote control and the computer mouse. "I've been here many years but I don't remember such a dark period in the Israeli press," complained one foreign correspondent, who indeed has been here many years. But even if he slightly exaggerated, it's not a totally unrealistic assessment.
The defense minister stuck to his word and absolutely prohibited sending Israeli reporters along with the army into Ramallah. The result: The Israeli media has no information about what is going on in the town.
Reporters and commentators get most of their information from the army, and a few also use Palestinian sources whom they regard with great suspicion. Many reporters believed the army was closed off to them for a few days, but as time goes by, they have been proven wrong. Since the journalists aren't on the ground to see firsthand, the soldiers become their eyes, which explains the huge difference between what is reported and broadcast to us, and what the rest of the world sees, particularly the Arab world.
On Arab TV stations (though not only them) one could see Israeli soldiers taking over hospitals, breaking equipment, damaging medicines, and locking doctors away from their patients. In one interview, a doctor was whispering on a phone, explaining that he had to lower his voice lest the soldier in the next room cut off the conversation. Foreign television networks all over the world have shown the images of five Palestinians from the National Security forces, shot in the heads from close range; one was apparently the manager of the Palestinian Authority orchestra. Some of the networks have claimed they were shot in cold blood after they were disarmed.
The entire world has seen wounded people in the streets, heard reports of how the IDF prevents ambulances from reaching the wounded for treatment. The entire world has heard Palestinian residents saying they can't leave their homes because "they shoot anyone in the streets." The entire world has heard testimony by Palestinian families who have been imprisoned in their homes for 72 hours, in some places without electricity or water, and the food is running out. There are also reports of vandalism and looting.
Maybe it's all mendacious propaganda (though in some cases, the pictures speak for themselves) but Israeli journalists have no way to investigate to find out the truth, whether to deflate the stories, or confirm them. In the absence of that kind of reporting, instead, over and over, we hear the worn out mantras about how "the civilian population is not our enemy," and reports on how the army takes such strict care not to harm civilians.
Israelis love to compare the American hunt for Osama bin Laden in the mountains of Afghanistan to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At least on one level, Israel indeed managed to create a parallel: since Thursday night, the IDF has created an Afghanization of the Ramallah area. First, the Israeli media was neutralized, and then the IDF Spokesman "recommended" to the foreign press that it leave the city, making clear that those who remained would be doing so at their own risk. Some reporters feel the IDF has opened war against them, not Yasser Arafat.
On Saturday, a TV France 2 team tried to reach Ramallah. At first they tried going through Psagot, and they ended up at the Qalandiyah checkpoint. When they were forbidden to pass, they pulled out their equipment to photograph the checkpoint. Just so there would be something to show. It's allowed. But one of the soldiers - a reservist, according to the crew - ordered them to stop. They told him that he had no right to prevent them from filming and asked him to produce a written order from the Central Command that proved the area had been designated a closed military area. He had no such order. Instead, he began shouting at them and throwing things at them. Finally, when they turned their backs and began to go back to their car, a bullet sliced through the air between the cameraman and the reporter, Shaul Anderline.
Anderline is an Israeli citizen, who has lived here many years. In the wake of the incident he sent a vehement complaint to the IDF Spokesman. The IDF Spokesman said the "affair is being investigated." Unofficially, IDF officers regard the incident as serious. In the last few days, two journalists have been shot in Ramallah, joining a growing list of reporters who have been wounded since the intifada broke out. The intentional shooting at Qalandiyah weakens the Israeli argument that the reporters were accidentally shot.
Journalists are also civilians, and in these days of blood, when the stomach turns and emotions work overtime, it influences even those whose profession requires them to be cool-headed and clear-minded. Unfortunately, those who want to find a model for just the opposite can turn to Friday's Ma'ariv headline - "With a mighty fist and an outstretched arm" (quoting the Pesach seder's evocation of God smiting the Egyptians). But that headline writer can look to some of the American tabloid press, which right after the Twin Towers attack ran headlines like Wanted Dead or Alive over pictures of bin Laden (sometimes with the "Alive" crossed out).
