Media Bias against Israel

[Curiosity]

The historical claim of the palestinian people to the land of Israel is completely irrelevnat.

If you want to bring history into it, 2000 years ago it was a Jewish state, and they took it from us, now we're taking it back as we have the power.


and yes, I had rather noticed how most 'independent' news agencies are rather critical of the IDF. Funny how palestinian claims are taken at face value, and Israeli ones don't even get a mention in any stories...


Oh, and it's not naivety, it's faith that the governments of the world aren't actually trying to ruin the world and kill everyone. It seems that these days the American and other administrations are regularly accused of actions which are going to end the world. Well, maybe not end it, but do it a lot of damage. I have faith that the governments of democratic nations act in the interests of their own citizens rather than actively trying to wreck everyone's lives. But hey, that's me.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Democracy can only work if the government is actively questioned.

How is the Palastinian history irrelevant? You can't just act like they were not kicked off their land. That is the root of the problem. It is convinient to just forget about it, but you cannot. This is like saying we should all just forget about the Holocaust, its in the past, why does it matter now? It obviously matters a great deal. The whole state of Israel is based on a "historical" (or at least traditional) claim to the land. You cannot selectively pick and choose what bits of history you consider. Arab stories are generally never taken at face value in Western media. Western media is generally highly sceptical of stories from Arab source, don't know why you think differently.

Its not that the governments are out to kill everyone, after all that would be a stupid thing to do on purpose. After all what good is a government without people to govern? Governments are not out to wreck everyone's life, again that is just silly. However the problem with power has always been that people in power can tend to abuse their power and use it to help themselves and their friends. In do so they can loose sight of the goal of government. The corruption of government is a serious issue and no matter how idealistic you are, and I am highly idealistic, you have to constantly monitor the government for corruption. Also you have to look at broader pictures. What is good for the US in the short term may be very bad for the world which would mean it could have dire consequences for the US in the long term. Governments tend to be very short sighted as elections and term limits pressure them to produce short term progress. Many times however the short term fix is not a good long term solution. In the US we have massive tax cuts which infuse the economy with billions of dollars, however they are driving up out debt and passing the burden on to future generations. While in the short term this works (well if applied correctly, which it really wasn't) the long term consequences can be catastrophic (see Argentina, Japan). I would like to not have to worry about the government, but I can't and it is my duty as a citizen to stay critical of government actions. Otherwise democracy can quickly give way to corruption and oppression.

[Curiosity]

don't know why you think differently.

I think differently because of the mountains of evidence to the contrary. If they treat Arab reports with scepticism then I cannot think fo a word yet described for the treatment of Israeli reports. If you had read or seen a bbc news report in recent years, you would know that what I think is hard not to think when presented with the sheer bias which is present.

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles ... n_Gaza.asp

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles ... n_Gaza.asp

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles ... it_All.asp

And the reason you don't see it is because you're always fed the one side of the story.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

I watch the BBC on a regular basis and see little of what you call bias. We have already established the that site is highly biased and as such I do not feel it is a good source of information. As you seem to get all your views reguarding the media's view of the press from it, I don't think you are in any position to speak about media bias. You really do seem like a Jewish version of a Hamas lackey, its quite scarry how blind you have become.

[The cat]

I will not take quotes from it since it's too much, but I basically totally agree with what Stews said about democracy and our duties as citizens.

How is the Palastinian history irrelevant?

To remind everybody, peace and security is the final objective of any Israeli government. Since peace is committed with the other side, we cannot ignore the Palestinian side, although we want to, and we really do.

If you want to bring history into it, 2000 years ago it was a Jewish state, and they took it from us, now we're taking it back as we have the power.

Well, yes, it's the eternal debate. Historically, we belong here, our roots were created here. But basically, we have to deal with other civilizations history brought here. And we suffer from it.

and yes, I had rather noticed how most 'independent' news agencies are rather critical of the IDF.

The facts Curiosity quoted are true and they are published world wide, so I see no point in arguing about how relevant are bla bla bla...

These zionist organisations promote the complete destruction of all Arab and Muslim nations and don't concede their right to exist?

Well, there is an interesting discussion between the muslim terror organizations. Some of them say we haven't the right to exist here, and the "mild" ones claim that we CAN exist, but under their control ONLY.

The Zionists in general don't claim for the whole Israel, the extreme ones probably do, and they have a tiny political influence. In fact, they are in the opposition.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Zionism pretty much requires that a Israel remains in Jewish hands. This is one of the reasons the Palastinians have been moved out, since they have to be kept in the minority, otherwise the democratic institutions Israel tries to opperate under could be taken over by a Palastinian majority.

[The cat]

otherwise the democratic institutions Israel tries to opperate under could be taken over by a Palastinian majority.

