UK media monitor: Deir Yassin coverage trumps peace talks

[shira]

LONDON - A British newspaper has been accused of “unadulterated hostility” toward Israel by a media monitor organization after it ran a two-page story about the 1948 killings at Deir Yassin on Monday and gave short shrift to the start of the proximity talks.

The London based media watchdog organization Just Journalism has questioned why the Independent gave prominence to a story on Deir Yassin – titled “A massacre of Arabs masked by a state of national amnesia” – while relegating a report on the restarting of indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinians to a small column.

“Yesterday’s Israel-focused coverage in Britain’s Independent newspaper provides a perfect illustration of the unadulterated hostility of the publication towards the Jewish state, that is as pointless as it is relentless,” Just Journalism said in a briefing.

“On the day following the first diplomatic talks between Israel and the Palestinians in 17 months, the newspaper produced a two-page spread on the Deir Yassin massacre, complete with large photo of forlorn Palestinian children taken over half a century ago. A small column reporting the restarting of indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is squeezed in at the end, but the main point has already been made,” it added.

more...
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=175338

[shira]

1. article cont'd...

Describing Deir Yassin in the opening of the story, the reporter, Jerusalem-based Catrina Stewart, says: “More than one unwitting visitor to Jerusalem has fallen prey to the bizarre delusion that they are the Messiah. Usually, they are whisked off to the serene surroundings of Kfar Shaul psychiatric hospital on the outskirts of the city, where they are gently nursed back to health.

“It is an interesting irony that the patients at Kfar Shaul recuperate from such variations on amnesia on the very spot that Israel has sought to erase from its collective memory,” Stewart said.

Citing a recent survey in the Daily Telegraph newspaper showing that one-fifth of British teenagers believe that Winston Churchill was a fictional character, Just Journalism questioned Stewart’s decision to claim that Israel suffers from “national amnesia” after basing her findings on the responses of two Israeli teenagers she questioned on the history of the incident.

“This belaboured observation might indeed earn the title of ‘ironic’ were it not for the fact that Deir Yassin is the most cited historic massacre of Arabs by Jews in Mandate Palestine. It is a favorite reference of Israel’s detractors and it’s also been ripped open by Israeli historians themselves, in particular Benny Morris.

“Regarding the claim that Israel suffers from “national amnesia,” it’s a pity that the journalist chose to demonstrate her point by testing the knowledge of two Israeli teenagers who said they had ‘never heard of it.’ Setting aside the fact that teenagers the world over are not a demographic likely to master their own nation’s history, the Israeli teenagers might have been even less likely to remember a massacre which took place 62 years ago when so many have been perpetrated since,” Just Journalism said.


“Some examples include the Hamas/Islamic Jihad bombing of the Sbarro pizza joint in Jerusalem in 2001, where 15 Israelis were ripped to shreds in broad daylight; or in the Hamas hotel bombing in Netanya in 2002, where 30 civilians met a similar fate. Would Stewart find it as morally persuasive to canvas Palestinian teenagers on their recall of the Sbarro or Passover massacres?” Just Journalism’s content manager Carmel Gould said.

“Every Israeli journalist, politician and university professor has heard of Deir Yassin and the vast majority know recognise it as an ignoble episode in their history. The very fact that Haaretz is supporting an Israeli arts student in her bid to get the archive documents released is a perfect illustration of the level of awareness of the issue in Israel,” Gould added.

The media monitor also questioned why the Independent was keen to pen the story now, 62 years after the incident took place.

“The only identifiable trigger for the ‘news’ piece seems to be the fact that Israeli daily Haaretz is petitioning the High Court to release undisclosed documents pertaining to the case,” Just Journalism said. “As for the timing of the publication of this article, it is almost as if the Independent wants the talks between Israel and the Palestinians to fail.”

In a special election edition last week, the Independent set out its philosophy saying, “We believe that all too much of the ‘news’ that floods modern life is misleading: either because it is ‘spun’ at source or because it is twisted by journalists to suit editorial or proprietorial agendas.

“We promise to seek and disseminate the truth that lies behind the headlines of other news brands. We are fallible, but our aspiration is always to equip our readers with an accurate and enlightening picture of what is going on in the world.”

[shira]

2. Deir Yassin Survivor claims incident was deliberately exaggerated

VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/v/GkhSHiwzaIY&hl=en_GB&fs=1&rel=0%22%3E%3C/param%3E%3Cparam

The Jordanian newspaper Al Urdun published a survivor's account in 1955, in which he said that the Palestinians had deliberately exaggerated horror stories about atrocities in Deir Yassin to encourage others to fight, but unwittingly had caused them to flee instead. Everyone had reason to spread the atrocity narrative. The Irgun and Lehi wanted to frighten Arabs into fleeing; the Arabs wanted to provoke an international response;<74> the Haganah wanted to tarnish the Irgun and Lehi; and the Arabs and the British wanted to malign the Jews.<75> In addition, Milstein writes that the left-wing Mapai party and David Ben-Gurion, who became Israel's first prime minister on May 14, deliberately exploited Deir Yassin to stop a power-sharing agreement with the right-wing Revisionists—who were associated with Irgun and Lehi—a proposal that was being debated at that time in Tel Aviv.<76>

Mordechai Ra'anan, the Irgun commander in Jerusalem, told reporters on April 10 that, "so far, 254 Arab bodies have been counted."<77> He later said: "I told the reporters that 254 were killed so that a big figure would be published, and so that Arabs would panic."<78> That figure was published by The New York Times on April 13, and it stuck until 1987, when Sharif Kan'ana of Bir Zeit University interviewed survivors and concluded that 107 had died, with 12 wounded. Only 11 of the 100 armed villagers were among the dead.<51>

Hazam Nusseibeh, the news editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service at the time, gave an interview to the BBC in 1998. He spoke about a discussion he had with Hussayn Khalidi, the deputy chairman of the Higher Arab Executive in Jerusalem, shortly after the killings: "I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story. He said, 'We must make the most of this.' So he wrote a press release, stating that at Deir Yassin, children were murdered, pregnant women were raped, all sorts of atrocities."<79> Gelber writes that Khalidi told journalists on April 11 that the village's dead included 25 pregnant women, 52 mothers of babies, and 60 girls.<74>

The stories of rape angered the villagers, who complained to the Arab emergency committee that their wives and daughters were being exploited in the service of propaganda.<80> Abu Mahmud, who lived in Deir Yassin in 1948, was one of those who complained. He told the BBC: "We said, 'There was no rape.' He said, 'We have to say this so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews'."<79>

"This was our biggest mistake," said Nusseibeh. "We did not realize how our people would react. As soon as they heard that women had been raped at Deir Yassin, Palestinians fled in terror. They ran away from all our villages."<79><81> He told Larry Collins in 1968: "We committed a fatal error, and set the stage for the refugee problem."<82> Mohammed Radwan, one of the villagers who fought the attackers, said: "There were no rapes. It's all lies. There were no pregnant women who were slit open. It was propaganda that ... Arabs put out so Arab armies would invade," he said. "They ended up expelling people from all of Palestine on the rumor of Deir Yassin."<73>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

[Eg-ptiangirl]

27. Killing one is killing million

But it wasn't exaggerated. There are many other things in history that are exaggerated to justify awful things, but expelling Palestinians and what made them leave is well documented in UN papers, you can always check 194.

