Israeli - Palestinian Conflict

I'm not calling it either way - it wouldn't surprise me if the initial claims are true. Just clarifying that the reports are conflicting.
 
2cents said:
I'm not calling it either way - it wouldn't surprise me if the initial claims are true. Just clarifying that the reports are conflicting.
Click to expand...

Investigations should never come in the way of proper inciting headlines which should guarantee riots, rock throwing Molotov cocktails and hopefully a couple more deaths from rubber bullets.

Something has to keep the circle of violence going after all.
 
Amir said:
And, of course, those who wanted to keep the circle of violence going got their wish.

Four killed in Jerusalem synagogue attack

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30092720
Click to expand...

Four Israelis have been killed and eight injured as two men armed with a pistol and meat cleavers attacked a West Jerusalem synagogue, police say.
Click to expand...

Hamas and another militant group, Islamic Jihad, praised the attack. Israel has designated both groups as terrorist organisations.
Click to expand...

And for balance:

Mr Abbas's office issued a statement saying: "The presidency condemns the attack on Jewish worshippers in their place of prayer and condemns the killing of civilians no matter who is doing it."
Click to expand...
 
Whilst obviously its clear that media sources are not overwhelmingly pro-Israel, its easy to prove any point if you only select the evidence that backs it up. Given the time and motivation you could find just as many examples of media and new sources being pro-Israel.

edit - also i had a brief read through that honest reporting thing and its pretty erroneous. The criticism of the BBC article is ridiculous and criticism of news sources saying 'alleged/suspected Palestinian attack' is wilfully misleading. It's clear to any reader that no-one's is doubting whether Palestinians committed the murders, the 'alleged' comes from uncertainty as to whether the attacks were ordered by the Palestinian government, which is unconfirmed/hasn't really been suggested thusfar.
 
Last edited:
jeff_goldblum said:
Whilst obviously its clear that media sources are not overwhelmingly pro-Israel, its easy to prove any point if you only select the evidence that backs it up. Given the time and motivation you could find just as many examples of media and new sources being pro-Israel.

edit - also i had a brief read through that honest reporting thing and its pretty erroneous. The criticism of the BBC article is ridiculous and criticism of news sources saying 'alleged Palestinian attack' is wilfully misleading. It's clear to any reader that no-one's is doubting whether Palestinians committed the murders, the 'alleged' comes from uncertainty as to whether the attacks were ordered by the Palestinian government, which is unconfirmed/hasn't really been suggested thusfar.
Click to expand...


FFS, Jeff, give it a rest. No need for research here. How absurd are headlines that do not distinguish between victims and perpetrators. This is an attack by Palestinian terrorists, and there's no need for further confirmation. There is no Palestinian government, but a selection of armed organizations.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
Whilst obviously its clear that media sources are not overwhelmingly pro-Israel, its easy to prove any point if you only select the evidence that backs it up. Given the time and motivation you could find just as many examples of media and new sources being pro-Israel.

edit - also i had a brief read through that honest reporting thing and its pretty erroneous. The criticism of the BBC article is ridiculous and criticism of news sources saying 'alleged/suspected Palestinian attack' is wilfully misleading. It's clear to any reader that no-one's is doubting whether Palestinians committed the murders, the 'alleged' comes from uncertainty as to whether the attacks were ordered by the Palestinian government, which is unconfirmed/hasn't really been suggested thusfar.
Click to expand...


Took me 2 minutes to remove any uncertainty:

http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=13079
 
tbf, the BBC were well known for their anti-Israel bias a few years ago, remember the days of that hag Orla Guerlin?

Since then they have been slightly more even handed and have been sending the 'lovely Orla' to more & more dangerous locations to report.
 
Last edited:
holyland red said:
FFS, Jeff, give it a rest. No need for research here. How absurd are headlines that do not distinguish between victims and perpetrators. This is an attack by Palestinian terrorists, and there's no need for further confirmation. There is no Palestinian government, but a selection of armed organizations.
Click to expand...

But, as the source you cites itself admits, those headlines changed to reflect the true situation as soon as it became clear that it was a case of Palestinian perpetrators and Israeli victims. I don't really see what the problem is, unless you're suggesting that in any situation where Palestinians and Israelis have died we should automatically assume the fault of the Palestinians and report it as such?

I don't think anyone is under any illusions about Hamas and Fatah but even that palwatch link you just posted doesn't state outright that either group was responsible, so I'm not sure why you're so shocked by the fact that other media sources haven't done so.
 
holyland red said:
It's an Israeli news outlet. Any specific example of fact distortion there?
Click to expand...

You're telling me Yedioth Ahronoth is an impartial news outlet?

My point is that for every alleged biased headline, there's another one which paints Palestinians in a more macabre light. There is no global media agenda against Israel.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
But, as the source you cites itself admits, those headlines changed to reflect the true situation as soon as it became clear that it was a case of Palestinian perpetrators and Israeli victims. I don't really see what the problem is, unless you're suggesting that in any situation where Palestinians and Israelis have died we should automatically assume the fault of the Palestinians and report it as such?

