|
On August 02 2014 04:35 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 04:30 Rube_Juice wrote:On August 02 2014 04:26 DinoMight wrote:On August 02 2014 04:23 Rube_Juice wrote:On August 02 2014 04:16 Jormundr wrote:On August 02 2014 04:00 Rube_Juice wrote:On August 02 2014 03:51 EtherealBlade wrote:On August 02 2014 03:38 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 03:34 DinoMight wrote:On August 02 2014 03:24 sekritzzz wrote:
[quote]
There is a huge, huge difference between wanting the destruction of the isreali state and mass genocide of the jewish people. For example iran actively hosts a jewish population but they still call for the dismantling of Israel. Calling for genocide means killing every single child, woman or man you see from that race.
I dont want to believe it but the policy of Israels army seems to be heading that way. bombing UN refugee shelters for children or leveling entire neighborhoods is disturbing to say the least. Even Obama is getting frustrated I've argued before that refusing to recognize Israel's legitimacy is not an anti-semitic point of view nor is it the same as calling for "death to jews." Denying Israel's right to exist is a political statement entirely and is not synonymous with denying the Jewish people the right to exist. Too often they're blended together by Israel supporters. While this may be true, Hamas is both anti-Zionist and anti-semetic, as is evident by their charter's numerous reference to "Jews". Their leaders frequently state that their only problem is the zionist occupation. But in their day to day conduct they call out to kill all jews, just like Israel often calls out to kill all Arabs. Does Israel "often call out to kill all Arabs"? Is there a source that any government official or person in power has stated this view? It's certainly true of Hamas in regards to Jews, and they are the voted majority. I'm curious... No, because they don't want to kill all arabs. They just want to make sure that the 4 million arabs they don't like stay in their camps and don't make trouble (like asking for freedom or the rights to live, vote, defend themselves, travel and not get disappeared when they criticize the Israeli government). So what you're saying is that it was an incorrect statement. Thank you, that's all I was asking. Actually, he's wrong. See my above post. The word "often" does not imply one person saying one thing one time. "That evidence disproves my absolute statement, so I'm just going to disregard it..." You tried to make a point and it failed. Man up and accept it.
I'm sorry, but what exactly was my "absolute statement"? Stating that something happens often should be easy to prove, since it would be happening with regularity. Do you actually think that quoting a single statement by one person proves the point I responded to above?
|
Here's one more:
"And finally we have Moshe Feiglin, a deputy speaker of the Israeli parliament and a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, urging the Israeli army to kill Palestinians in Gaza indiscriminately and use every means possible to get them to leave:
[Netanyahu] announces that Israel is about to attack military targets in their area and urges those who are not involved and do not wish to be harmed to leave immediately. Sinai is not far from Gaza and they can leave. This will be the limit of Israel’s humanitarian efforts. … All the military and infrastructural targets will be attacked with no consideration for ‘human shields’ or ‘environmental damage’ "
He's saying if Palestinians don't want to die they should leave Gaza and flee to SINAI because Israelis going to flatten everything with no consideration for 'human shields' or 'environmental damage.' Mind you that Sinai is in Egypt and is pretty much just a desert.
|
And one more:
Retired generals and commentators on active duty compete to make the most monstrous proposal: “If we kill their families, that will frighten them,” explained Maj.Gen. (res.) Oren Shachor, without batting an eyelid. “We must create a situation such that when they come out of their burrows, they won’t recognize Gaza,”
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.604653#!
|
On August 02 2014 04:51 DinoMight wrote:
Here's one more:
"And finally we have Moshe Feiglin, a deputy speaker of the Israeli parliament and a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, urging the Israeli army to kill Palestinians in Gaza indiscriminately and use every means possible to get them to leave:
[Netanyahu] announces that Israel is about to attack military targets in their area and urges those who are not involved and do not wish to be harmed to leave immediately. Sinai is not far from Gaza and they can leave. This will be the limit of Israel’s humanitarian efforts. … All the military and infrastructural targets will be attacked with no consideration for ‘human shields’ or ‘environmental damage’ "
He's saying if Palestinians don't want to die they should leave Gaza because Israelis going to flatten everything with no consideration for 'human shields' or 'environmental damage.'
Thank you for providing multiple sources - at least you are helpful unlike the dipshit above.
