About arab-Israel conflict

[Bruriya]

I pay attention of anti-semites of anti-Zionists and others to reality:
1 . We, Jews, lived in Erets-Israel ("Palestine") and had here the state long before Arabs. We lost the earth because of the Roman and Arab colonialists, but always hoped to return. Unfortunately, it turned out only in the twentieth century.
Why we don't give the Israeli nationality Palestinian to Arabs? (Arabs of "Old" Israel, in borders 1949-66, have it ) Because they want to destroy Israel (and, probably, to arrange here the second Holocaust. ) This is about is, they at all don't deserve the Israeli nationality, and we shouldn't help them to destroy us.


2 . Favourite method of "the Palestinian fighters for independence" - murders of the Jewish CIVILIAN population, including children The Palestinian Arabs began it long before creation of Israel, against peace Jewish settlers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_Palestine_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberias_massacre

Local Jews long suffered, showing excessive peacefulness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Havlagah
When the UN recommended to divide "Palestine" into the Jewish and Arab state, Jews agreed. But Arabs (Palestinian + Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon) began war - killing Jews without distinction of age, sex and the military/civil status , and promising "to dump all Jews in the sea". They lost - and 65 years lie that they are innocent, and Jews are guilty

We, Jews, kill Arabs ONLY IN RESPONSE TO murder of us. Nevertheless, anti-Semites /anti-zionists around the world deceitfully accuse us and acquit the Arab terrorists.

[General Retreat]

Can't help but feel this should be in the Academy if anywhere, as the thread's not about a specific event or article.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Indeed it should be. Moved to the Academy. Though i'm tempted to close the thread as there's nothing to reasonably discuss. No premise has been thrown to the floor, and the use of wiki as the sole source makes me dubious about the quality of potential discussions, i'd recommend the OP update their opening if they wish for a more comprehensive debate on...well whatever it is your trying to say.

For now will leave it open though because i'm lovely like that.

[Bruriya]

At first I will describe (with examples) the general rules used for slander on Israelis and a false justification of "Palestinians" (as they say: "the knowledge of the few rules replaces knowledge of many facts"):
1 . Mention proportion. The "Palestinian"/Arab victims are mentioned more and more often than the Jewish.
2. Selective concealment. The huge part of the "Palestinian" anti-Jewish aggression disappears. For example, set of unsuccessful attempts of terror. Attacks to soldiers, settlers and simply going Jews with stones, bottles of incendiary mix and even attacks from machine guns.
The purposes of Palestinian "resistance" (stage-by-stage destruction of Israel are suppressed also.) Continuous heavy anti-Jewish promotion (slander, undeserved insults, appeals to murders of Jews of ANY AGE) in the Arab mass media, schools (!), mosques, children's camps etc.
3. Concealment of the reasons. For example, the Arab teenagers, "the killed are mentioned during invasion of the Israeli army into Palestinian Authority". But it isn't mentioned that these teenagers threw stones into the Israeli soldiers and attacked them in other ways and wounded some soldier. It isn't mentioned (less often) that Israelis intruded in PAS for a good reason, looking for terrorists, their armories and firing points.
4 . Use of inadequate and neutral terms: "the killed settlers /Israelis" instead murders of the civilian population, even children; "armed resistance" - instead of these murders; "liberation of Palestine" - instead of destruction of Israel (the purpose and Hamas, both Fatah, and all "Palestinian" anti-Israeli movement. )
5 . Details. The Palestinian victims (including the killed and wounded terrorists, whose crimes aren't mentioned), are described in detail and brightly; but Israeli - it is short and cold. It leaves suitably impression at readers/audience.
Participants of a forum can continue ;(

Striking examples from this articles:

http://cifwatch.com/2011/08/18/how-t...cent-israelis/ The Guardian’s first story about the multiple Palestinian terrorist attacks near Eilat contained a headline and subheading which clearly tried to downplay the attack – suggesting that the attack was on Israeli soldiers and not civilians.

In fact, the vehicle attacked was a regular Egged 392 bus line between Beersheva and Eilat, and was likely carrying off-duty soldiers as well as civilians on their way to spend some time in the resort town.

While the main story did contain a photo of the bus targeted in the attack, the Guardian’s Israel page used this photo to illustrate the same story.