I don't think anyone is under any illusions about Hamas and Fatah but even that palwatch link you just posted doesn't state outright that either group was responsible, so I'm not sure why you're so shocked by the fact that other media sources haven't done so.
Click to expand...

A massacre in a synagogue is a pretty straight-forward crime scene in terms of responsibility. I don't want to derail the thread, but the initial media response to this pogrom is inexcusable imo.

I don't really care about the responsible group, and neither should the media. The PMW website should make it clear to anyone that as long as murdering Jews in concerned there is no real conflict among them. Moreover, it demonstrates the official Palestinian stance, and the use the PA and its moderate leadership make with US and EU aid money. Incitement and antisemitic rhetoric starting from school textbooks and through official media.
 
Kaos said:
You're telling me Yedioth Ahronoth is an impartial news outlet?

My point is that for every alleged biased headline, there's another one which paints Palestinians in a more macabre light. There is no global media agenda against Israel.
Click to expand...

Disgraceful media response.

Mentioning Yediot here is irrelevant anyway. It is an Israeli newspaper, and those mentioned in the Honest Reporting page aren't. Could you think of any more balanced news outlet in any Western country if that country was in a similar scenario to Israel's?

You still haven't provided a shred of evidence for Ynet's distortion of evidence btw.
 
In defence of the beeb they did change their headlines to
Jerusalem synagogue: Palestinians kill Israeli worshippers.
once they had confirmation.
 
VidaRed said:
Well jews should be allowed to pray.
Click to expand...

Relevated said:
Today they'll be given a slice of the cake and before you know it they'll have eaten the whole thing.
Click to expand...

Relevated said:
So I'm guessing this will be the start of something ugly?
Click to expand...

You are right about things getting uglier. Not sure about this being a start though. This started almost a century ago. Pure antisemitism, fueled by incitement and served with medieval barbarism.
 
holyland red said:
A massacre in a synagogue is a pretty straight-forward crime scene in terms of responsibility. I don't want to derail the thread, but the initial media response to this pogrom is inexcusable imo.

I don't really care about the responsible group, and neither should the media. The PMW website should make it clear to anyone that as long as murdering Jews in concerned there is no real conflict among them. Moreover, it demonstrates the official Palestinian stance, and the use the PA and its moderate leadership make with US and EU aid money. Incitement and antisemitic rhetoric starting from school textbooks and through official media.
Click to expand...

We're just going to have to disagree on the first point. Where it happened is irrelevant to who was to blame, no respectable news source is going to stake their reputation on inference and guesswork. They went with the information they had, waited until the facts became clear and amended their headlines accordingly, claiming anti-Israel bias is grasping at straws.

On your second point, there's a lot of unfounded speculation in there. Furthermore, it's worrying that you don't care about the people responsible, because that implies that you think all Palestinians are equally culpable for the acts of extremists, which is a very dangerous point of view.
 
holyland red said:
Disgraceful media response.

Mentioning Yediot here is irrelevant anyway. It is an Israeli newspaper, and those mentioned in the Honest Reporting page aren't. Could you think of any more balanced news outlet in any Western country if that country was in a similar scenario to Israel's?

You still haven't provided a shred of evidence for Ynet's distortion of evidence btw.
Click to expand...

What distortion of evidence? I was giving a ying to the yangs you mentioned, many of whom have changed their articles accordingly when evidence was confirmed. Again, if you think the global media has an agenda against Israel you're being obtuse.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
We're just going to have to disagree on the first point. Where it happened is irrelevant to who was to blame, no respectable news source is going to stake their reputation on inference and guesswork. They went with the information they had, waited until the facts became clear and amended their headlines accordingly, claiming anti-Israel bias is grasping at straws.

On your second point, there's a lot of unfounded speculation in there. Furthermore, it's worrying that you don't care about the people responsible, because that implies that you think all Palestinians are equally culpable for the acts of extremists, which is a very dangerous point of view.
Click to expand...

How long did they wait before reporting civilian casualties in Gaza during Protective Edge? Did they take a chance with guesswork or wait for impartial confirmation?

Could you please direct me to a Palestinian group that accepts my people's right for self-determination here, within ANY borders? I'd be grateful for a starting point in my quest to defuse the current explosive situation.
 
Kaos said:
What distortion of evidence? I was giving a ying to the yangs you mentioned, many of whom have changed their articles accordingly when evidence was confirmed. Again, if you think the global media has an agenda against Israel you're being obtuse.
Click to expand...

There's no ying and yang here. Ynet/Yediot is an Israeli media outlet. All the others mentioned aren't.

There is no point in repeating ourselves here. I'll try to make my point clearer when the same news outlets report terrorist attacks in Europe.
 
holyland red said:
There's no ying and yang here. Ynet/Yediot is an Israeli media outlet. All the others mentioned aren't.