User was warned for this post
|
On August 02 2014 04:57 Rube_Juice wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 04:51 DinoMight wrote:
Here's one more:
"And finally we have Moshe Feiglin, a deputy speaker of the Israeli parliament and a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, urging the Israeli army to kill Palestinians in Gaza indiscriminately and use every means possible to get them to leave:
[Netanyahu] announces that Israel is about to attack military targets in their area and urges those who are not involved and do not wish to be harmed to leave immediately. Sinai is not far from Gaza and they can leave. This will be the limit of Israel’s humanitarian efforts. … All the military and infrastructural targets will be attacked with no consideration for ‘human shields’ or ‘environmental damage’ "
He's saying if Palestinians don't want to die they should leave Gaza because Israelis going to flatten everything with no consideration for 'human shields' or 'environmental damage.' Thank you for providing multiple sources - at least you are helpful unlike the dipshit above.
Self-Rule
The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.
The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs.
From the Likud party charter. The Likud party is the largest knesset party, with 20/120 seats. The current prime minister is the head of this party. This basically says that they will never let the Palestinians have a government in the west bank, and all the Palestians living there should expect to be treated like second class citizens whenever Israel feels like it. An example would be the mass arrest of hundreds of west bank Palestinians after the murder of the Israeli teens. If the US tried arresting 300 random black people off the street because a white girl got killed in South Chicago, there would be riots everywhere because that's not something you can justifiably do to people in a civil society.
Settlements
The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.
Also from the Likud charter. The Gaza part is less applicable now, as they are already content with keeping the 1.8 million residents of the Gaza strip locked up in an area about the size of the city of Greensboro. The main thing to take away from this is that they want to do to the West Bank what they did to the strip; slowly push all the native Palestinians out of their homes and into a walled up camp that Israeli security forces can monitor.
|
My Outline for a Solution in Gaza [...]
Conquer – After the IDF completes the "softening" of the targets with its fire-power, the IDF will conquer the entire Gaza, using all the means necessary to minimize any harm to our soldiers, with no other considerations.
Elimination- The GSS and IDF will thoroughly eliminate all armed enemies from Gaza. The enemy population that is innocent of wrong-doing and separated itself from the armed terrorists will be treated in accordance with international law and will be allowed to leave. Israel will generously aid those who wish to leave.
Sovereignty – Gaza is part of our Land and we will remain there forever. Liberation of parts of our land forever is the only thing that justifies endangering our soldiers in battle to capture land. Subsequent to the elimination of terror from Gaza, it will become part of sovereign Israel and will be populated by Jews. This will also serve to ease the housing crisis in Israel. The coastal train line will be extended, as soon as possible, to reach the entire length of Gaza.
MK Moshe Feiglin - Moshe Feiglin is Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, Knesset Member, and head of the Manhigut Yehudit ("Jewish Leadership") faction of Israel's governing Likud party.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/15326#.U9v1Sfl_vuM
By the way, read the blogs in Arutz Sheva, and see how rotten this can be. Some of those blogs, about anti zionist jews being "self haters", or that discuss relationship between islamism and and nazism (with a subtitle being : "Islam = Nazism. Any questions ? "), or a blog about gaza being the first "urban suicide bomb", the next stage being the "state suicide bomb" in reference to Iran.
|
On August 02 2014 05:17 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 04:57 Rube_Juice wrote:On August 02 2014 04:51 DinoMight wrote:
Here's one more:
"And finally we have Moshe Feiglin, a deputy speaker of the Israeli parliament and a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, urging the Israeli army to kill Palestinians in Gaza indiscriminately and use every means possible to get them to leave:
[Netanyahu] announces that Israel is about to attack military targets in their area and urges those who are not involved and do not wish to be harmed to leave immediately. Sinai is not far from Gaza and they can leave. This will be the limit of Israel’s humanitarian efforts. … All the military and infrastructural targets will be attacked with no consideration for ‘human shields’ or ‘environmental damage’ "
He's saying if Palestinians don't want to die they should leave Gaza because Israelis going to flatten everything with no consideration for 'human shields' or 'environmental damage.' Thank you for providing multiple sources - at least you are helpful unlike the dipshit above. Show nested quote +Self-Rule
The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.
The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel's existence, security and national needs. From the Likud party charter. The Likud party is the largest knesset party, with 20/120 seats. The current prime minister is the head of this party. This basically says that they will never let the Palestinians have a government in the west bank, and all the Palestians living there should expect to be treated like second class citizens whenever Israel feels like it. An example would be the mass arrest of hundreds of west bank Palestinians after the murder of the Israeli teens. If the US tried arresting 300 random black people off the street because a white girl got killed in South Chicago, there would be riots everywhere because that's not something you can justifiably do to people in a civil society. Show nested quote +Settlements
The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting. Also from the Likud charter. The Gaza part is less applicable now, as they are already content with keeping the 1.8 million residents of the Gaza strip locked up in an area about the size of the city of Greensboro. The main thing to take away from this is that they want to do to the West Bank what they did to the strip; slowly push all the native Palestinians out of their homes and into a walled up camp that Israeli security forces can monitor.