[shira]

40. There's very good evidence Deir Yassin was exaggerated and unless you have good reason to question

....the evidence, you cannot just claim "it wasn't exaggerated".

[Jim Sagle]

57. No, actually...killing one is NOT killing a million.

Sorry 'bout yer math skilz.

[Tripmann]

3. Here we go again........

Another unbiased and reputable source shira?

Just journalism: Just Journalism (JJ) is a research organization focused on how Israel and Middle East issues are reported in the UK media. It aims to "promote accurate and responsible reporting about Israel in the British media."

I didn't know CAMERA had relatives on this side of the water! :rofl:

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shira]

5. Is there anything factually inaccurate or logically inconsistent you can point to in this report?

Or with the eyewitness testimony WRT the events at Deir Yassin?

Waiting...

[Tripmann]

6. The source isn't worth commenting on

any more than any other biased source i.e. pretty much everything you post.

If CAMERA isn't taken seriously around here than neither should 'Just journalism'. They're two cheeks of the same arse.

[shira]

7. Brilliant.

Nothing substantive at all.

Don't let the facts confuse you.

[Tripmann]

8. Any non-biased sources for us?

[shira]

9. FAIL.

Bias has no bearing on the validity of an assertion or argument.

In fact, rejection of any idea based on a source rather than its merit is a logical fallacy. It's called a "genetic fallacy".

The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.

Even from bad things, good may come; we therefore ought not to reject an idea just because of where it comes from, as ad hominem arguments do.

Equally, even good sources may sometimes produce bad results; accepting an idea because of the goodness of its source, as in appeals to authority, is therefore no better than rejecting an idea because of the badness of its source. Both types of argument are fallacious.

Examples
(1) My mommy told me that the tooth fairy is real.
Therefore:
(2) The tooth fairy is real.

(1) Eugenics was pioneered in Germany during the war.
Therefore:
(2) Eugenics is a bad thing.

Each of these arguments commits the genetic fallacy, because each judges an idea by the goodness or badness of its source, rather than on its own merits.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/genetic/

Still waiting for you to demonstrate how inaccurate, unreasonable, or invalid any of the arguments, reasoning, or facts are in the OP and video refuting the Deir Yassin massacre.

And, for that matter, UNSCR 242. You see, you can't just reject a source because it's Zionist or Jewish, not even CAMERA.

:)

[Tripmann]

10. So, no unbiased sources then

fair enough. Cheers for proving my point.

[shira]

13. Did you miss that claiming "bias" is a logical fallacy?

[aranthus]

21. Logic is a bunch of pretty flowers, that smell bad.

At least according to some.

[shira]

41. Logic is just another Hasbara tool of the Zionists.

[aranthus]

22. There's no such thing as a completely unbiased source.

What you object to is the reference to interested sources as biased and therefore rejectable. As shira has already shown you, that is a logical falacy.

[azurnoir]

24. except in this case not only was the source biased

it was also false whether by intent or accident

[aranthus]

42. But that's not what Tripmann is doing.

Claiming that the original post is inaccurate because you have contradictory evidence is perfectly reasonable argument. But Tripmann was (and still is) saying that the article should not be considered because of the source, without any evidence contradicting the article at all.

[azurnoir]

17. Lol the problem here is this

in the case of both examples based on the merit of the arguments themselves they are false because both are based on easily disproven "facts" mommy is a liar and eugenics were not pioneered in Germany during any war so much for your linked examples

[shira]

19. so your point is....?

[azurnoir]

23. your "logical fallacy" of facts

are in fact based on a fallacy and there for are void

[shira]

38. It's an example - doesn't matter how accurate the example is so long as you get the point

[Dick Dastardly]

30. The information in the wiki article is from a BBC interview of witnesses and survivors.

involved in Deir Yassin, a 1955 article in the Jordanian newspaper Al Urdun of survivors accounts and interviews of survivors by Prof Sharif Kan'ana of Bir Zeit University.

Hazam Nusseibeh, the news editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service at the time, Hussayn Khalidi the deputy chairman of the Higher Arab Executive in Jerusalem(both Nusseibeh and Khalidi admit to concocting the story),Mohammed Radwan, one of the villagers who fought the attackers, Abu Mahmud, who lived in Deir Yassin in 1948 as well as the the many other participants and witnesses are on record stating that it was exagerated.

The video that was posted was from the BBC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkhSHiwzaIY



Your only rebuttal is a claim of bias and nothing else. As usual you present no real argument and no support to counter what was presented. You dont even explain why you claim the BBC or anything else is too biased . It seems you think you never have to provide support for what you say because you think that what you say must be accepted as a statement of fact.

[azurnoir]

31. you and your compatriot both seem to blithely ignore

the confession of the Irgrun that they used psychological terror for the express purpose of ethnic cleansing

Mordechai Ra'anan, the Irgun commander in Jerusalem, told reporters on April 10 that, "so far, 254 Arab bodies have been counted."<77> He later said: "I told the reporters that 254 were killed so that a big figure would be published, and so that Arabs would panic."<78> That figure was published by The New York Times on April 13, and it stuck until 1987, when Sharif Kan'ana of Bir Zeit University interviewed survivors and concluded that 107 had died, with 12 wounded. Only 11 of the 100 armed villagers were among the dead.<51>

[Eg-ptiangirl]

29. What is camera?

[azurnoir]

43. Here is their site

http://www.camera.org/

take a look at it and make your own judgement

[azurnoir]

11. Interesting that JPost would wait more than a week to publish this

but even more interesting

A massacre of arabs masked by a state of national amnesia

Sixty years on, the true story of the slaughter of Palestinians at Deir Yassin may finally come out

By Catrina Stewart in Jerusalem

Monday, 10 May 2010

More than one unwitting visitor to Jerusalem has fallen prey to the bizarre delusion that they are the Messiah. Usually, they are whisked off to the serene surroundings of Kfar Shaul psychiatric hospital on the outskirts of the city, where they are gently nursed back to health.

