Journalist Robert Fisk about criticising Israel - Page 3

Edan · February 28, 2003, 10:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Chapter 7 of what? the UN charter?

rah · February 28, 2003, 10:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
What if:
-Not 50% (of the media) were pro_Nazi, but 70-80.
-The *not* pro-Nazi voices were constantly belittled, ridiculed and called "antiaryan" (= super-super-evil).
-Furthermore, if you are *very* anti-Nazi, you are in danger of losing your job, plus other unpleasantnesses.
-And this has gone on for, say, 30 years.

How many would dare being anti-Nazi?

Yes, that is pretty close to what happened in Germany prior to WWII. And while I admit that there's always the CHANCE of that happening, I will choose a different example. The US in the mid 60's and early 70's. When the war protests first started, most of the media (at least 70-80)trashed the movement calling it anti-american. Demonstrators where beaten and some killed by authorities. Many lost their jobs over it. But in the long run they persisted and public opinion swung the other way, and the war was stopped.

The difference is two aspects. In Germany, no opposition was tolerated. Contrary to some people's thoughts, the US is nowhere near that in terms of a totalitarian police state.

2. I don't think a all of the common folks in Germany supported the Nazi's because the truely believed in the principles. A good number supported out of fear. In the US, the hippies truely believed in their goals and were willing to pay the price.

So, in summary, I don't believe your comments sufficiently refute my arguement and I still stand by my original statement that a good percentage of americans don't blindly support Israel. There is an public discussion on it, and they have lost some ground over that last few years.

RAH

Oerdin · February 28, 2003, 11:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Don't we all know by now that the US wants to invade Iraq is not because it violated a Security Council resolution? Shall I mention Israel again?

Show me a resolution which orders, as apposed to requests, that Israel do any thing. I'll give you a hint; it doesn't exist.

Arrian · February 28, 2003, 11:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian

How, exactly, do you do a statistical analysis of OPINION? What, specifically, would identify one article as "pro-Israel" and another as "pro-Pal?"

-Arrian

By CT:

How about pro-Israel/anti-Israel/neutral?

Should be easy to judge.

I´d expect: 85% pro-Israel/15% neutral/0% anti-Israel.

Give or take a few.

I bet it would be easy (for you) to judge. You seem to do an awful lot of it. Note your starting "expectation" of the figures.

My point stands: how do you do a statistical analysis of opinion? After all, what I might consider "neutral" could be something that YOU consider "pro-Israel" and thus lump in with your pulled-out-of-your-ass 85% pro-Israel US media figure.

Whenever one side of a political debate feels they are losing ground, they whine and ***** that they are underepresented in the media. US conservatives are infamous for *****ing and moaning about the "liberal media." The pro-Pal people ***** that the media is "controlled by the Jews" etc.

Well guess what, Comrade? The US is not some monolithic entity that brainwashes its citizenry. There are lots of places to go to find differents sides of any story. I grew up very much pro-Palestinian. Why? 2 things. First, the initial intifada was going on and I saw a lot of kids throwing rocks at tanks and being shot at on TV. That didn't sit well with me. Second, my father is British, and has always been sympathetic to the Pals - and of course one's parents have a big effect one's development.

Now, I'm fed up with both sides. The Pals lost me with the suicide bombings, pure and simple. That isn't the result of media brainwashing, CT. That's the result of using tactics that I find morally repugnant.

Just because everyone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean there is a giant conspiracy hiding "the truth." You lap Fisk up because he feeds you the hysterical ranting you crave. I consider him a pimple on the ass of journalism.

-Arrian

TheStinger · February 28, 2003, 11:36

My Dad was British he was pro Israeli, then again his Mother was Jewish.

Panag · February 28, 2003, 14:54

hi ,

you know , that so called reporter should come for a tour with some people , ..... and a camera crew should film , just to see his reactions , .....

"journalist" , ..... yeah right , .....

have a nice day note ; not to robert fisk

Panag · February 28, 2003, 14:56

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
My Dad was British he was pro Israeli, then again his Mother was Jewish.

hi ,

therefore your father is Jewish , if your mother is jewish or her mother then you are also jewish

under the 1970 ADII law you can ask for Israeli citizenship

have a nice day

Oerdin · February 28, 2003, 17:04

The problem with Fiske, besides his bigotry, is that he falls to understand the difference between being a journalist and being an advocate. Because of this he constantly ignores facts which don't fit his slanted views and instead he single-mindedly spouts garbage.

Sure Mr. Fiske. You're a victim of an international Jewish conspiracy.

Az · February 28, 2003, 17:23

shhh.

Comrade Tribune · February 28, 2003, 17:25

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
Yes, that is pretty close to what happened in Germany prior to WWII.

You didn´t quite get me. My example was meant as being closer to home.

That´s why I didn´t include imprisoning/physical violence.