Interesting, I didn't know this.. So the Likud party charter basically denies a Palestinian state the right to exist.
|
On August 02 2014 03:57 soon.Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 03:50 xM(Z wrote:On August 02 2014 03:45 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 03:41 ImFromPortugal wrote:On August 02 2014 03:38 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 03:34 DinoMight wrote:On August 02 2014 03:24 sekritzzz wrote:On August 02 2014 03:16 DinoMight wrote:On August 02 2014 03:09 sekritzzz wrote:its likely the article is already posted since TL is generally quick but holy shit, "The is genocide permissible" article is lunatic. it was even posted on the leading israeli newspaper. Maybe instead of preaching to the world about the holocaust, they themselves should revisit its lessons and the de-humanization of a subjugated people the article: http://w01.freezepage.com/a/14069/09211XPDLSKVFJP/0 The guy who wrote that article is actually a lunatic, and many in the Jewish and pro-Israel community have come forward and condemned that kind of thought, but it's still scary to see how many people agree with him. Usually when you see that kind of crazy-talk it's in the form of Muslim extremists talking about the destruction of Israel. The media sure does shove a lot of that down our throats. But crazies exist on both sides. There is a huge, huge difference between wanting the destruction of the isreali state and mass genocide of the jewish people. For example iran actively hosts a jewish population but they still call for the dismantling of Israel. Calling for genocide means killing every single child, woman or man you see from that race. I dont want to believe it but the policy of Israels army seems to be heading that way. bombing UN refugee shelters for children or leveling entire neighborhoods is disturbing to say the least. Even Obama is getting frustrated I've argued before that refusing to recognize Israel's legitimacy is not an anti-semitic point of view nor is it the same as calling for "death to jews." Denying Israel's right to exist is a political statement entirely and is not synonymous with denying the Jewish people the right to exist. Too often they're blended together by Israel supporters. While this may be true, Hamas is both anti-Zionist and anti-semetic, as is evident by their charter's numerous reference to "Jews". Aren't the palestinians semitic people as well? Technically, yes, but colloquially antisemitism has meant racism towards Jews. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism(I'll bet $1,000 that on the Talk page, there is a huge argument about exactly the point you're making) being anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic is the same thing; being anti-Israel is different. Where in gods name did you get that from. That's completely backwards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ZionismShow nested quote +Anti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism, a nationalism of Jews that supports a Jewish nation state in the territory defined as the Land of Israel.[1] In the modern era, Anti-Zionism is broadly defined as the opposition to the idea of an establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, the opposition to some policies of Israel and its extension, or to the modern State of Israel as defined as A Jewish and Democratic State.
you could argue that they are on different levels but they are the same thing. one is against Jewish people and the other against a Jewish state. they are both against Jews.
i'm not saying that if you are an anti-Zionist you are also anti-Semitic but that both are against Jews.
now, how about an Israel that would not be a Jewish-only nation state?.
|
On August 02 2014 05:34 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 03:57 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 03:50 xM(Z wrote:On August 02 2014 03:45 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 03:41 ImFromPortugal wrote:On August 02 2014 03:38 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 03:34 DinoMight wrote:On August 02 2014 03:24 sekritzzz wrote:On August 02 2014 03:16 DinoMight wrote:On August 02 2014 03:09 sekritzzz wrote:its likely the article is already posted since TL is generally quick but holy shit, "The is genocide permissible" article is lunatic. it was even posted on the leading israeli newspaper. Maybe instead of preaching to the world about the holocaust, they themselves should revisit its lessons and the de-humanization of a subjugated people the article: http://w01.freezepage.com/a/14069/09211XPDLSKVFJP/0 The guy who wrote that article is actually a lunatic, and many in the Jewish and pro-Israel community have come forward and condemned that kind of thought, but it's still scary to see how many people agree with him. Usually when you see that kind of crazy-talk it's in the form of Muslim extremists talking about the destruction of Israel. The media sure does shove a lot of that down our throats. But crazies exist on both sides. There is a huge, huge difference between wanting the destruction of the isreali state and mass genocide of the jewish people. For example iran actively hosts a jewish population but they still call for the dismantling of Israel. Calling for genocide means killing every single child, woman or man you see from that race. I dont want to believe it but the policy of Israels army seems to be heading that way. bombing UN refugee shelters for children or leveling entire neighborhoods is disturbing to say the least. Even Obama is getting frustrated I've argued before that refusing to recognize Israel's legitimacy is not an anti-semitic point of view nor is it the same as calling for "death to jews." Denying Israel's right to exist is a political statement entirely and is not synonymous with denying the Jewish people the right to exist. Too often they're blended together by Israel supporters. While this may be true, Hamas is both anti-Zionist and anti-semetic, as is evident by their charter's numerous reference to "Jews". Aren't the palestinians semitic people as well? Technically, yes, but colloquially antisemitism has meant racism towards Jews. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism(I'll bet $1,000 that on the Talk page, there is a huge argument about exactly the point you're making) being anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic is the same thing; being anti-Israel is different. Where in gods name did you get that from. That's completely backwards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ZionismAnti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism, a nationalism of Jews that supports a Jewish nation state in the territory defined as the Land of Israel.[1] In the modern era, Anti-Zionism is broadly defined as the opposition to the idea of an establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, the opposition to some policies of Israel and its extension, or to the modern State of Israel as defined as A Jewish and Democratic State. you could argue that they are on different levels but they are the same thing. one is against Jewish people and the other against a Jewish state. they are both against Jews. i'm not saying that if you are an anti-Zionist you are also anti-Semitic but that both are against Jews. now, how about an Israel that would not be a Jewish-only nation state?.
