 |
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Siro - The IDF never pulled completely out of PA administered areas and still enters towns whenever it wants. I hardly think Arafat would have had honest elections, which is why he demanded the IDF withdraw when he knew it wouldn't.
I doubt Arafat is very popular in Palestine right now but the most popular alternative would probably be Hamas.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Canuck
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
it takes two to create a trend...its the next guy who will. Honestly, if a guy is giving up the Holy land to a bunch of Jew killers, wouldn't you kill him?
It is only a matter of time. |
A vast majority of the Israeli population supports the establishment of a Palestinian state. The most ultra orthodox of Jews don't support the establishment of a Jewish state so Israeli extremists are the exception, not the rule imo.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Canuck
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
GS - Israel did pull out from the towns, and now sits around them.
If he would try to have elections and Israel would prevent him from doing so, it would have been a great card to use to make Israel retreat from the PA areas.
But he didn't try to have elections and then blamed it on Israel. He preferred to let the whole idea be forgotten.
Btw, his demands of Abu Mazen were that at least 17 of Arafat's previuos ministers remain in the cabinet. Then he lowered the demand to 14. His main clashes with Abu Mazen were on th roles Abu Mazen gets compared to himself, and thr fact that Abu Mazen intended to introduce several key people who were Arafat's opposition and wouldn't listen to his directions.
Infact Abu Mazen wanted a strong independant regime.
Even though Abu Mazen's people were not as popular as Arafat himself, Arafat's current government is hated by the people for it's corruption. Arafat has been reshuffling portfolios among pretty much the same people, ever since he took power. |
Yup, it seems the biggest obstacle to agreement between Mazzen and Arafat was the appointment of Dahlan, a man who has disregarded Arafat's instructions in the past. Imo Arafat has used the PA's security forces to encourage Palestinian militants rather than to undermine them, as he promised the Israelis. Arafat still wants complete control of the PA's security forces so that the violence can continue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zevico
|
|
Melbourne
Apr 2002
time: 15:27
|
|
Gnu:
Did you read the JPost article in question? I believe it said he -threatened- to resign. Not that he actually resigned.
In addition:
When was the last time they covered a massacre up? They certainly had information about that so called 'massacre' of yours, and I can almost assure you they had it before anyone else, too.
Also, Gnu, as the articles above tend to show, your 'massacre' is an incorrect term. Massacre would be when they went in trying to kill people wherever they went, regardless of who they are.
Imran, when was JPost shown to have an agenda, or be biased against Palestinians?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sirotnikov
|
 |
<--- Yes, It's a "kitty" in a boot.
Feb 2000
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
Siro - The IDF never pulled completely out of PA administered areas and still enters towns whenever it wants. I hardly think Arafat would have had honest elections, which is why he demanded the IDF withdraw when he knew it wouldn't. |
But if he suppesdly declared 1st of April elections day, Israel would be very weary not to enter the PA towns in the sorrounding days, so that not to get blamed, at least.
quote:
I doubt Arafat is very popular in Palestine right now but the most popular alternative would probably be Hamas. |
True.
2 reasons.
1. Many want revenge (obvious)
2. Arafat is a stealing corrupt leader and his people know it. Arafat is taking most of the money donated to the Pals, distributes it among himself, his aides and some to weapons and fighters. Hamas on the other hand, is infact also a very large charity. That makes it ever more popular, which is scary. But they are doing holy work, in a sense, since a large part of their cash does go to improve poor people's lives.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
 |
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
Ned: quote:
All I can say is that Arafat remains the boss and the problem. I remain very pessimistic for the chances of peace so long as the Palestinians are lead by this man. |
Sadly, yes. As long as Arafat is in power, Sharon can use him as an excuse for not moving towards a peaceful solution...
quote:
I can only hope that a requirement for any new Palestinian State is that it be democratic, i.e., have regular elections and a real multiparty sytem. I don't think democracy can work so long a Arafat, and perhap his cronies, are in power. |
I don't think that democracy can work as long as Sharon, or his cronies, are in power... Sure, Arafat would do everything in his power to stay as leader of palestine, but without Israels occupation he would have a revolution on his hands if he tried to stop elections. As the events of this last week has shown us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberGnu
|
|
of the Virtual Serengeti
Apr 1999
time: 05:27
|
|
Zevico: quote:
Did you read the JPost article in question? I believe it said he -threatened- to resign. Not that he actually resigned.
|
Actually, no. I don't waste my time on unsourced material from the pro-israelis on this board... It usually comes from israeli "news"agencies or editorials. I read Elis title and the first paragraph, then the end (where I looked for a source), and then the replies in case it had been posted or requested.
Since the responses on the first page was basically a bunch of people accepting the story as-is, I checked the front page of NYT, LAT, BBC, MSNBC, Yahoo News (Reuters) and a swedish paper, Dagens Nyheter. No mention of the story on any of their pages. I consequencly question the veracity of the statement, together with a suggestion as to the motivations of the original poster.
quote:
When was the last time they covered a massacre up? They certainly had information about that so called 'massacre' of yours, and I can almost assure you they had it before anyone else, too. |
Read the third page, eight post.
quote:
Also, Gnu, as the articles above tend to show, your 'massacre' is an incorrect term. Massacre would be when they went in trying to kill people wherever they went, regardless of who they are. |
So the cameraman and the passing 15 year old were targeted for particular crimes they had performed?