Both in New York and Tel Aviv, when journalists cease collecting facts and asking questions, and instead turn to beating the war drums - yesterday, Ma'ariv editor Amnon Dankner ran a front page article devoted to smashing, killing, trampling and destroying - it's time to say good-bye, at least in the meanwhile, to a free press.
After the war, in a week or two, or a month, or maybe much longer, reporters will have to confront the things they wrote and said. Or maybe they won't. The archives are full of dusty folders full of the articles that appeared before the Yom Kippur War, and those extolling the consensus around the invasion of Lebanon. Nobody has yet really paid for what was written then, and already a new bill is mounting. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tau Ceti
|
|
Kyoto, Japan
Nov 1999
time: 14:19
|
|
Another interesting Ha'aretz article
quote:
Israel Radio defines Arabic Newspeak
By Ori Nir
Journalists in the Arabic language department of Israel Radio must not use the word "victim" when referring to Palestinian civilians killed in the intifada, according to guidelines distributed a week ago to editors and journalists at Reshet Daled, the Arabic station of Israel Radio. Instead of "victim" broadcasters should say "the dead"(katla).
The guidelines include other instructions on the use of certain expressions:
* "Quotations of Palestinians or Arabs should not be preceded by the word `akkada'" which means "underscored." This, says the guide, might "give the impression that you support or identify with the quote."
* The word "version" should not be used to describe statements by "official Israeli spokespersons" - like the Israeli Defense Forces - "because this gives the impression you are casting doubt on the statement." But it does add "there is no restriction on using the word when referring to the Palestinian side."
* When an official Israeli spokesman, such as the IDF spokesman, denies "lies and slander like the massacre in Jenin, it is not sufficient to use the expression `nafa' [denied] as has been done in some broadcasts." Instead, journalists must use verbs that make clear the allegations are a lie, and reiterate this by adding at the end: "The spokesman underscored that these slanderous allegations are entirely false and baseless."
* When a Knesset member contradicts or refutes statements by the prime minister "never use expressions such as `refuted' or `contradicted,' but say instead: `The Knesset member objected, or expressed his objections to, the prime minister's statement."
* The word "assassination" should not be used in referring to Israel's assassinations of Palestinian activists. Instead the word "killing" (katal in Arabic) should be used for those actions which the IDF itself calls "targeted assassinations."
Journalists in the Arabic news department say that since the intifada began in the territories a year and a half ago, there has been considerable management interference in broadcasting. Several employees argue that this harms the reputation for reliability and integrity which the station has among its Arab Israeli listeners and in the Arab world.
Edmond Skhayyek, the head of the department, said the guidelines have yet to be approved and he has not taken a position on the directives. He said they had not yet been distributed in the department, but employees denied this. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
- Groucho -
|
|
What is "Israel Radio"? I assume it is state owned. Is it perceived as "public but independent" like the BBC? Or is it perceived as an organ of the state?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
|
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tau Ceti
Parties to a conflict are notoriously unreliable news sources. They may not publish outright lies (and I have nothing to suggest that the linked articles are - there is probably quite a lot of truth to them), but they certainly only tell one side of the story, and are not likely to publish anything that makes them look bad. |
I didn't suggest the aforementioned links as the source of "ultimate truth".
I said that it's a piece of the puzzle.
quote:
I did not trust western media during the Gulf war. I did not trust them during the Kosovo war. I do not trust Sri Lankan media about anything that has to do with the civil war there (if those casualty reports were anywhere near accurate, there should hardly be a Tamil left alive). I do not trust Arab news, nor do I trust Israeli. Why should I? They are all trying to justify their own view; the information flow is strictly controlled. |
The information flow is strictly controlled in totalitarian countries.
Israel is a democracy.
Infact, Israeli media is usually much more critical of the government than US or UK media. I never watched CNN or SKY or BBC and saw as much doubt and criticism.
quote:
I know Sirotnikov touts the Israeli media as 100% free and objective, and considers them the only unbiased source for news, but it seems even the Israeli media themselves are beginning to doubt that: |
ROFL
First, the article you brought, is exactly the reason why I am sure that my source for news is trustworthy and as impartial as can be for a side in the conflict.