"Both against Jews" is not an argument. I don't know what you're trying to say here.
One is discrimination against Jewish people for no reason other than the fact that they are Jews. That's bigotry - "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself"
The other is an argument that Jews should not have their own country created exclusively for them in the historic land of Israel (Palestine). This is a political argument that, while it refers to Jews as the recipient of this new country, has nothing to do with Judaism per se. It's not bigotry.
|
On August 02 2014 05:34 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 03:57 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 03:50 xM(Z wrote:On August 02 2014 03:45 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 03:41 ImFromPortugal wrote:On August 02 2014 03:38 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 03:34 DinoMight wrote:On August 02 2014 03:24 sekritzzz wrote:On August 02 2014 03:16 DinoMight wrote:On August 02 2014 03:09 sekritzzz wrote:its likely the article is already posted since TL is generally quick but holy shit, "The is genocide permissible" article is lunatic. it was even posted on the leading israeli newspaper. Maybe instead of preaching to the world about the holocaust, they themselves should revisit its lessons and the de-humanization of a subjugated people the article: http://w01.freezepage.com/a/14069/09211XPDLSKVFJP/0 The guy who wrote that article is actually a lunatic, and many in the Jewish and pro-Israel community have come forward and condemned that kind of thought, but it's still scary to see how many people agree with him. Usually when you see that kind of crazy-talk it's in the form of Muslim extremists talking about the destruction of Israel. The media sure does shove a lot of that down our throats. But crazies exist on both sides. There is a huge, huge difference between wanting the destruction of the isreali state and mass genocide of the jewish people. For example iran actively hosts a jewish population but they still call for the dismantling of Israel. Calling for genocide means killing every single child, woman or man you see from that race. I dont want to believe it but the policy of Israels army seems to be heading that way. bombing UN refugee shelters for children or leveling entire neighborhoods is disturbing to say the least. Even Obama is getting frustrated I've argued before that refusing to recognize Israel's legitimacy is not an anti-semitic point of view nor is it the same as calling for "death to jews." Denying Israel's right to exist is a political statement entirely and is not synonymous with denying the Jewish people the right to exist. Too often they're blended together by Israel supporters. While this may be true, Hamas is both anti-Zionist and anti-semetic, as is evident by their charter's numerous reference to "Jews". Aren't the palestinians semitic people as well? Technically, yes, but colloquially antisemitism has meant racism towards Jews. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism(I'll bet $1,000 that on the Talk page, there is a huge argument about exactly the point you're making) being anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic is the same thing; being anti-Israel is different. Where in gods name did you get that from. That's completely backwards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ZionismAnti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism, a nationalism of Jews that supports a Jewish nation state in the territory defined as the Land of Israel.[1] In the modern era, Anti-Zionism is broadly defined as the opposition to the idea of an establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, the opposition to some policies of Israel and its extension, or to the modern State of Israel as defined as A Jewish and Democratic State. you could argue that they are on different levels but they are the same thing. one is against Jewish people and the other against a Jewish state. they are both against Jews. i'm not saying that if you are an anti-Zionist you are also anti-Semitic but that both are against Jews. now, how about an Israel that would not be a Jewish-only nation state?.