I think it's obvious that we can't keep all the Palestinians under our control in our country...
Of course it's important to keep the majority. Unless we want to drown in sea of arabs that will cancel the Jewish influence and the meaning of the Jewish homeland.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

That was my point. Zionism has the same desire (or need) to control Israel that the Palastinians do. While the Zionists can use there economic and political advantage to augment their military, the Palastinians are forced into pure violence to attain their ends (and their statements of purpose tend to reflect this violence). I don't think you can critisize one and not the other.

[Curiosity]

I watch the BBC on a regular basis and see little of what you call bias. We have already established the that site is highly biased and as such I do not feel it is a good source of information. As you seem to get all your views reguarding the media's view of the press from it, I don't think you are in any position to speak about media bias. You really do seem like a Jewish version of a Hamas lackey, its quite scarry how blind you have become.

You do not see the bias, because you don't recognise it because you think it's the 'correct version'.

That site has been established to be biased by you, who has iobviously never looked clearly, as it quite CLEARLY sets out WHAT THE MEDIA syas against what IT SHOULD SAY. THIS IS BIASED HOW?

Comparing me to a hamas lackey means that I feel vindicated in comparing you to a hamas terrorist and as such you are a bastard who has no more right to live in a civilised world than they do. You do nothing to justify this outrageous slander of my personal character and you fail to justify its use in any way in this discussion.

Don't pretend you aren't biased, you are, your view IS JUST AS UNCHANGING AS MINE.

Your attempts to pervert the course of the conversation by attacking me rather than my views is breath-taking in its sheer audacity. Attacks on personal characters are generally designed to disguise the fact that you have nothing substansive to say.

Well, now for my own little character assassination:
You have a clear disregard for the opinion of others, commit the most blatant breaches of any sort of discussion etiquette and generally pretend you're the authority on the fucking universe. And then you tell me not to be a kid about it. Well I suggest that YOU butt-out and let adults talk this over, because you are by a long distance the least willing to budge and most underhand person I have ever discussed anything with.

Cue the reprisals.

[The cat]

Those who called "Zionists" mostly want to LIVE here for many reasons. Zionists mostly don't demand full control on the land, so the Israeli will to live here isn't a contradiction to the Palestine's will.

While the Zionists can use there economic and political advantage to augment their military, the Palastinians are forced into pure violence to attain their ends

Let's call it Israel. While Israel can use.......
Are you trying to say violence is the solution to their desires? However, they believe so!
They are supported by Europe, many Asian countries and all the arab countries which are not so weak politicly.
They can use their links to mediate with Israel, they can find many solutions instead of violence. They can work with us on humanitarian plans, and do many things to tight the relations. Of course, with us. After all- this is not one-sided conflict.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

To Curiosity,

Apparently you missed the whole first several pages of this thread. Just about everyone stated that the site was biased, even you said it was biased. It only points out when certain things are ommited that if included would help the Israeli effort. They say nothing of the things ommited that would help the Palastinian effort. It is designed to show only one side of the issue and as such is biased.

I am quite open to new ideas if they make sense and are valid. However discussions with those like you are only likely to push me away from your side. There are a lot of legitimate reasons to support Israel, which is why I do in fact support Israel, however many seem to use Israel as cover for less than honorable ideas and practices. It is used to mask racism, hate, violence, oppression, etc. This corruption Israel is what I am against. When I argue against you, I am not arguing against Israel, but the way you twist the Israeli cause into a warped and selfserving one. This is not good for Israel and has killed thousands so far. I want to see a prosperous Israel and a secure Jewish people and I am not willing to allow people to corrupt that.



The cat: Both sides can benefit from peace. My listing there were the ways either side could totally achieve its goal, any peace would be a compromise. Don't get me wrong, peace is certainly the best option for both people.

[Curiosity]

The myth of "Zionism equals racism" has its origins in the passage of the Arab and Soviet-sponsored United Nations resolution of November 10, 1975, which defined Zionism as a "form of racism and racial discrimination." The highly politicised resolution was aimed at denying Israel its political legitimacy by attacking its moral basis for existence. When approached by a student who attacked Zionism, Martin Luther King Jr., one of the most vehement critics of racism, responded, "when people criticise Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism."

The resolution, which UN Secretary General Kofi Annan described as a "low point" in the history of the UN, was finally repealed on December 16, 1991. There have been numerous efforts by Arab representatives at international conferences to reintroduce this resolution.



Today, within Israel, Jews are a majority, but the Israeli-Arab minority are full citizens with voting rights and representation in the government. The only classification in Israel is based on security issues restricting those who are likely to endanger civilian lives. Subject to security constraints, Palestinians from the territories are allowed to work in Israel, and receive pay and benefits similar to those of their Jewish counterparts, they attend schools and universities within Israel.