Now compare this selection with a typical Guardian report on Israeli retaliatory strikes on Palestinian terrorists in Gaza. Here’s one from March, reporting on such an IDF strike following a month which saw a large increase of rocket attacks from Gaza.

So, Guardian editors decided to illustrate a terrorist attack by Palestinian terrorists against Israeli civilians with a seemingly random photo of an IDF soldier on patrol, while Israel’s retaliatory strike against Hamas terrorists is illustrated by a photo of unidentified grieving Palestinian victims.
Also, one of the deadly attacks today involved a rocket fired directly at a civilian vehicle, so any implication that the terrorists behind today’s coordinated assault on Israel were merely targeting combatants is patently false.

http://cifwatch.com/2013/03/28/11-ye...over-massacre/ One of the most remarkable elements of the Guardian’s initial report on the Passover Eve suicide bombing is how relatively little space was devoted to the actual attack and to the victims.
The opening sentence of the March 28, 2002 report on the bombing, by Suzanne Goldenberg (in Beirut) and Graham Usher (in Jerusalem), is telling. Note that the immediate focus is on the diplomatic ramifications, not on the Israeli dead and injured.

“A Palestinian suicide bomber walked into a hotel lobby crowded with Israelis gathered for the ritual Passover meal last night, dealing a crushing blow to efforts at the Arab summit to open a new chapter with the Jewish state.”

Goldenberg continues:

“Police said 16 people were killed and more than 140 wounded after the bomber detonated a large bag of explosives in a dining room of the Park hotel in the seaside town of Netanya. It was one of the deadliest attacks in 18 months of fighting.”

Actually, 22 civilians were killed instantly in the blast and another 8 died of their wounds over the next few days...

Aftermath:
Shortly after the attack, at Al-Baset Odeh’s home in the West Bank town of Tulkarm, “the suicide bomber’s father, brother, uncle and other relatives sat at a wake, and received congratulations from friends and neighbors“. ”Everyone’s proud of him,” his older brother, Issam Odeh, reportedly said.
The following week, in early April, the Guardian’s Suzanne Goldenberg was one of the journalists who covered Israel’s military response to the Passover Massacre, Operation Defensive Shield. Her report on the especially hard fighting in the West Bank town of Jenin, which involved house to house fighting in a neighborhood known to be a terrorist enclave, advanced the lie that an Israeli atrocity against innocent Palestinians had taken place. Her dramatic report on April 16, which used terms like “massacre” and “summary executions”, and accepted the most risible Palestinian claims at face value, were proven wildly inaccurate by a subsequent UN investigation. Goldenberg never apologized, nor was a retraction ever published.
Less than a year later, the Palestinian Authority named a football tournament after Shahid Abd Al-Baset Odeh.

You can find more many similar information on http://cifwatch.com

[nce_wht_guy]

The Canaanites had a state there long before the Hebrews. The lost the land because of Hebrew invaders but have always hoped to return...maybe in the 22nd century? See how stupid that sounds? Go back to Europe and ing assimilate this time.

[nce_wht_guy]

So?

[sumskilz]

We, Jews, kill Arabs ONLY IN RESPONSE TO murder of us. Nevertheless, anti-Semites /anti-zionists around the world deceitfully accuse us and acquit the Arab terrorists.

Most of the time, for most Jews, that might be true, but there are exceptions as we've seen recently.

EDIT:

The Canaanites had a state there long before the Hebrews. The lost the land because of Hebrew invaders but have always hoped to return...maybe in the 22nd century? See how stupid that sounds?

Yeah, but not only for the reason you're suggesting. The ancient Hebrews were Canaanites.

The OP is probably not aware of this, but the early Zionists mostly didn't claim a historical right to the land. They claimed a right to land by buying and developing it. Tel Aviv for example, was built on relatively unused land which was purchased north of Jaffa. Prior to the conflicts of the 1920s, both David Ben Gurion and Yitzhak Ben Zvi argued that Palestinian Arabs, being descendants of the ancient Israelites, could be easily incorporated into Hebrew society. Of course they were naive on a number of issues, they were building a socialist utopia after all. The revisionist Zionism of Irgun came along later as a reaction to hostility.