What don't you understand? it's fairly self explanatory. Anti Zionism is to be against Zionism. To be anti-zionist has nothing to do with being against Jews. Plenty of jews are anti zionist themselves, though Isreali propagandist would have you believe that to be Israelite and jewish (both ethnically and religiously) are the one and the same thing.
|
France266 Posts
On August 02 2014 01:20 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 00:52 Koorb wrote:On August 01 2014 22:50 xM(Z wrote:french media hard at work. Gaza through the distorted lens of French media: An emphatic characteristic of French mainstream coverage of this episode of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its persistent attempt to constantly reframe or redefine the very nature of the conflict by creating the perception of balance of power between the Israeli and Palestinian forces, when such does not exist in reality. This persistence results in the production of biased information and reporting which misrepresents the situation. This superficial assumption resurfaced again when Palestinian resistance factions rejected the inadequate ceasefire proposed by Egypt. French media emphasised the "rejection" and again accused the Palestinian resistance of prolonging the conflict; Israel was framed as an icon of pacifism for accepting and no questions were asked about the nature of the ceasefire, the reason behind Israel's quick acceptance while none of its military objectives had been achieved, and its relationship with the Egyptian regime. Such a superficial approach belies a profound lack of analytical insight and belittles people's intelligence. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/07/gaza-through-distorted-lens-fre-201473111454532885.html Yes, I'm sure Al Jazeera is quite the uninvolved, neutral point of view that is needed to understand the possible bias of the French medias... (even though, of course, Al Jazeera is a state-owned Qatari company, broadcasting from the last country that supports Hamas and shelters its exiled leaders such as Khaled Mashal) there is nothing wrong with criticizing Al Jazeera but, could you point out the false information in that article?, since you are french and all. you have happenings there, as related by Ali Saad (a French sociologist and media critic, focusing on the influence of mass media on society). you could even disagree with his conclusion but you'll still remain with the facts.
The facts?? Don't make me laugh mate. This so-called press release is so ridiculous that it belongs to a parodic news outlet. Even the author is a fraud. Just look for Ali Saad on Google.fr. The self-professed sociologist and media critic is a nobody, who never got published anywhere and is completely unknown to anyone.
|
On August 02 2014 05:57 Koorb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 01:20 xM(Z wrote:On August 02 2014 00:52 Koorb wrote:On August 01 2014 22:50 xM(Z wrote:french media hard at work. Gaza through the distorted lens of French media: An emphatic characteristic of French mainstream coverage of this episode of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its persistent attempt to constantly reframe or redefine the very nature of the conflict by creating the perception of balance of power between the Israeli and Palestinian forces, when such does not exist in reality. This persistence results in the production of biased information and reporting which misrepresents the situation. This superficial assumption resurfaced again when Palestinian resistance factions rejected the inadequate ceasefire proposed by Egypt. French media emphasised the "rejection" and again accused the Palestinian resistance of prolonging the conflict; Israel was framed as an icon of pacifism for accepting and no questions were asked about the nature of the ceasefire, the reason behind Israel's quick acceptance while none of its military objectives had been achieved, and its relationship with the Egyptian regime. Such a superficial approach belies a profound lack of analytical insight and belittles people's intelligence. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/07/gaza-through-distorted-lens-fre-201473111454532885.html Yes, I'm sure Al Jazeera is quite the uninvolved, neutral point of view that is needed to understand the possible bias of the French medias... (even though, of course, Al Jazeera is a state-owned Qatari company, broadcasting from the last country that supports Hamas and shelters its exiled leaders such as Khaled Mashal) there is nothing wrong with criticizing Al Jazeera but, could you point out the false information in that article?, since you are french and all. you have happenings there, as related by Ali Saad (a French sociologist and media critic, focusing on the influence of mass media on society). you could even disagree with his conclusion but you'll still remain with the facts. The facts?? Don't make me laugh mate. This so-called press release is so ridiculous that it belongs to a parodic news outlet. Even the author is a fraud. Just look for Ali Saad on Google.fr. The self-professed sociologist and media critic is a nobody, who never got published anywhere and is completely unknown to anyone.
And because he is a "fraud", all critics on french media are false ?
Ever known about acrimed ? Created by a collective of french academics behind Pierre Bourdieu, one of the greatest and most quoted french sociologist specifically to analyze and criticize french media.
Look what they have to say on how french media treat the gaza war :
"Offensive israélienne contre Gaza : les partis pris du traitement médiatique"
http://www.acrimed.org/article4407.html
"Gaza : Les mots en guerre"
http://www.acrimed.org/article4410.html
|
On August 02 2014 05:39 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 05:34 xM(Z wrote:On August 02 2014 03:57 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 03:50 xM(Z wrote:On August 02 2014 03:45 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 03:41 ImFromPortugal wrote:On August 02 2014 03:38 soon.Cloak wrote:On August 02 2014 03:34 DinoMight wrote:On August 02 2014 03:24 sekritzzz wrote:On August 02 2014 03:16 DinoMight wrote:
[quote]
The guy who wrote that article is actually a lunatic, and many in the Jewish and pro-Israel community have come forward and condemned that kind of thought, but it's still scary to see how many people agree with him.