It is an interesting irony that the patients at Kfar Shaul recuperate from such variations on amnesia on the very spot that Israel has sought to erase from its collective memory.

The place is Deir Yassin. An Arab village cleared out in 1948 by Jewish forces in a brutal battle just weeks before Israel was formed, Deir Yassin has come to symbolise perhaps more than anywhere else the Palestinian sense of dispossession.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/a-massacre-of-arabs-masked-by-a-state-of-national-amnesia-1970018.html


Middle East Proximity Talks Start
May 9, 2010

Way to go Secretary Clinton (and Senator George Mitchell)!

This statement was released by the State Department today:

Statement on Special Envoy George Mitchell’s Trip

Special Envoy Mitchell left the Middle East on Sunday, after completing the first round of proximity talks with Israeli and Palestinian leaders. The talks were serious and wide-ranging.

http://secretaryclinton.wordpress.com/2010/05/09/middle-east-proximity-talks-start/

[Tripmann]

12. Cheers Az,

Nice to have a reputable source on the matter :)

[shira]

14. "Reputable source" is the fallacy of an appeal to authority

[Tripmann]

15. LOL!!

What fortune cookie did you pull that statement out of.

I suppose the independent is a jew hating anti-semite rag? Quick, do a search of your 'reputable' sources....

[shira]

16. Educate yourself in logical fallacies. It's the opposite of your dismissal of all zionist/jewish

...sources.

Same logical fallacy (genetic fallacy) just in reverse.

It's not only illogical to dismiss a source's assertions or arguments because the source may be questionable (genetic fallacy), it's as illogical to accept an argument or assertion based solely on the source (appeal to authority).

As to the Independent being an antisemitic rag, I proposed nothing of the sort. That's a red-herring fallacy.

[Tripmann]

18. Amazing how quick you change the focus of a thread YOU started

when somebody shows up with a link to a reputable source, isn't it??

[shira]

20. Sources are irrelevant, whether "reputable" or not. Only the facts and merit of the arguments

...actually count.

And you're incapable of rationally countering the validity of any reasoned assertions or arguments.

Be honest. Admit it.

Your only resort is to counter with logically fallacious arguments.

[azurnoir]

25. well you have been shown the facts

your examples of logical fallacies are based on falsehoods so what is left to validity here?

[Tripmann]

32. If sources are SO irrelevant shira

how come you use them like most people use the word 'the'.

If sources are SO irrelevant, how come you pickle every thread to participate in with the sources that agree with you

If sources are SO irrelevant, how come they are your de-facto choice for validating your positions??

Now we can all take you even LESS serious.

You WERE little miss 'to prove my point, heres a jewish person/webpage/newspaper that agrees with me'

Now you're little miss to prove my point, heres an irrelevant source that agrees with me'.

Bravo :applause:

[LeftishBrit]

35. Huh?

I don't accept some of Shira's sources, but she would never consider them as valid just because they were posted by someone Jewish. After all, 'Mondoweiss' are Jewish; so on the other hand is Caroline Glick, whom she has said that she rejects.

[Tripmann]

36. You're barking up the wrong tree my friend!

My statement was in relation to shira exclusively using jewish or biased sources to make her arguments, the talking points, the bullet points, the counter points. Plagarised, copied, lifted ad infinitum, while everyone else actually discusses the issues.

This thread is a good example. Azurnoir posted a story from a reputable newspaper. Shira quotes a source whos whole existence is to provide counter stories for any story that makes israel look bad. We saw this tactic on fox news for the 8 years dubya was in power. Theres some bad press on the way, push out a conflicting story, spin away and the facts be damned, all the while knowing that your supporters will peddle the filth relentlessly.

[shira]

39. She understands your arguments are mostly illogical and based on fallacies

Worse, you appear proud of that fact.

Incidentally, there's a pro-Palestinian participant here who quotes almost exclusively from biased Jewish "new historians" like Avi Shlaim. Shlaim's views are much closer to your POV than mine.

What do you say to that, Chief?

[LeftishBrit]

44. Correction: I said that this particular argument was false; nothing about 'mostly' one way or

another.

I tend to respond to each post as it comes.

Sorry to sound ungracious when you were defending me, but I think that one of the problems on this forum is that we too often respond to the poster rather than the post.

[LeftishBrit]

45. 'Jewish or biased sources'?

You sound as though Jewish sources are a monolith. In fact, 'two Jews mean three opinions'. Jewish sources range from very pro-Israel to very pro-Palestinian.

'while everyone else actually discusses the issues.'

No, unfortunately, often we don't. There are too many debates that comes down to 'Dershowitz is an evil monster and by the way he eats babies' versus 'Goldstone is an evil monster and by the way he eats babies'. Sometimes I think there should be a month's moratorium on any mention of either Dershowitz or Goldstone! Neither of them is either Israeli or Palestinian, after all; and we might then spend more time discussing Israel and Palestine as such.

[Tripmann]

46. Let me explain further LB

I'm referring to shira constantly linking to jewish people/websites/newspapers that agree with her instead of an independent source like Azurnoir did here.

To give a relevant comparison for this thread, if I was on here contending that the birmingham and guildford pub bombings were actually committed by MI6 to drum up support for the criminal treatment of republicans in the north of ireland, then 'proving' it by sourcing from republican organisations that exist to paint the IRA in a better light, the very least I'd expect is for you to ask for me to provide an unbiased or reputable source cooberating my claim.

That is exactly is what AZ provided, resulting in shiras sudden contention that sources are irrelevant.

[LeftishBrit]

34. I strongly disagree that sources are irrelevant

And I suspect that you would object to the use of antisemitic, or even anti-Zionist, sources for an argument.

[shira]

37. Even an antisemitic / antizionist source can be factually accurate or make a reasonable argument

The point being, an assertion or argument cannot just be dismissed due solely to the source from which it came.

Our friend here appears to be proud of his irrational debating skills.

[Tripmann]

47. Irrational debating skills? LOL!!

Whens the last time you actually debated something shira, instead of linking to someone that agrees with you??