Go back to Europe and ing assimilate this time.

Israel has 6.1 million Jews, only 2.8 million of them are Ashkenazi.

The founder of political Zionism was thoroughly assimilated. He was an atheist and a member of a German nationalist fraternity. It was his realization that assimilation had actually increased rather than decreased antisemitism that led to his view that Jews needed a state for themselves. He personally wasn't particular about where that state would be. The fact that the Nazis considered someone with just one Jewish grandparent to be Jewish, regardless of religion or self-identification, kind of reinforces the idea that he was right.

[Tiberios]

​Moved to the Academy.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Mass media aren't all one entity. The whole idea of private media is that most of them have their own agendas and political leanings that are independent of or indeed even pro government. Indeed academically anyone who wishes to find out about something is always told to use more than one credible source, then compare and contrast, and usually the details of what actually happened are somewhere in between the two/ what they both agree on. It's also useful as it eliminates the bias present in most media articles. So i'm not sure really sure though what your trying to get at here my friend?

Are you saying that media coverage should have no bias? In which case some outlets like the Independent do typically try and just report nothing but the facts without subjection. Or are you saying the Guardian should be pro-Israel? In which case their are plenty of other media outlets who do have a pro-Israel stance in their reporting. It's just how the media works.

[sumskilz]

Hostile media effect

Not to say Dante Von Hespburg's observations aren't also accurate.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Hostile media effect

Not to say Dante Von Hespburg's observations aren't also accurate.

No indeed a very good point here actually, considering the slant of the OP's post. It's also a recognized phenomena and perhaps the most relevant issue here. I personally have never found their to be any sort of mass media campaign against Israel per say. It's not really a thing we care much about in the UK for, thus it receives very little coverage with any real political or otherwise bias beyond a rather scathing tone of 'more dead in the middle east over land or religion'.

[Copperknickers II]

The attack mentioned in the first Guardian article WAS on soldiers. The article clearly says civilians were killed alongside the soldier, but the main target was soldiers. And as for the comparison of the images, the link shows the thing used to illustrate the Palestinian attack is a video of the attack site, not an image of a soldier.

The second article goes into great detail about that attack being due to mounting attacks by Palestinian militants, and half of the dead in the strike were civilians so it was not just an attack on a military target, and the image is entirely representative.

Besides, why the hate towards the Guardian? Its not even in the Top 10 news papers in the UK as regards circulation, and even if it was its British, and Britain doesn't get involved with Israel/Palestine matters in any meaningful way so it doesn't really affect Israel if a few gullible Brits don't like them.

[Copperknickers II]

The OP is probably not aware of this, but the early Zionists mostly didn't claim a historical right to the land. They claimed a right to land by buying and developing it. Tel Aviv for example, was built on relatively unused land which was purchased north of Jaffa. Prior to the conflicts of the 1920s, both David Ben Gurion and Yitzhak Ben Zvi argued that Palestinian Arabs, being descendants of the ancient Israelites, could be easily incorporated into Hebrew society. Of course they were naive on a number of issues, they were building a socialist utopia after all. The revisionist Zionism of Irgun came along later as a reaction to hostility.

That's interesting stuff Sum, but I fear its rather irrelevant, both to the OP and to other modern Zionists who very much put forward a claim to a historical right to the land.

[Sphere]

We, Jews, kill Arabs ONLY IN RESPONSE TO murder of us. Nevertheless, anti-Semites /anti-zionists around the world deceitfully accuse us and acquit the Arab terrorists.

If you're not planning on giving them either Israeli citizenship or an independent country, you are condemning future Israelis to endless years of a militant Palestinian insurgency. Sharon saw this and tried to put an end to it. You might consider them non-human, but the Palestinians are not going to accept being 3rd class citizens. It's been 47 years and they haven't accepted it, if you wait another 100 I think they still will not have.