Usually when you see that kind of crazy-talk it's in the form of Muslim extremists talking about the destruction of Israel. The media sure does shove a lot of that down our throats. But crazies exist on both sides.
There is a huge, huge difference between wanting the destruction of the isreali state and mass genocide of the jewish people. For example iran actively hosts a jewish population but they still call for the dismantling of Israel. Calling for genocide means killing every single child, woman or man you see from that race. I dont want to believe it but the policy of Israels army seems to be heading that way. bombing UN refugee shelters for children or leveling entire neighborhoods is disturbing to say the least. Even Obama is getting frustrated I've argued before that refusing to recognize Israel's legitimacy is not an anti-semitic point of view nor is it the same as calling for "death to jews." Denying Israel's right to exist is a political statement entirely and is not synonymous with denying the Jewish people the right to exist. Too often they're blended together by Israel supporters. While this may be true, Hamas is both anti-Zionist and anti-semetic, as is evident by their charter's numerous reference to "Jews". Aren't the palestinians semitic people as well? Technically, yes, but colloquially antisemitism has meant racism towards Jews. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism(I'll bet $1,000 that on the Talk page, there is a huge argument about exactly the point you're making) being anti-Zionist or anti-Semitic is the same thing; being anti-Israel is different. Where in gods name did you get that from. That's completely backwards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ZionismAnti-Zionism is opposition to Zionism, a nationalism of Jews that supports a Jewish nation state in the territory defined as the Land of Israel.[1] In the modern era, Anti-Zionism is broadly defined as the opposition to the idea of an establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, the opposition to some policies of Israel and its extension, or to the modern State of Israel as defined as A Jewish and Democratic State. you could argue that they are on different levels but they are the same thing. one is against Jewish people and the other against a Jewish state. they are both against Jews. i'm not saying that if you are an anti-Zionist you are also anti-Semitic but that both are against Jews. now, how about an Israel that would not be a Jewish-only nation state?. "Both against Jews" is not an argument. I don't know what you're trying to say here. One is discrimination against Jewish people for no reason other than the fact that they are Jews. That's bigotry - "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself" The other is an argument that Jews should not have their own country created exclusively for them in the historic land of Israel (Palestine). This is a political argument that, while it refers to Jews as the recipient of this new country, has nothing to do with Judaism per se. It's not bigotry.
- discrimination against Jewish people, hurts the Jews.
- Jews not having their own country, indirectly hurts the Jews (from some Jewish perspective at least).
i view it as a 'same but different' kind of thing.
i might be downplaying the degree of hurt here but is because my empathy is failing somehow. one is personal and the other is impersonal?. one is against all the Jews while the other is against a few Jews?. how does that work out?.
anyway, i won't be commenting on this subject. it is what it is.
|
France266 Posts
On August 02 2014 06:01 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 05:57 Koorb wrote:On August 02 2014 01:20 xM(Z wrote:On August 02 2014 00:52 Koorb wrote:On August 01 2014 22:50 xM(Z wrote:french media hard at work. Gaza through the distorted lens of French media: An emphatic characteristic of French mainstream coverage of this episode of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its persistent attempt to constantly reframe or redefine the very nature of the conflict by creating the perception of balance of power between the Israeli and Palestinian forces, when such does not exist in reality. This persistence results in the production of biased information and reporting which misrepresents the situation. This superficial assumption resurfaced again when Palestinian resistance factions rejected the inadequate ceasefire proposed by Egypt. French media emphasised the "rejection" and again accused the Palestinian resistance of prolonging the conflict; Israel was framed as an icon of pacifism for accepting and no questions were asked about the nature of the ceasefire, the reason behind Israel's quick acceptance while none of its military objectives had been achieved, and its relationship with the Egyptian regime. Such a superficial approach belies a profound lack of analytical insight and belittles people's intelligence. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/07/gaza-through-distorted-lens-fre-201473111454532885.html Yes, I'm sure Al Jazeera is quite the uninvolved, neutral point of view that is needed to understand the possible bias of the French medias... (even though, of course, Al Jazeera is a state-owned Qatari company, broadcasting from the last country that supports Hamas and shelters its exiled leaders such as Khaled Mashal) there is nothing wrong with criticizing Al Jazeera but, could you point out the false information in that article?, since you are french and all. you have happenings there, as related by Ali Saad (a French sociologist and media critic, focusing on the influence of mass media on society). you could even disagree with his conclusion but you'll still remain with the facts. The facts?? Don't make me laugh mate. This so-called press release is so ridiculous that it belongs to a parodic news outlet. Even the author is a fraud. Just look for Ali Saad on Google.fr. The self-professed sociologist and media critic is a nobody, who never got published anywhere and is completely unknown to anyone. And because he is a "fraud", all critics on french media are false ?