But lets recap the fact on this subject, shall we:

You post a story attacking a newspaper for giving TOO MUCH coverage to the alledged massacare of palestinians compared to the proximity talks. Attack the man, ignore the message, making israel the victim not the accused. Rovian filth tactics 101. Mark the paper as biased but don't discuss the real story behind the article.

"In 2006, an Israeli arts student, Neta Shoshani, applied for access to the Deir Yassin archives for a university project, believing a 50-year embargo on the secret documents had expired eight years previously. She was granted limited access to the material, but was informed that there was an extended ban on the more sensitive documents. When a lawyer demanded an explanation, it emerged that a ministerial committee only extended the ban more than a year after Ms Shoshani's first request, exposing the state to a legal challenge. The current embargo runs until 2012.Defending its right to keep the documents under wraps, the Israeli state has argued that their publication would tarnish the country's image abroad and inflame Arab-Israeli tensions. Ha'aretz and Ms Shoshani have countered that the public have a right to know and confront their past."

Thats the real story here, and why your little organisation that exists to paint israel in a better light has attacked the newspaper, and why jposts article mentions everything else (including palestinian atrocities) but ignores israels witholding damaging information in relation to the massacare.

How many pages would the possible cover up of the massacare of 100+ israelis warrant shira?

[shira]

48. It's actually worse than that...

1. You don't trust any Zionist or Jewish pro-Israel sources, as they appear to you no better than anything that's pro-Nazi or pro-Apartheid.

2. Rather than dispute a source's facts or attack the arguments or opinions within said source, you resort to ad hominem smear tactics against sources you don't particularly like. You don't feel any obligation whatsoever to consider any Zionist/Jewish pro-Israel argument because in your mind all pro-Israel Zionist/Jewish arguments are by de facto false, and therefore they can safely be ignored. Facts simply do not matter at all to you if they vindicate Israeli actions. I'll prove this below...

3. No source WRT the Arab/Israel conflict is unbiased. The best that can be hoped is for a source to be reliable and accurate WRT its coverage on the Arab/Israel conflict. And even then, not everything should be taken for granted. All facts, assertions, and arguments need to still be verified and not automatically assumed 'true' because you - the arbiter of all that's true - believes the source to be honest and credible. The pro-Israel organization CAMERA is as responsible, honest, reliable and accurate a source of information on Israel as you will find and I stand by that (in fact I challenge anyone here to disprove that with just one counter-example based on CAMERA's 20 years and thousands of articles produced). In the VERY rare cases they are wrong, they readily admit it and correct the problem as they realize anything factually untrue, inaccurate, or dishonest brings extremely harmful consequences to Jews not only in Israel, but worldwide by the many Jew haters and Anti-Israel bigots who live for any excuse to attack - by word or deed - Jews or the Jewish homeland.

As to your source, the Independent, did you actually read the following?

http://www.justjournalism.com/media-analysis/view/viewpoint-deir-yassin-coverage-trumps-peace-talks-in-the-independent

What precisely is wrong with that article? Does it not bring up any valid points at all?

=======

BTW, the Indepent employs one Robert Fisk who once claimed Israel used a uranium based weapon in Lebanon, among many other of his outrageous claims.

[Tripmann]

49. So whats the real story here shira?

Israel witholding damaging information in relation to the massacare or a newspaper printing a two page article in relation to israel witholding information in relation to a massacare?

[shira]

50. You wanted to debate. I suggest you respond to my points first before I answer you in kind.

[shira]

51. Screw it, here's your answer - but I'm still waiting on you to answer me from 2 posts up

Think of it all from a far Rightwing perspective.

Imagine the pro-settler paper Arutz Sheva publishing a 2 page article on someone wanting the files re-opened in order to examine further the activities of Palestinian leader Grand Mufti Al-Hussayni and his Nazi ties to Hitler. Big headlines. Glossy picture of the Palestinian leader and Hitler. Beneath that, pics of emaciated Jews in death camps. The Arutz Sheva journalist reports that 2 Palestinian teens he interviewed have some sort of selective amnesia WRT the history of the Mufti and his Nazi ties, as do most Palestinians. Further top-secret information on the Mufti is in the hands of the PLO but in response to the inquiry, the PLO leadership says it doesn't want to go into all this....

Meanwhile, proximity talks are starting between Palestinian and Israeli leadership but that gets short shrift in a tiny column several pages into the paper.

Par for the course for a Rightwing rag, right?

Now ask yourself the same questions you just asked me.

[Tripmann]

52. No problem

The real story would also be the possible active cover up of the atrocities carried out not how much column space the story got compared to the talks.

And any organisation that tried to deflect the attention from the story and demonise the paper telling it would be guilty of the same filth your friends at justjournalism and their ilk are.

T'see shira, the possible cover up of the massacare of 100 dead innocent people to me is still an atrocity, whether they're israeli OR palestinian. So flipping it around makes no difference.

So, you're happy enough to focus on the size of the article in the newspaper and disregard israel actively covering up information into an alleged massacare it committed?

[Tripmann]

53. By the way, you didn't actually answer the question

You flipped it around and I answered it.

your go....

So whats the real story here shira?

Israel witholding damaging information in relation to the massacare or a newspaper printing a two page article in relation to israel witholding information in relation to a massacare?

[shira]

55. The real story is...

...no matter what the government of Israel divulges, even if the files totally exhonerrate Israel or Irgun, stories about Jews killing Palestinians from 60 years ago will just make the situation in the middle east - and for Jews worldwide - more difficult.

It's the same reason the government of Israel has never tried to challenge the Muhammed al-Dura case from October 2000, an outright hoax:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3geiT77mlY4

You see, even though Israel knew it had strong evidence that the al-Dura episode was a hoax - and it certainly is - they didn't want to push it because it would once again, as it did in Oct/Nov 2000, take center stage, make headlines worldwide, and enflame passions and emotions within the mideast and against Jews worldwide. Picture the headlines in papers about Israel "denying" their involvement with al-Dura. Israel "murdered" a 12 year old boy, but they deny it. Etc, etc.

Same situation here. And the BBC coverage - which you're now aware of and that demonstrates Deir Yassin was greatly exaggerated - wouldn't help Israel one bit. THAT would be ignored in favor of headlines about Israeli denial, coverups, etc. It doesn't even matter that Irgun was in the middle of Deir Yassin and later outlawed by the Israeli gov't as a terror organization. Israel and its Jews, not Irgun, would still be the target of condemnation 60 years after the fact.