[Himster]

Are there no anti-Palestine media sources? Eh, Of course there are.
Civilians are legitimate targets when engaged in modern total war, agreeing to terms of combat has become antiquated don't like it? Build a time-machine to that narrow point in time after rules of war were invented and before rules of war were discarded.
Also western people like Jews way more than Muslims, Muslim has become basically synonymous with terrorist in the last few years, what has Jew become synonymous with? Nobel laureate, stand-up comedian, comedy writer, acclaimed scientist, Nazi hunting (sounds like the best sport ever), holocaust survivor......... and a whole load of other things, very few negative, oh wait: stock broker, banker and all that bull , I forgot about that whole schpiel, it's funny how easy it is to forget about negative stereotypes after a few well written jokes about Jews. Maybe it's a Jewish conspiracy, make the world laugh away the antisemitism. Muslims cannot compete with that, their dogmas on free-speech won't even let them compete.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NeqZOce1fE&hd=1

[Sire Brenshar]

Indeed academically anyone who wishes to find out about something is always told to use more than one credible source, then compare and contrast, and usually the details of what actually happened are somewhere in between the two/ what they both agree on. It's also useful as it eliminates the bias present in most media articles. So i'm not sure really sure though what your trying to get at here my friend?

This isn't entirely correct, as what use does comparing two stories have if for example one of them contain genuinely fictional information, or one side chooses to entirely emit some details? Finding then an inbetween point, however one would do that properly anyways, couldn't work.

I can't say how it is when using modern sources but in my experience with writing historical essays one of the important steps we use is the evaluation of sources. That means discovering what source has what bias, what message they are trying to send across and how reliable, if at all, its information is.

This means using a partially fictional news source such as the typical conspiracy theory website to support the claim of some kind of event is a big no no. But using the same source to demonstrate for example deep American reservations about their government and foreign involvement could work depending on the scope of your research.

[Ciciro]

I don't think I can take someone seriously when they have Palestinian in quotation marks.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

This isn't entirely correct, as what use does comparing two stories have if for example one of them contain genuinely fictional information, or one side chooses to entirely emit some details? Finding then an inbetween point, however one would do that properly anyways, couldn't work.

I can't say how it is when using modern sources but in my experience with writing historical essays one of the important steps we use is the evaluation of sources. That means discovering what source has what bias, what message they are trying to send across and how reliable, if at all, its information is.

This means using a partially fictional news source such as the typical conspiracy theory website to support the claim of some kind of event is a big no no. But using the same source to demonstrate for example deep American reservations about their government and foreign involvement could work depending on the scope of your research.

My apologies i should have made myself clearer my friend. Your quite right about source evaluation being important, i was more specifically addressing the media sources under discussion. Which while being credible, all have a different slant in the way they portray the same story for instance. Thus you look at say the Guardian, Independent and perhaps the BBC (Who annoyingly enough over the past few years have become less stand-offish and neutral), all will have their own perspective of the same event and try and drum that home. You need to ignore that and see which matches up to what happened (The grain of truths if you will!).

But of course, if it's an unfamiliar source, or indeed even just one that is out of this current context, evaluating it's worth, bias, usefulness etc is the first thing we should do, before comparing and contrasting with it's peers!

[6644kp]

Maybe the Israelis should just grown a pair and expel all the Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza to the other Arab states. They only number less than 4 Million in total. Better than this eternal cycle of killing. The Palestinians won't win and they won't stop their pointless resistance even if they did have their own state it would be just another politically unstable backwards Arab state.

[sumskilz]

That's interesting stuff Sum, but I fear its rather irrelevant, both to the OP and to other modern Zionists who very much put forward a claim to a historical right to the land.

What tends to get thought of as modern Zionists are those who speak the loudest and say the most inflammatory , but really anyone who believes there should be a home for Jews as a people is a Zionist, which encompasses a wide range of perspectives.

Those forwarding the idea of a historical claim should recognize that it is irrelevant outside of their own circle jerk. For example, the rest of the world won’t recognize a Greek claim to Istanbul, even if they recognize a historical connection. The historical claim is actually counter-productive because it delegitimizes Israel by obfuscating the actual reason so many Jewish immigrants came to the Levant, which is that they were refugees that no one wanted.

The early Zionists didn’t see themselves as conquerors and naively believed their development of the region would be welcomed, case in point: Faisal–Weizmann Agreement. Of course people have a natural tendency toward xenophobia and get nervous when thousands of foreigners move into their neighborhood, which triggered disputes, then violence, then retaliation, and so forth.