No, zevico, I think the indiscriminate slaughter of six innocent people constitutes a massacre... Even if it is done for a political purpose.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alvaro
|
|
the land of the not so free
Apr 2003
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
No, zevico, I think the indiscriminate slaughter of six innocent people constitutes a massacre... Even if it is done for a political purpose. |
"The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly."
Large number. Can you compare the Red Army's invasion of Eastern Prussia to what happened there?
The latter is a certified massacre. The former is what pompous leftists call a "massacre" when even CNN don't dare doing so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
And that's what happens when a paper prints stuff without checking facts first. Duh. |
The article was completely factual at the time it was written because at that point, Abu Mazen had not agreed to meet Arafat again, and indeed, what was written in the article was:
quote:
Palestinian officials tried to convince Abu Mazen, who returned home after leaving the meeting, to attend a central committee meeting at a later date. It is not clear if Abu Mazen has agreed. |
Exactly what fact was not accurate about that at the time the article was written?
You're the one who writes stuff without checking what was written first, like that the article claimed that Abu Mazen quit, when it did not, or that no other news agency reported what that article reported.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Edan:
Cover up Saddams crimes? I think I missed that part in the story. Where did it say that CNN lied to help Saddam? Oh, wait, are you confusing "covering up" with "acting in accordance to ethical guidelines"?
|
They certainly covered up some of Saddams crimes. The motives for that may be in question, however. They claimed to be "protecting" their reporters by not reporting murders, tortures, dissapearances and other crimes. It seems to me, however, that they could have protected reporters by pulling them out of Iraq and then reporting the stories. Then also claimed that they were doing so to protect Iraqis - which is a copout. They could easily report the stories while not identifyying Iraqis and using technology to make faces and voices unrecognizable - it's been done before and will be done in the future.
There you have it, a way to report the news while at the same time, not attempting to hide any relevent information that they have that the public should know. Indeed, pulling the reporters home would be a lot more safe than keeping them in Baghdad, even if they were lying for Saddam. Of course, it means that CNN would have less access to Iraq, but what CNN would have is integrity and a clear record, and not have to worry - at all - about it's reporters.
How are we to trust CNN in the future, if all it takes is some threats and CNN will lie or cover up for someone in power capable of carrying out those threats - with CNN prefering to get a little better access rather than to protect it's reporters and tell the complete truth?
Last edited by Edan on 24-04-2003 at 18:19
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Eh, Ned, do you realize that you've fallen for an old old trick? AFAIK, Israel only does what all occupying powers do: try tolegitimize their presence through calling for "democratic elections". Of course, they wouldn't DREAM of influencing the election... Oh no, not at all. There would never be "unfortunate" closings of more hardline areas such as Jenin... No chance of particularly stringent checkpoints between voting stations and more extreme population centers... And definetly no attempts of influencing the voters themselves with empty promises of peace as long as they vote for a more docile leader?
Yeah... Right...
If you REALLY want to see elections, call for Israels withdrawal. |
Actually, CyberGnu, you raise a very good point here. There can be no free elections so long as Arafat is in power. With Arafat in charge, I wouldn't be surprised if Arafat would receive 99.9% of the vote, just like Saddam did in the last election in Iraq.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Edan
They certainly covered up some of Saddams crimes. The motives for that may be in question, however. They claimed to be "protecting" their reporters by not reporting murders, tortures, dissapearances and other crimes. It seems to me, however, that they could have protected reporters by pulling them out of Iraq and then reporting the stories. Then also claimed that they were doing so to protect Iraqis - which is a copout. They could easily report the stories while not identifyying Iraqis and using technology to make faces and voices unrecognizable - it's been done before and will be done in the future.
There you have it, a way to report the news while at the same time, not attempting to hide any relevent information that they have that the public should know. Indeed, pulling the reporters home would be a lot more safe than keeping them in Baghdad, even if they were lying for Saddam. Of course, it means that CNN would have less access to Iraq, but what CNN would have is integrity and a clear record, and not have to worry - at all - about it's reporters.
How are we to trust CNN in the future, if all it takes is some threats and CNN will lie or cover up for someone in power capable of carrying out those threats - with CNN prefering to get a little better access rather than to protect it's reporters and tell the complete truth? |
Edan, this represents the concensus view of every news network in the US - except, of course, CNN. I still do not understand how anyone can defend CNN - but they obviously do here on Apolyton.
I wonder, at times, whether the tradition outside the US of having the major networks owned and operated by the government hasn't lead to a blaise attitude concerning this issue. After all, they have been receiving government propaganda as news their entire lives.
Last edited by Ned on 24-04-2003 at 22:46
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-04-2003 22:08
|