[Tripmann]

60. Get fucking real shira

The israeli government has already admitted to witholding the documents as they would tarnish the state of israel. Where does your 'even if the files totally exhonerrate Israel or Irgun' contention fit into that. If they would exhonerate Israel, how would they tarnish israel as well. FAIL

Oh, and Irgun may have been designated a 'terror organisation', but the state of israel still saw fit to merge its members into the original israeli army. Guess terrorism is ok when they're YOUR kind of terrorists.

So, basically, you support israel actively covering up a possible massacre of 100 innocent people, because the truth coming out would make the situations of jews in the middle east and worldwide more difficult?

Oh thats right, 'even if the files totally exhonerrate Israel or Irgun'


:rofl:

[shira]

62. Stop being dishonest, see #61

[Tripmann]

63. So basically,

you support israel actively covering up a possible massacre of 100 innocent people, because the truth coming out would make the situations of jews in the middle east and worldwide more difficult?

[shira]

54. Honestly? Then you'd have no beef with far Rightwing rags and their agenda to stoke emotions?

Palestinians with selective amnesia WRT their leadership's Nazi ties?

No problem with that "real" story?

:eyes:

[Tripmann]

56. Still no answer?

So whats the real story here shira?

Israel witholding damaging information in relation to the massacare or a newspaper printing a two page article in relation to israel witholding information in relation to a massacare?

[shira]

58. answered in #55 (nt)

[Tripmann]

59. You didn't answer it, and you know it.

You flew off on one of your little tangents as usual to try make israel look like the injured party. Ohhh, poor israel, no matter what they do they'll be vilified.

Point being, if they're actively trying to cover up a massacare , maybe they deserve to be the bad guys of the situation, no?

[shira]

61. I did answer it, so stop lying.

1. Strong evidence already exists showing Deir Yassin to be exaggerated and committed not by the gov't of Israel but by a militia that was later outlawed and banned by the gov't.
2. Israel has already proven by its silence on the Muhammad al-Dura affair of October 2000 that they're reluctant to bring up anything that will just enflame the situation, even if it exonerates Israel.
3. You're completely disingenuous when you cannot even admit there's nothing wrong with the Independent article's reference to "selective amnesia" (or that if written against Palestinians it would be racist bile).

[Tripmann]

64. So basically,

you support israel actively covering up a possible massacre of 100 innocent people, because the truth coming out would make the situations of jews in the middle east and worldwide more difficult?

[shira]

65. There shouldn't be any coverups

The point of the OP, however, was to show how the Independent has a special axe to grind against Israel - which you seemingly don't wish to admit. Israel won't release information on DY perhaps for the same reason the Brits, French, and USA don't want to open all the files on the Muslim Brotherhood.

It'd be way too explosive.

At the end of World War II, the Muslim Brotherhood was wanted for war crimes. Their German intelligence handlers were captured in Cairo. The whole net was rolled up by the British Secret Service. Then a horrible thing happened.

Instead of prosecuting the Nazis -- the Muslim Brotherhood -- the British government hired them. They brought all the fugitive Nazi war criminals of Arab and Muslim descent into Egypt, and for three years they were trained on a special mission. The British Secret Service wanted to use the fascists of the Muslim Brotherhood to strike down the infant state of Israel in 1948. Only a few people in the Mossad know this, but many of the members of the Arab Armies and terrorist groups that tried to strangle the infant State of Israel were the Arab Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Britain was not alone. The French intelligence service cooperated by releasing the Grand Mufti and smuggling him to Egypt, so all of the Arab Nazis came together. So, from 1945 to 1948, the British Secret Service protected every Arab Nazi they could, but they failed to quash the State of Israel.

What the British did then, they sold the Arab Nazis to the predecessor of what became the CIA. It may sound stupid; it may sound evil, but it did happen. The idea was that we were going to use the Arab Nazis in the Middle East as a counterweight to the Arab communists. Just as the Soviet Union was funding Arab communists, we would fund the Arab Nazis to fight against. And lots of secret classes took place. We kept the Muslim Brotherhood on our payroll.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x77105

Let me know when The Independent does a 2 page article with glossy photos on the above and desists publishing articles about Israel's alleged Uranium bombs in Lebanon or Israel's "collective amnesia" WRT Deir Yassin.

:eyes:

[Tripmann]

66. Wrong shira

the point of your little organisations like camera and justjournalism is to frame anyone and anything that paints israel in a bad light as having an 'axe to grind' with israel.

The independent is, of course, a left leaning newspaper. You, on the other hand, are on a left wing forum calling it a 'right wing rag' because it prints an unflattering article about your beloved israel. Trying to frame it as something its not merely because it prints a 2 page article about how israel is actively witholding documents relating to the massacre of over 100 innocent people says more about you then it does about the newspaper. More accusations and name calling, as usual.

Isn't it amazing that every single person or organisation that speaks about israeli actions in an unflattering way has an 'axe to grind'? :eyes:

[shira]

67. Answer 2 questions honestly, please

1. Google Robert Fisk's accusation of Israel using Uranium bombs in Lebanon.
2. Think hard over the Independent's allegation of Isarelis' "collective amnesia" WRT Deir Yassin.

You believe these are good examples of responsible journalism?

[Tripmann]

68. You accused a left wing newspaper of being a right-wing rag.

It is not right wing, and it never has been.

1. Robert Fisk is ONE correspondent with the newspaper. The independent is bigger than Robert Fisk.

2. Trying this crap again shira? Again, why nobody takes you seriously. You get your knickers in a twist because of a TWO PAGE article on the possible cover up of a massacre. You then cherrypick TWO WORDS out of that article to prove a lack of responsible journalism.

Pure fox news filth tactics, scan a whole article/speech, cherrypick two words, then try to build an argument. Amazing how the small matter of covering up information of the massacre of 100 people isn't worth mentioning, isn't it shira.

Discuss the newspaper, ignore the massacre. Pathetic.

[shira]

69. It's not liberal WRT Israel

Regarding Robert Fisk and those "two words", I suppose that's about as close as you'll get to conceding that there's definitely something wrong and not quite "liberal" WRT The Independent's coverage on Israel. BTW, those are hardly the only 2 examples I can bring up to show how horrendous their coverage of Israel is.

How many more examples will it take for you to explicitly concede that this source is not at all credible or liberal WRT its coverage on Israel?