Because he is a fraud, the press release linked in xM(Z's first post is a fraud, a vile propaganda effort which aims to trick the English-speaking public into believing that they are reading a fair and balanced description of the medias of a foreign country made by a neutral critic, which it is not. And then the pro-Palestinians will dare tell us that the pro-Israeli are fond of using propaganda, oh the irony...
On August 02 2014 06:01 WhiteDog wrote:
Ever known about acrimed ? Created by a collective of french academics behind Pierre Bourdieu, one of the greatest and most quoted french sociologist specifically to analyze and criticize french media.
Yes I know Acrimed, a well-known advocate of alter-globalization, solidly tied to the French anticapitalist left, and which was specifically created to defend a political cause (that is, bashing the the right-wing Juppé government in 1996) while branding themselves as a neutral critic of the medias.
Who's the next witness, the NPA?
|
On August 02 2014 06:27 Koorb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 06:01 WhiteDog wrote:On August 02 2014 05:57 Koorb wrote:On August 02 2014 01:20 xM(Z wrote:On August 02 2014 00:52 Koorb wrote:On August 01 2014 22:50 xM(Z wrote:french media hard at work. Gaza through the distorted lens of French media: An emphatic characteristic of French mainstream coverage of this episode of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its persistent attempt to constantly reframe or redefine the very nature of the conflict by creating the perception of balance of power between the Israeli and Palestinian forces, when such does not exist in reality. This persistence results in the production of biased information and reporting which misrepresents the situation. This superficial assumption resurfaced again when Palestinian resistance factions rejected the inadequate ceasefire proposed by Egypt. French media emphasised the "rejection" and again accused the Palestinian resistance of prolonging the conflict; Israel was framed as an icon of pacifism for accepting and no questions were asked about the nature of the ceasefire, the reason behind Israel's quick acceptance while none of its military objectives had been achieved, and its relationship with the Egyptian regime. Such a superficial approach belies a profound lack of analytical insight and belittles people's intelligence. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/07/gaza-through-distorted-lens-fre-201473111454532885.html Yes, I'm sure Al Jazeera is quite the uninvolved, neutral point of view that is needed to understand the possible bias of the French medias... (even though, of course, Al Jazeera is a state-owned Qatari company, broadcasting from the last country that supports Hamas and shelters its exiled leaders such as Khaled Mashal) there is nothing wrong with criticizing Al Jazeera but, could you point out the false information in that article?, since you are french and all. you have happenings there, as related by Ali Saad (a French sociologist and media critic, focusing on the influence of mass media on society). you could even disagree with his conclusion but you'll still remain with the facts. The facts?? Don't make me laugh mate. This so-called press release is so ridiculous that it belongs to a parodic news outlet. Even the author is a fraud. Just look for Ali Saad on Google.fr. The self-professed sociologist and media critic is a nobody, who never got published anywhere and is completely unknown to anyone. And because he is a "fraud", all critics on french media are false ? Because he is a fraud, the press release linked in xM(Z's first post is a fraud, a vile propaganda effort which aims to trick the English-speaking public into believing that they are reading a fair and balanced description of the medias of a foreign country made by a neutral critic, which it is not. And then the pro-Palestinians will dare tell us that the pro-Israeli are fond of using propaganda, oh the irony... Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 06:01 WhiteDog wrote:
Ever known about acrimed ? Created by a collective of french academics behind Pierre Bourdieu, one of the greatest and most quoted french sociologist specifically to analyze and criticize french media. Yes, and also a well-known advocate of alter-globalization, solidly tied to the French anticapitalist left, which was specifically created to defend a political cause (that is, bashing the the right-wing Juppé government in 1996) while branding themselves as a neutral critic of the medias. Who's the next witness, the NPA?
Did you read the article ? You see how detailed it is ? How much referrences ?
I guess reading is useless when you're so sure of yourself.