The situation of Palestinians in the territories is totally different. The Palestinian Authority, not the Israeli government, governs the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Like most Arab sates, the PA does not offer equal rights to its population.



Palestinian terrorism exists independent of Israeli policy. The current wave of terrorism emanates from the decision by the Palestinian leadership to tolerate and encourage terrorist organisations that define all Israelis as enemies of the Palestinian people.

The current wave of Palestinian terror predates Ariel Sharon's rise to power. It is the climate of legitimacy granted to the terrorists, and the toleration of their infrastructure, which promotes terrorism and ensures its continuation. It has also become clear that after the breakdown of the Camp David talks, Arafat and his colleagues planned a new campaign of violence, resulting in the current uprising. The Palestinians opted for an opportunity (Ariel Sharon's visit to Temple Mount) to instigate the violence, regardless of Israeli policy. Moreover, the Mitchell Report concluded that Ariel Sharon's visit was not the cause of the Palestinian uprising.

Blaming Israeli policy for Palestinian terrorism conveniently factors out the choice made by the Palestinian Authority to opt for violent measures and harbour terrorist organisations, including suicide bombers who target Israeli civilians.

[Curiosity]

Israel regained control over the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 in a war of self-defence, which is a legal means to acquire territory under international law. In fact, Israel's seizing the land in 1967 was the only legal acquisition of the territory this century: the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank from 1947 to 1967, by contrast, had been the result of an offensive war in 1948 and was never recognised by the international community, including the Arab states, with the exception of Great Britain and Pakistan. For nearly twenty-five years the Palestinians rejected every Israeli overture, refusing opportunity after opportunity to peacefully resolve their dispute through negotiation. Yet as long as the future status of the West Bank and Gaza is subject to negotiation, Israel's historic and legal claim to these disputed territories is no less valid than that of the Palestinians.

Settlements make up less than 2 percent of the West Bank. According to Peace Now, which opposes Israeli settlement in the territories, the built-up areas of the settlements take up only 1.36 percent of the West Bank (Foreign Affairs, March/April 2000). B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights watchdog group, places the figure slightly higher, at 1.7 percent. The much larger numbers often used to describe the land comprising Israeli settlements are reached only by including roads and adjacent areas, as well as land between settlements or between settlements and roads, nearly all of which is unpopulated. In truth, settlements simply do not comprise enough land to be serious obstacles to any political or geographic eventuality in the area, be it a Palestinian state or a continuation of the Oslo process.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Saying the 1967 war was self-defense is rather controversial. Israel attacked first at a time when Israel officals admit there was not a attack imminant.

I'm glad you can copy and paste. This just proves my point that you are simply regurgitating what others (aka the media) tell you. You make no effort to interpret or draw distinctions in this information. This is the same thing that Hamas lackies do. They blindly follow what radical leaders tell them is true and call everyone else infidels and pro-Israel. If you are going to stoop to copy and paste arguements at least quote your sources. I know that it is convinient for you to ommit them to hide the fact that you got all this from fully pro-Israeli sites, but, really, it is very bad taste.

Racism is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "Discrimination or prejudice based on race." Zionism makes a racial destinction and thus can be properly labeled as racist. However you have to decide wheither this racism is bad or not. Some Zionist certainly are racist in the way that white Americans or South Africans have been, however I do not think you can say all Zionist think that way.

Blaiming the Palastinians for Palestinian terrorism conveniently factors out the choices made by the Israelis to illegally occupy lands and forcefully remove many from their land in clear violation of International Law. You cannot lay the blame soley on one side or the other. Both are responcible for the current situation. The question is who is going to be the one responcible for forcing a peaceful conclusion that is fair to both sides. You can finger point all you want, but it will not do anything to bring peace to the area.

[The cat]

I do not think you can say all Zionist think that way.

Certainly not. I am a Zionist, and I don't see myself as a racist. In fact, I look for solutions and I seek for peace where the both sides are benefited.
I have no doubt about my historical rights here, yet I know that unfortunately I don't live here alone, and this fact demans a fair and long- term solution, which is also called by some maniacs: peace.

The question is who is going to be the one responcible for forcing a peaceful conclusion that is fair to both sides.

I volunteer to be the one who does it, the one who takes responsibility. Israel will glad to take responsibility with expectation to results.
What do you mean by "forcing a peaceful conclusion".....?
What kind of force will bring trust? However, how are we going to stop the incitement and the hate and terror they breed? How are we supposed to re-educate their chidren who just 2 weeks ago played soccer with a skull of an IDF soldier? This must be a long-term process. I am patient.