As to 'cherrypicking', I did nothing of the sort. I pointed out earlier that it's irresponsible for the journalist to get the opinions of 2 teenagers on Deir Yassin. I also pointed out that nowhere in the article is there any mention of the BBC coverage in the earliest posts of this thread which show the massacre was exaggerated. Would you like to pretend that this is just also an honest 'error' by the journalist?

Lastly, I bring up the newspaper like you bring up CAMERA, except CAMERA is clearly the more credible, honest, and accurate source WRT Israel. I can't say I'm shocked that you don't see a clear parallel between The Independent's coverage of Israel and Arutz Sheva's coverage of all things Muslim/Arab. They're 2 sides of the same coin. If you were honest, you'd admit to it. You'd treat The Independent as I would Arutz Sheva. IOW, you'd basically ignore it on all things they're likely to be hostile and biased against.

[Tripmann]

70. And still no mention of israel possibly covering up a massacre. Disgusting.

But pretty much your mo.o around here.

Every discussion about a topic that paints your beloved israel in an unflattering light has to focus on an irrelevance

In this case, lets not discuss israel ACTIVELY COVERING UP THE POSSIBLE MASSACRE OF 100+ INNOCENT PEOPLE, lets discuss the newspaper that mentions it in an article.

You're fooling no-one shira.

[shira]

71. It's disgusting you can't admit The Independent is disreputable WRT Israel

The same reason the UK, France, and USA do not open all their files on the following from post #65 above.....

At the end of World War II, the Muslim Brotherhood was wanted for war crimes. Their German intelligence handlers were captured in Cairo. The whole net was rolled up by the British Secret Service. Then a horrible thing happened.

Instead of prosecuting the Nazis -- the Muslim Brotherhood -- the British government hired them. They brought all the fugitive Nazi war criminals of Arab and Muslim descent into Egypt, and for three years they were trained on a special mission. The British Secret Service wanted to use the fascists of the Muslim Brotherhood to strike down the infant state of Israel in 1948. Only a few people in the Mossad know this, but many of the members of the Arab Armies and terrorist groups that tried to strangle the infant State of Israel were the Arab Nazis of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Britain was not alone. The French intelligence service cooperated by releasing the Grand Mufti and smuggling him to Egypt, so all of the Arab Nazis came together. So, from 1945 to 1948, the British Secret Service protected every Arab Nazi they could, but they failed to quash the State of Israel.

What the British did then, they sold the Arab Nazis to the predecessor of what became the CIA. It may sound stupid; it may sound evil, but it did happen. The idea was that we were going to use the Arab Nazis in the Middle East as a counterweight to the Arab communists. Just as the Soviet Union was funding Arab communists, we would fund the Arab Nazis to fight against. And lots of secret classes took place. We kept the Muslim Brotherhood on our payroll.

....is basically the reason Israel won't just open up the files on Deir Yassin.

The fact is that the information above is at least 100x worse than Deir Yassin, but I'm betting you're not as disgusted about the role these Allied powers had in suporting the Muslim Brotherhood against Israel just a few years after the Holocaust.

Am I right?

[Tripmann]

72. Wrong

I don't support government coverups of any description. Be it by the israelis, british or my own.

You obviously do.

Or do you think the Israeli government should release the witheld documents?

[shira]

73. First, can you admit your "reputable" sources are anything but WRT Israel?

Answer that first.

I'll wait...

[Tripmann]

74. Its not my source shira

Azurnoir posted it.

But i do find your line of reasoning comical i.e.

You: Its a right wing rag

Me: Its actually left leaning

You: But, but, but.....its right wing WRT israel

:rofl:

[shira]

75. Answer the question please. Is The Independent a reputable source on Israel...

...given what you now know?

[Tripmann]

76. What do you mean "what you now know"?

Are you implying that you have somehow 'educated' me on how anti israel a left leaning newspaper is??

:rofl:

Still no condemnation of the cover up of a possible massacre by your beloved israel, my liberal friend?

[shira]

77. Still no answer, why? Is the Independent reputable WRT Israel?

BTW, the same author of the Deir Yassin case just wrote about the bogus Israel/SA nuke deal.

So I'm still waiting....

I'm for every country being held to the same standard, how about you? Every country should have basically the same pressure applied to open sensitive, top-secret documents. I'm not for apartheid-style justice against select nations, are you?

[Tripmann]

78. So you condone the cover up of a possible massacre?

Yes or no.

That is the real story here, not the newspaper reporting on it.

[shira]

79. No, there should be full disclosure ideally

Do you believe realistically there should be no state secrets in any country, no sensitive material locked away in a vault...?

AFAIK, judges have ruled that it's not a good idea to disclose the information. I can't say I know the reason for their decision and neither do you. What I do know, however, is that the Israeli Government was reluctant to exonerate itself WRT the al-Dura hoax of October 2000, even though they knew the evidence was clearly in their favor. Maybe that's the case this time but neither of us know.

We do know at Deir Yassin loudspeakers were utilized to clear out the town and that Arab witnesses state they exaggerated what went on there. It's likely there were war crimes committed (by both sides). Beyond that who knows?

What's evident however is this...

1. You can't admit bias, hostility, antisemitism, or double-standards WRT Israel.
2. Thus, there's little difference between you and the far RW dweebs who have nasty attitudes towards Arabs/Muslims, presenting themselves as people sensitive to human rights. Neither they nor you should be taken seriously.

[Tripmann]

80. Show me where this anti israel bias is in the independent then.

You mentioned one correspondent and a few articles.

We can all see the pattern here.

Goldstone accuses israel = Goldstone is a liar, traitor, racist etc.

Left wing newspaper publishes article critical of israel = Newspaper is anti-israeli right wing rag

84 year old wheelchair bound holocaust survivor criticises israeli treatment of gazans = 84 year old self hating jew colludes with undesirables.

We've seen it all and heard it all shira. We had 8 years of it via fox during the dubya years. Vilify, assasinate character, silence. Wash rinse repeat.

Accusations, name calling, finger pointing at everyone and everything that questions the behaviour of your beloved israel.

[shira]

81. I take it from a previous response of yours that you concede Robert Fisk is not credible

1. So what about Robert Fisk and his claim of Israel using a uranium bomb in Lebanon?

2. Then there's the author of this article on Deir Yassin. "Collective amnesia" and zero mention of the BBC interviews of Palestinians claiming DY was exaggerated. This same author jumped on the bogus Israel/SA apartheid nukes story as well.

