Subject:
|
Re: The skinny on Jenin, the European Press
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 May 2002 09:26:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
542 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > >
> > > > You don't have proof then!
> > >
> > > Are you trying to *bait* me?
> >
> > No, just expressing my view.
>
> What possible "proof" could I provide that would change your mind?
Let’s start with a little more than your say-so.
> None; a
> useless exercise which I choose to ignore.
> >
> > >
> > > Here's another article which may explain our differences:
> > > http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/121/living/US_European_press_stand_divided_over_Israel_Palestinians+.shtml
> >
> > I read it, it does not provide any "proof".
>
> I never said it did. I merely said it was an article which may explain our
> differences.
> >
> > However, the article is interesting. It compares the US and European Press
> > without saying who is right or wrong. Its main conclusion is that the
> > European Press is more pro-Palestinian than what you have in the USA. I
> > actually agree with that. However, I'm sure being more pro-Palestinian does
> > not make the press pro-Palestinian ? I?m sure you understand the difference.
>
> I don't even know if what you just said makes sense.
> >
> > I've read this quote (cut from the article), and others like it, a few times:
> >
> > "European coverage is much more balanced and much less fixed on terrorism.
> > The lack of balance in [the US media's] approach ... comes to the fore when
> > one looks at European coverage, Jenin being a very good example. One can
> > look at the Knesset and the Israeli press and see far more criticism of the
> > Israeli government than there is here."
> >
> > Do you agree with that John?
>
> If by "balanced" you mean that the European press is more apt to present the
> "human" side of the Palestinian plight, than I do. The US *is* fixed on
> terrorism, and for good reason. Trying to sell the "human" side of those who
> would terrorize is a hard sell in this country right now.
There you go again, inferring all Palestinians are terrorists. The USA is
"fixed on
terrorism" as it has only just woken up to it. Much of Europe has been
suffering from its effects since the 60's or before. Also, Europe avoids the
absolutist view of the world you and Bush Jr share. Personally, I find it
rather ironic that a key ally in the USA's "war on terror" is Pakistan - a
known sponsor of terror, which has nuclear capability!
>
> Even Arafat is calling for the end of Palestinian terror (if he is sincere,
> which he could quite possibly not be). It is really getting out of hand--
> murder bombings almost daily?!
I expect he is also calling for an end to Israeli terror?
>
> I'll tell you what needs to happen. The *PA* needs to start moving on these
> terrorists and start taking them out. Why must the job be left to Israel? It
> is these attacks which deny Palestinian hopes of peace with Israel. Why can't
> the PA and Israel join together to end the terror? (Unless, of course, the PA
> is *behind* it)
Will Israel allow the PA into its towns and cities to find Israeli
extremists? To arrest members of the IDF?
Personally, I think withdrawing to the pre-'67 borders would have a better
result.
>
> Israel cannot even *on principle* begin negotiations with the Palestinians if
> it appears as if they are doing it to stop the terrorist attacks, because that
> sends a very bad message to future terrorists-- that terror works.
Israel’s history shows clearly that terror can work - do you deny that?
> The
> Palestinian terrorists have painted Israel into a corner from which she cannot
> and will not move-- it is up to the Palestinians to make the first move.
I find this analogy rather ironic.
> If the Palestinians had any guts, they'd fight against *their own* for peace
> (if indeed this is what they really want).
I’m sure they do want peace; they just don’t want it on Israel’s terms. In
1988 the Arafat recognised Israel’s legitimacy and all the relevant UN
resolutions going back to November 1947. He also denounced terror as a
political tool. Your country then tried to set up talks with Israel. Shamir
refused to talk to the PLO, and put unacceptable conditions on peace talks.
I key player in rejecting the USA lead initiative was “man of peace” Sharon.
James Baker said this to Israel/Shamir:
“…with such an approach there will never be a dialogue on peace. I can only
say ‘take this number: 202-456-1414. When you are serious about peace, call us’”
Israel is only interested in peace on its terms. Not peace per-se, and
certainly not justice.
BTW, have Israel ever recognised all relevant UN resolutions like the PLO
did in ‘88?
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The skinny on Jenin, the European Press
|
| (...) Forget it. (...) No, I inferred that *some* Palestinians are terrorists, because some *are*. Can *you* tell the difference between a non-terrorist Palestinian and a terrorist one? It is *their* choice to blurr the distinction-- let them (...) (22 years ago, 31-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The skinny on Jenin, the European Press
|
| (...) What possible "proof" could I provide that would change your mind? None; a useless exercise which I choose to ignore. (...) I never said it did. I merely said it was an article which may explain our differences. (...) I don't even know if what (...) (22 years ago, 29-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
43 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