Btw acrimed was created long before the NPA.
|
On August 02 2014 06:31 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2014 06:27 Koorb wrote:On August 02 2014 06:01 WhiteDog wrote:On August 02 2014 05:57 Koorb wrote:On August 02 2014 01:20 xM(Z wrote:On August 02 2014 00:52 Koorb wrote:On August 01 2014 22:50 xM(Z wrote:french media hard at work. Gaza through the distorted lens of French media: An emphatic characteristic of French mainstream coverage of this episode of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is its persistent attempt to constantly reframe or redefine the very nature of the conflict by creating the perception of balance of power between the Israeli and Palestinian forces, when such does not exist in reality. This persistence results in the production of biased information and reporting which misrepresents the situation. This superficial assumption resurfaced again when Palestinian resistance factions rejected the inadequate ceasefire proposed by Egypt. French media emphasised the "rejection" and again accused the Palestinian resistance of prolonging the conflict; Israel was framed as an icon of pacifism for accepting and no questions were asked about the nature of the ceasefire, the reason behind Israel's quick acceptance while none of its military objectives had been achieved, and its relationship with the Egyptian regime. Such a superficial approach belies a profound lack of analytical insight and belittles people's intelligence. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/07/gaza-through-distorted-lens-fre-201473111454532885.html Yes, I'm sure Al Jazeera is quite the uninvolved, neutral point of view that is needed to understand the possible bias of the French medias... (even though, of course, Al Jazeera is a state-owned Qatari company, broadcasting from the last country that supports Hamas and shelters its exiled leaders such as Khaled Mashal) there is nothing wrong with criticizing Al Jazeera but, could you point out the false information in that article?, since you are french and all. you have happenings there, as related by Ali Saad (a French sociologist and media critic, focusing on the influence of mass media on society). you could even disagree with his conclusion but you'll still remain with the facts. The facts?? Don't make me laugh mate. This so-called press release is so ridiculous that it belongs to a parodic news outlet. Even the author is a fraud. Just look for Ali Saad on Google.fr. The self-professed sociologist and media critic is a nobody, who never got published anywhere and is completely unknown to anyone. And because he is a "fraud", all critics on french media are false ? Because he is a fraud, the press release linked in xM(Z's first post is a fraud, a vile propaganda effort which aims to trick the English-speaking public into believing that they are reading a fair and balanced description of the medias of a foreign country made by a neutral critic, which it is not. And then the pro-Palestinians will dare tell us that the pro-Israeli are fond of using propaganda, oh the irony... On August 02 2014 06:01 WhiteDog wrote:
Ever known about acrimed ? Created by a collective of french academics behind Pierre Bourdieu, one of the greatest and most quoted french sociologist specifically to analyze and criticize french media. Yes, and also a well-known advocate of alter-globalization, solidly tied to the French anticapitalist left, which was specifically created to defend a political cause (that is, bashing the the right-wing Juppé government in 1996) while branding themselves as a neutral critic of the medias. Who's the next witness, the NPA? Did you read the article ? You see how detailed it is ? How much referrences ? I guess reading is useless when you're so sure of yourself. Btw acrimed was created long before the NPA.
Actually I think the article makes a very good point: that the media is so pre-occupied with sounding neutral that it's actually skewing the facts and giving a false representation of the conflict. The conflict is VERY one sided.
Israelis have the Iron Dome, they have Iphone aps telling them when rockets are going to hit. They have 3 civilian deaths. Palestinian deaths are in the thousands already, and between 70-80% of those are civilians. The strikes hit them without any meaningful warning and when they do receive warning they have nowhere to run to anyway that isn't also being bombed. Yet the media keeps saying "both sides are living in fear" and other ridiculous statements like that.
|
Saying that both sides are living in fear is not ridiculous; comparing that fear is another question, albeit a stupid one methinks.
|
On August 02 2014 07:04 farvacola wrote:
Saying that both sides are living in fear is not ridiculous; comparing that fear is another question, albeit a stupid one methinks.
I think the statement is ridiculous because it takes away any perspective. Sure, that statement is factually true, but the extent of the fear is much more important. It's one thing to have an alarm on your iphone go off and then having the Iron dome neutralize a home made rocket. It's another thing to receive a warning and have 2 minutes to escape before your entire bulding is razed to the ground.
The media's job is to convey to people who aren't there what the situation is like. And when they try too hard to be unbiased they can skew the way they're presenting the facts on the ground (that the Palestinian civilians have it significantly worse than the Israelis, for example).
|
On August 02 2014 07:04 farvacola wrote:
Saying that both sides are living in fear is not ridiculous; comparing that fear is another question, albeit a stupid one methinks.
I actually think Israeli's fear is very relevant. It's a country where children are raised in a "memorial pornography" of the second world war as someone said (the guy who said that is an antisemite tho), to a point where they actually believe that everybody is out to get them, that they are alone against the world.
There is a film called Defamation from an israeli producer thinking about antisemitism. At some point in the film he is following young israeli kids who go in a tour in europe to see concentration camp and so on. It's really amazing to see how they react to others, they're followed by someone from the mossad "for security" and they really think that if he was not there, and if people actually knew that they were israeli, they would be instantly assaulted.
|
considering that DinoMight very likely never actually visited Israel, I'd say that his claim about the statement being ridiculous is more ridiculous than any statment in the media i have seen
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