Rags like Israel's settler paper Arutz Sheva, Debka, and World Nut Daily seem to employ the same journalistic standards. Do you believe those RW papers are credible WRT their coverage of the Arab/Muslim world?

Something tells me no matter how many examples are provided, you simply can't admit that The Independent is a rag WRT its Israel coverage.

[Tripmann]

82. Robert fisk is not the independent

Focusing on one claim made by one correspondent does not make the independent anti-israel

Focusing on two words from one article, and (your favourite little move) on whats NOT mentioned in one article does not make the independent anti-israel.

Why can't you just be honest shira, this is the latest feeble attempt to frame everyone and everything that has a bad word to say about israel as 'anti-israel'



Am I anti-israel for wanting the truth to come out about the cover up of a possible massacre?

[shira]

83. You ignored the author of the OP's other article this week on another bogus story

You know, the crap about Israel/SA hooking up for a nuke deal in the mid 70's....

How many more examples do you need?

3 more? 5?

What's funny is that ONE example (if you could ever find one) would be more than enough for you to thoroughly discredit CAMERA as a reputable source. Not so WRT the Independent.

:eyes:

There's criticism and then there's irrational, off the charts criticism of the type World Nut Daily and Arutz Sheva journo-activists engage in (now I'm wondering if you have a problem with newspapers which irrationally criticize Arab and Muslim leaders and countries). Try not to pretend I haven't brought all this up before while you accuse me dishonestly of deflecting any and every criticism of Israel.

=====

1. Is Robert Fisk anti-Israel in your opinion?

2. How about the author of this piece on DY, who in the same week just wrote a bogus story on Israel/SA nuke deals? Anti-Israel or not?

[Tripmann]

84. Here we go again

Ignore the cover up, attack the paper reporting on it.

You should go work for fox news. That way you'll have an audience too dumb to see your methods.

I'll also point out shira, the blind hypocracy of you accusing a newspaper of being a biased source. You are probably the person on this entire forum who uses pro-zionist sources, and the ONLY member who consistently uses sources created to paint what they're defending in a positive light.

Basically, you calling somebody on using a biased source is like Hannibal Lecter calling somebody for having too much red meat in their diet.

And, again, it was azurnoirs source. I was the one pointing out the real story is not the size of the article but whats in it.

[shira]

85. You credited Az with posting a "reputable" source on the topic

And once again, we're not arguing bias, as almost every source is biased. We're arguing credibility, reliability, honesty, and accuracy.

Thanks for participating.

I didn't expect a person who has a problem with "Jewish" sources to be honest enough to admit to news sources being anti-Israel. That said, I'm certain you're not at all "concerned" about the human rights situation in Gaza, but only in attacking Israel and defending those most hostile towards its Jewish inhabitants. You're no more "concerned" about human rights than the RW'ers at World Nut Daily, who are credible journalists by your standards.

[Tripmann]

87. So,

reporting news of israel witholding information on an alledged massacre is 'anti-israel' is it?

Oh, and in response to your little 'certain you're not concerned with human rights' dig, unlike you I have condemned equally abuses by both sides in the conflict. Unlike you I hold both parties accountable for the deaths their bombings cause. Unlike you, I don't attribute a sides ability to commit human right abuses to what side they fight for.

Unlike you I don't hold the vile position that an army that bombards a densely populated area is not responsible for the women and children killed.

Wanna talk 'concerned with human rights'?

[shira]

89. so you're still evading the main point of the OP...

You simply cannot and are unwilling to admit when sources are blatantly anti-Israel (as the author on DY is, considering her other contribution this week to The Independent WRT the bogus SA/Israel nuke connection). It's not surprising you have no problem with Israel being smeared given your disdain for any sources that are "Jewish".

As to concern about human rights, the fact is Palestinians suffer greatly as refugees in Lebanon, rot as refugees within camps in Gaza and the W.Bank, and are used as expendable pawns by their ruling elite in the ongoing Arab/Israel conflict, whether as human shields or as a demographic weapon to eventually flood Israel in the attempt to destroy it in the future. The beards in control of Gaza enlist child soldiers, use hospitals, mosques and schools as command centers, for weapons storage, or ambulances to bivouac fighters, deny Gazans from receiving medical treatment in Israel, and bomb the aid crossings into Gaza from Israel when they aren't stealing the supplies for themselves or to resell later.

They mostly get away with all this and are actually allowed to get away with it because some human rights posers believe it's best that the bulk of the blame for Palestinian suffering be directed at Israel or its IDF. Those who purport to 'care' most for Palestinians are for the most part okay with the fact that the beards in control of Gaza (or the Lebanese gov't, Fatah in the W.Bank) are free to do as they wish to Palestinians, refugees, children, etc. They only care about Palestinians when Israel can be blamed for Palestinian suffering.

Anyone with a sincere concern for the welfare of Palestinian civilians should be enraged at Hamas’ behavior and demanding their leaders be arrested and sentenced to life prison terms if not shot on sight. Those who pose as defenders of Palestinians should be sued by their donors and disbanded for doing so much to damage the lives of the innocent civilians they profess to care about.

It's pretty easy to spot human rights posers in the I/P conflict who use human rights, and are fine with using Palestinians, as a weapon to attack Israel and especially its Jewish inhabitants.

[Tripmann]

91. The main point of the OP shira.....

.....is to exclaim how anti-israel it is that a two page story about the covering up of a possible massacre by israel takes up more column space than proximity talks.

The op source of course exists solely to paint any chastiser of Israel as anti-israel, hense how the story chastising israel becomes a story from an anti israel source.

As far as I'm concerned you're entitled to contest that the left wing newspaper you called a 'right wing rag' (until you found out somebody here is actually familiar with the newspaper, in which case you then claim its only right wing WRT israel). Classic

So, call the indo whatever you want. It makes no difference, because the real story is the active cover up of a possible massacre by the israeli government. We all know this, and your insistence on making the whole thing about the newsaper that was brazen enough to print the article shows you to be a footsoldier in the attempt to shut down criticism of your beloved israel.

Worst thing is, operations like CAMERA and Justjournalism get wads of cash to operate as the PR sanitisers, counterstory manufacturers and misdirectors for the israeli admin. What do you get for doing their jobs for them......besides ridicule?

[shira]

92. LOL. If active coverups of human rights violations against Palestinians really bothered you...

...then what I wrote in my previous post to you would have elicited a much different response rather than your 'selective amnesia'....