I know that there are journalists covering all sides of the struggle. I know that these people are free to make up their own mind. I know that there are people there who have radically different world views and can write what they want.
Second, the article you brought is more than a month old. I know this, because I read it. Unlike some people, I do not choose to ignore people's opinions just because I disagree with it.
Third, the second article you brought is about the state owned radio. It's state run, and therefore has to be completely PC and pro-state. It's part of the IBA - Israeli Broadcasting Authority which is governed by the state.
You'll be happy to know that there are dozens of private arab news stations which are free to use which ever words they like.
If you dig up the BBC code, you'll find also rules which are meant to support the brittish outlook on the world. For instance, BBC doesn't allow to call anyone "terrorists" but rather "guerillas" or "freedom fighters".
This is perfectly ok, and expected.
Obviously an educated person would notice that and deal with it accordingly, adjusting himself.
And also, there's a difference between what is broadcasted in arabic or english, and what is broadcasted in hebrew.
While the arabic and english bits only contain a brief of the news, which is quite PC and pro-israeli, while the serious news programs and magazines, are far from being PC.
Quite often will you see Arab MKs, left wingers, and quite very often Palestinian representatives being interviewed.
Infact, the most prominent news anchors and interviewers are predominantly lefty.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tau Ceti
|
|
Kyoto, Japan
Nov 1999
time: 14:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I didn't suggest the aforementioned links as the source of "ultimate truth".
I said that it's a piece of the puzzle. |
Well, your choice of thread title suggests otherwise and I did not see you add any qualifiers, but if you only wanted to post this as a possible viewpoint then fair enough. You will have to forgive me for being a cynic and not accepting it all at face value, though.
quote:
The information flow is strictly controlled in totalitarian countries.
Israel is a democracy. |
I was primarily talking about military and intelligence matters. Even in the most liberal democracy, these are not issues where there is free access to information. There are good and legitimate reasons for that and it is not particularly worth criticizing; however, it means that any information coming from official sources should be taken with a very big pinch of salt.
quote:
First, the article you brought, is exactly the reason why I am sure that my source for news is trustworthy and as impartial as can be for a side in the conflict. |
How so? If the article is to be believed, many journalists have the army - a direct party to the conflict - as their main or sole source, and implies that many are more or less openly throwing pretenses of objectivity out the window. That is hardly trust-inducing if you ask me...
quote:
Second, the article you brought is more than a month old. I know this, because I read it. Unlike some people, I do not choose to ignore people's opinions just because I disagree with it. |
Not sure what you are getting at here... What has changed in the last month? And whose opinions am I ignoring? Have I even said I disagree with something here?
quote:
Third, the second article you brought is about the state owned radio. It's state run, and therefore has to be completely PC and pro-state. It's part of the IBA - Israeli Broadcasting Authority which is governed by the state. |
I would argue that that is certainly no necessity, and that it reflects rather poorly on the Israeli government to do it. This is nothing more than propaganda.
quote:
Obviously an educated person would notice that and deal with it accordingly, adjusting himself. |
Certainly. Is that supposed to be an excuse, though? There is obviously an agenda they are trying to push...
quote:
While the arabic and english bits only contain a brief of the news, which is quite PC and pro-israeli, while the serious news programs and magazines, are far from being PC. |
I will take your word for it.  Anyway, I am not suggesting that Israel is a dictatorship that goes around censoring every newspaper article and every radio sound clip; just that the nature of the sources being used and the smaller likelihood of the reporters being able to detach themselves from the events at hand in general will tend to reduce their credibility. International news agencies should suffer less from this...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
morb
|
 |
San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA
Nov 2001
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ah, yes, the infamous New York Times thumbscrews that are issued to all NYT reporters. Or the Washington post water torture, only topped in cruelty by the official CNN termite heap.
Now, since I've realized the incerdiblys tupid people often have problems understanding sarcasm, I'll try to explain to you in simple words:
I don't read arab media.
I know media is a three syllable word, but maybe you can get your parents to explain it to you.
BTW, the witch part, that was sarcasm. I don't expect you to get it... |
nice... 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-05-2002 01:43
|