There is no point in repeating ourselves here. I'll try to make my point clearer when the same news outlets report terrorist attacks in Europe.
Click to expand...

And they're labeled as terrorists. Not sure I've seen mainstream news outlets give terrorists the benefit of the doubt in Europe, quite the contrary actually.
 
Kaos said:
And they're labeled as terrorists. Not sure I've seen mainstream news outlets give terrorists the benefit of the doubt in Europe, quite the contrary actually.
Click to expand...

Are they? Fascinating.

Anyway, we'll probably resume this discussion when we have fresh comparative data.
 
holyland red said:
How long did they wait before reporting civilian casualties in Gaza during Protective Edge? Did they take a chance with guesswork or wait for impartial confirmation?

Could you please direct me to a Palestinian group that accepts my people's right for self-determination here, within ANY borders? I'd be grateful for a starting point in my quest to defuse the current explosive situation.
Click to expand...

That's a ridiculous parallel. Civilian deaths were happening, the army was shelling residential areas, a lot of it was caught on film and the world saw what was happening. If it had been that clear cut from the start with the Jerusalem killings of course the headlines would have been more representative of events sooner.

On your second point, the Israeli state over decades has proven that it has no inclination to accept Palestinian rights for self-determination on the land they were already living on, so its unsurprising that's its difficult to find Palestinian groups who are particularly concerned with protecting the rights of the people who took their land and oppressed them. Ultimately Israel holds the power and Israeli governments made the decision to continuously annex more and more Palestinian territory. Israeli government policy has created the current situation so in my view the Israeli government has to the take the lead in any peace process. Unfortunately its not high on their list of priorities.

edit - that's not to say the initial settlement was all the Israelis' fault. Allied powers have a lot to answer for in that respect as well, not least the British.
 
Last edited:
Fearless said:
Thats a bloody good question.

Wonder if Kaos will answer it?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this is the type of question that sends people off the CE forum before they're back after a while preaching about the danger in tarring all Palestinians with the same brush.
 
[QUOTE="jeff_goldblum, post: 16723153, member: 63291"Israeli government policy has created the current situation so in my view the Israeli government has to the take the lead in any peace process. Unfortunately its not high on their list of priorities.[/QUOTE]


So the Israeli's refused partition in 1948?
So the Israeli's started all the wars that created the refugees?
So the Israeli's pronounced the three No's for Khartoum Resolution (“no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.”)
So the Israeli's illegally occupied Jerusalem, banning all Muslims till 67?


...you getting this?
 
jeff_goldblum said:
That's a ridiculous parallel. Civilian deaths were happening, the army was shelling residential areas, a lot of it was caught on film and the world saw what was happening. If it had been that clear cut from the start with the Jerusalem killings of course the headlines would have been more representative of events sooner.

On your second point, the Israeli state over decades has proven that it has no inclination accept Palestinian rights for self-determination on the land they were already living on, so its unsurprising that's its difficult to find Palestinian groups who are particularly concerned with protecting the rights of the people who took their land and oppressed them. Ultimately Israel holds the power and Israeli governments made the decision to continuously annex more and more Palestinian territory. Israeli government policy has created the current situation so in my view the Israeli government has to the take the lead in any peace process. Unfortunately its not high on their list of priorities.
Click to expand...


Hehe....civilian deaths were off course happening, as were those of militants. Still, we got staggeringly "accurate" figures in real time about the proportions of civilian casualties. Talk about unfounded speculation. The same media outlets fed their audiences willfully with Hamas propaganda, not caring one bit for that integrity you mentioned in your previous post.


The people of Israel in Israel did not take anyone's land. The images from the Jerusalem massacre today are no different to those of the 1929 Hebron massacre, before annexation, land theft, Israeli government policies or any of the other shite you've been spoon fed. Google it if you share Kaos' allergy to Israeli sources. Even the incitement is the same...the Jews attack the sacred Jerusalem mosques.
 
Fearless said:
Thats a bloody good question.

Wonder if Kaos will answer it?
Click to expand...

I've been backing out of this thread because I've accepted I'm not remotely clued up on the issue nor do I know where I stand. I was simply challenging the ridiculous notion of the global media conspiring against Israel.
 
jeff_goldblum said:
That's a ridiculous parallel. Civilian deaths were happening, the army was shelling residential areas, a lot of it was caught on film and the world saw what was happening. If it had been that clear cut from the start with the Jerusalem killings of course the headlines would have been more representative of events sooner.
.
Click to expand...

Some media outlets just don't want to know

 
Kaos said:
I've been backing out of this thread because I've accepted I'm not remotely clued up on the issue nor do I know where I stand. I was simply challenging the ridiculous notion of the global media conspiring against Israel.
Click to expand...

The US media are definitely pro-Israel. As is the general climate in the USA. Its not so cool to be pro-Palestinian rights 'round here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.