As to concern about human rights, the fact is Palestinians suffer greatly as refugees in Lebanon, rot as refugees within camps in Gaza and the W.Bank, and are used as expendable pawns by their ruling elite in the ongoing Arab/Israel conflict, whether as human shields or as a demographic weapon to eventually flood Israel in the attempt to destroy it in the future. The beards in control of Gaza enlist child soldiers, use hospitals, mosques and schools as command centers, for weapons storage, or ambulances to bivouac fighters, deny Gazans from receiving medical treatment in Israel, and bomb the aid crossings into Gaza from Israel when they aren't stealing the supplies for themselves or to resell later.

They mostly get away with all this and are actually allowed to get away with it because some human rights posers believe it's best that the bulk of the blame for Palestinian suffering be directed at Israel or its IDF. Those who purport to 'care' most for Palestinians are for the most part okay with the fact that the beards in control of Gaza (or the Lebanese gov't, Fatah in the W.Bank) are free to do as they wish to Palestinians, refugees, children, etc. They only care about Palestinians when Israel can be blamed for Palestinian suffering.

Anyone with a sincere concern for the welfare of Palestinian civilians should be enraged at Hamas’ behavior and demanding their leaders be arrested and sentenced to life prison terms if not shot on sight. Those who pose as defenders of Palestinians should be sued by their donors and disbanded for doing so much to damage the lives of the innocent civilians they profess to care about.

None of the above information is in dispute.

So this is where you're supposed to voice your concern over the active campaign by human rights posers (and their collective amnesia) to deliberately cover up and divert attention away from all the above ongoing gross violations of Palestinian human rights.

I'll wait for all your handwringing and concern.

3, 2, 1....

:eyes:

[whosinpower]

86. It is the same reason?

Wow. If a person does a bit of background work on your potentially explosive story - and does some research on the Muslim Brotherhood - we find out that they came into being before Israel was created. And we also find out that the british supported them at the outset. And the reason was not for the destruction of Israel, as the claim above. The reason was as a counterweight to communism, to independance. I will agree with you - it is explosive, ahborrent and evil - but irrational hatred that the muslim brotherhood has for Israel is not its prime reason for being. It is the rapidly expanding hatred of western influence, and within that - Israel stands as a big target.

I would posit that the UK saw the brotherhood as a tool. The brotherhood failed to accomplish its goals and Nasser stood where they wanted to in Egypt. Nasser was also an enemy to the west, and the UK used the brotherhood to try to get to Nasser.

The americans did the same thing with Osama Bin Laden and the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan - to fight off the soviet invasion.

I suppose it could be seen in a similiar light as Israel giving support initially to Hamas - as a counterweight to the PLO, or Fatah. Yeah - that would not be helpful in exposing either - but both examples are relevant in terms of middle eastern stability.

But why the Israeli's ultimately will not release the files as per Der Yassin......I will not project an answer. I certainly won't jump to the conclusion that you have attempted - because they did not refute another allegation must mean that this one means they have a valid refutation but will not engage because anything they say will be bad for them.

[Tripmann]

88. Israel has stated

that they are witholding them as releasing the documents would tarnish their image and inflame arab-israeli tensions.

And I haven't jumped to any conclusion. If you read the thread you will see I have only used the term 'alledged'. I think we can all agree, though, given the reasons for not releasing the documents, that they must contain SOMETHING that would prove more damaging to release than to withold in full world view.

[whosinpower]

93. I was replying to Shira

Not insinuating that you were jumping to the conclusion that Shira has. Guess I took too long to post..or was not clear enough who I was posting to.

Shira uses the Al Dura affair as a prime example of why Israel will not engage. I do not buy that conclusion. Nor do I agree that the only ones Israel has to be accountable is to Israeli's - as per her last post.

[shira]

94. It's not just the al-Dura affair...

Whenever anything is reported out of Israel either from the government, press, or private sector, 99% of anything favorable to Israel is generally ignored in favor of the 1% that is disproportionately and irrationally focused on.

This doesn't excuse Israel's "secrecy" but it gives a little context behind the decision making.

I'm not arguing it's illegitimate to question Israel's reluctance to open any secret files. I'm pointing to the utter hypocrisy by human rights posers who are no more concerned about Palestinians as some anti-Muslim/Arab hate-filled activists are about the victims of Arab/Muslim regimes.

[Tripmann]

96. Humblest apologies whoisinpower!

I completely misread your post. Had my usual friday night juggling 10 things at once when I posted.

[shira]

90. It could very well be the same reason

It's definitely the reason the GOI doesn't wish to bring up the Muhammad al-Dura hoax, as much as it exonerates the IDF. It just opens up a can of worms, bad press, and more ill will towards the Jewish state. Even WRT to OCL, when Israel discloses information favorable to the IDF it's not reported. It's ignored.

http://www.justjournalism.com/media-analysis/view/israeli-report-contradicting-goldstone-ignored

It doesn't even matter if B'tselem and Breaking-the-Silence explain Gazan deaths due to the complexity of fighting assymetrically against an enemy embedded deliberately within a civilian population because that too is ignored in favor of any allegation (real or imagined) that's harmful to Israel or its image. The pattern seems to be that anything that is reported from Israel - whether from the public or private sector - even if 99% favorable to Israel or its IDF - it's the 1% unfavorable that's disproportionately and irrationally reported while the other 99% is ignored. Thus, most Israelis are of the opinion they know who they really are, who the IDF is and what it does, and they only have themselves to be accountable towards. They don't feel obligated to explain themselves to a largely hypocritical mass of human rights posers outside of Israel who could actually care less about Palestinian suffering at the hands of non-Israelis. Most Israelis are perfectly comfortable with the mechanisms within their own country - the many human rights organizations and very liberal press - and are therefore convinced their country can self-regulate.

[Tripmann]

95. Speculation

Speculation about why they are witholding them is as useless as speculation about the possible massacre.

All we know is that they contain information damaging to israel.

[Eg-ptiangirl]

28. I blame any one who read jpost as a serious npaper

[Eg-ptiangirl]

26. Thank God for Internet

People can now know almost every thing.

[LeftishBrit]

33. Most of the British media is (as one would expect) far more preoccupied with Britain than Israel

I certainly learned from the media that these indirect talks were being held - and from more than one source; but I don't really check on how much space is given to each item.

Most of the media here were, as I said some months ago, mainly trying to hand Britain over to the Tories on a silver platter. And now they are furious at having only partially succeeded (though they succeeded too much for my taste!) That is what's preoccupying them, not Israel.