Comrade Tribune · February 28, 2003, 17:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Show me a resolution which orders, as apposed to requests, that Israel do any thing. I'll give you a hint; it doesn't exist.

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

For example:
1967 "Emphasizing the inadmissability of acquisition of territory by war", demands "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territory occupied".

Comrade Tribune · February 28, 2003, 17:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
The problem with Fiske, besides his bigotry, is that he falls to understand the difference between being a journalist and being an advocate.

Yes, and Perle, Krauthammer and Kristol understand this difference perfectly. Sure.

DinoDoc · February 28, 2003, 17:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Yes, and Perle, Krauthammer and Kristol understand this difference perfectly. Sure.

Actually, they do. That's why they write editorials instaed of real news. It's to keep idiots like yourself from confusing them with real journalists.

lord of the mark · February 28, 2003, 17:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

For example:
1967 "Emphasizing the inadmissability of acquisition of territory by war", demands "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territory occupied".

thats UNSC 242.

1. It says territory. It does not all territories. That language was proposed and the US threatened to veto. Israel has returned the Sinai to egypt,and arguably is in compliance based on that alone

2. the resolution goes on to call for secure and recognized boundaries for all states in the region. That was the key to the peace iwth egypt. Egypt recgnized israel, and agreed to limits on its forces in the returned territory to take into account Israeli security needs. In that context Israel withdrew. Israel offered to withdraw from the Golan, but Syria refused to come to terms with Israeli security needs. Israel offered to withdraw from virtually all the west bank and gaza, and but the offer was turned down. Nothing in 242 requires a unilateral Israeli withdrawl, outside of a peace agreement.

3. "emphaisizng the inadmissability" is a whereas, not the binding part of the res. In any case Israel does not agree that the West Bank is Israel's only as a result of war. Israel has a claim on the West Bank going back to the League mandate, and considers it disputer territory rather than occupied. Ergo the inadmissibilty feature does not apply. This is not to say that it is not in the interests of peace for Israel to withdraw from the "disputed territories" however failure to do so under current ciircumstances does not put Israel in violation of UNSC 242.

Comrade Tribune · February 28, 2003, 17:46

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Actually, they do. That's why they write editorials instaed of real news. It's to keep idiots like yourself from confusing them with real journalists.

Hey, stop that. I don´t call you an idiot, even though it´s obvious that you are.

And Fisk writes opinion pieces, too. So, what´s the problem with him, again?

Edan · February 28, 2003, 17:47

242 has no mandate attached to it, since it was not passed under Chapter 7. The withdrawl from territory was also supposed to be in the context of a land-for-peace exchange (if you read the entire resolution, you might realize that) - not unilatirally in a vaccum.

It's also odd how no one ever mentions Jordan's, Egypt's and Syria's "acquisition of territory by war" in 1948.

Comrade Tribune · February 28, 2003, 17:47

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark

thats UNSC 242.

...sophisms following.

I could make similar points about Iraq. But the French will do that for me in the SC.

DinoDoc · February 28, 2003, 17:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
So, what´s the problem with him, again?

You dress him up as a journalist.

Comrade Tribune · February 28, 2003, 17:58

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

You dress him up as a journalist.

Yes. The term 'journalist' includes everybody writing for a journal, including those who write editorials.

...

lord of the mark · February 28, 2003, 17:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

I could make similar points about Iraq. But the French will do that for me in the SC.

In fact you cant. Too summarize - UNSC 242 was based on both Israel and its neighbors doing something. And it stated no consequences for non-compliance -how could it, when it was directed at both sides? UNSC 1441 by contrast is a directive to Iraq - and explicitly promises consequences to Iraq.

The resolutions are in fact very different, which is why, if you have noticed, the French have NOT raised Israeli behavior as a rationale for their position on 1441. If they did no one would take the rest of their position seriously. Its far easier to argue that inspections might yet work than to argue that the Iraqi situation is legally analogous to the Israeli situation.

Comrade Tribune · February 28, 2003, 18:05

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark
UNSC 1441 by contrast is a directive to Iraq - and explicitly promises consequences to Iraq.

So, what? Where´s the physical proof that Iraq is in violation?

Oerdin · February 28, 2003, 22:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Your ignorance knows no bounds.

For example:
1967 "Emphasizing the inadmissability of acquisition of territory by war", demands "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territory occupied".

I stand by my previous assertion. There have been no orders only requests from the UNSC.

Panag · March 1, 2003, 12:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

For example:
1967 "Emphasizing the inadmissability of acquisition of territory by war", demands "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territory occupied".

hi ,

and we did withdraw from "occupied territory" , .....

have a nice day

Panag · March 1, 2003, 12:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

So, what? Where´s the physical proof that Iraq is in violation?

hi ,

read the news on cnn , ..... they have a great website , ....

have a nice day