If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sun Sentinel)   New film about al-Jazeera shows it's the Arab equivalent of Fox News   (sun-sentinel.com) divider line 252
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

9461 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jun 2004 at 1:16 PM (10 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



252 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2004-06-16 03:52:16 PM
It means death to Israel.

Well now, that's unfortunate. Question: why not the two-state solution?
 
2004-06-16 03:52:49 PM
 
2004-06-16 03:53:54 PM
Helix400

I agree that slaughter sucks. I was addressing only the adjectives the media pins on such events.

The reality I see is that war is always ugly. The fact that we can consider ourselves "morally superior" in the first world for applying rules to warfare is entirely predicated on the fact that we can afford to do so. When you have lots of money, you can afford to fight wars in a particular way that is more pleasing to you. When you are an impoverished underdog, you are much closer to the more ancient truth of war, which is that pretty much anything that works goes. I just think that the entire concept of honorable warfare is a BS materialist construct. We can afford to be "honorable" in warfare, so we unjustly try to belittle our enemies who can't.

 
2004-06-16 03:55:53 PM
the_great_below

Yeah, and blowing up the WTC was a perfect way to make a point.

Perfect? I don't think so. But it certainly got everyone's attention.
 
2004-06-16 03:57:11 PM
2004-06-16 02:59:49 PM

Is this not hate speech? And should submitter not be banned for such?
 
2004-06-16 03:58:12 PM
Check out this guy's photo: macabre

I think it should be "death to the ladies"

/ha farking ha, asstesticles
 
2004-06-16 03:59:49 PM
And should submitter not be banned for such?

I'd like to see his answer to my question first.
 
2004-06-16 03:59:55 PM
Isn't great when two people can meet up on Fark and swap loving stories about how their fathers and uncles were terrorists with the PLO and the PFLP. It touches my heart.

<sniffle>

God bless fark.
 
2004-06-16 04:01:57 PM
BeowulfSmith, mine as well. That was outstanding btw.
 
2004-06-16 04:03:32 PM
2004-06-16 03:52:16 PM LilyDurona

The three biggest obstacles are Al Quds (Jerusalem), Israeli settlements, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Both Israel and Palestine want Al Quds to be their capital. The problem is the city is religiously important to Jews and Muslims and the population is neither majority Jewish or Muslim. More specifically, Al Quds Mosque (Dome of the Rock) is the third holiest location in Islam and it was built on top of a few millenia old Jewish temple which just happens to be the holiest location in Judaism. Israel declaring Al Quds as their capital would most likely spark a very large regional war, which is why the United States has forced Israel to make Tel Aviv the capital.

Israel also builds settlements into what is supposed to be Palestinian territory per the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords. They often uproot Palestinian villages to make home for these Israeli settlements. Sharon has made it clear he will not remove all the settlements, effectively robbing the Palestinians of a large chunk of land. In one of the most extreme cases, a group of a few hundred Israeli settlers live in the middle of 100,000 Palestinians.

The third problem affects me directly since my family are Palestinian refugees. Israel refuses to allow the return of Palestinian refugees, even to Palestinian territories, from the 1948 or 1967 wars. Even though the refugees would be returning to a supposed Palestinian state and not Israel-proper, Israel will not allow it because then the Palestinians would outnumber the Israelis. Imagine how the United States would feel if Canada was in charge of its (the US) immigration policies. My family is basically prohibited from ever returning to our homeland. There are approximately 3 million Palestinian refugees living abroad.
 
2004-06-16 04:06:17 PM
2004-06-16 03:57:11 PM TheConvincingSavant

I would support his banning only if the moderators also banned everyone who says "nuke the Middle East," "kill the ragheads," and "let's bomb those Muslims." Let's keep everything fair.
 
2004-06-16 04:06:40 PM

Isn't great when two people can meet up on Fark and swap loving stories about how their fathers and uncles were terrorists with the PLO and the PFLP. It touches my heart.


Oddly, I didn't have a problem with their conversation until the "al'muwt lisrael" comment. I'd also like to see LilyDurona's question answered. There's a pretty big leap in logic between resisting an occupation and desiring the death of millions.
 
2004-06-16 04:07:01 PM
Works for me.
 
2004-06-16 04:09:10 PM
2004-06-16 04:06:40 PM modernhamlet

It was macabre, not Habraham and I who said that. I didn't know if macabre was kidding or serious so I elected not to respond to his comment.
 
2004-06-16 04:09:23 PM
LilyDurona
The answer to your question is the same answer to Nishi's earlier question about why the Muslims and the Jews can't get along.

The majority of the Arab Muslim leadership wants all the Jews dead and they've convinced quite a few of their people to believe the same thing (or they use the promotion of antisemitism to shift the spotlight off of their failure to do anything positive for their own people). Unfortunately, those damn selfish Jews don't want to die. Hence the problem. It isn't just about Israel, since all of these groups and most of the governments involved almost never say "Israeli", they always say "Jew", particularly the Palestinian terrorist groups. Thus a two state solution isn't a solution because it still leaves a state with Jews in it. Unfortunately, the voice of the Arabs and other Muslims who just want an end to the fighting are simply drowned out by massive rallies, endless propaganda promoting the Intifada and matyrdom to children on television, the radio, and even in schools. Of course, not to mention by the the harassment, beating, and even killing of Palestinians who dare question their terrorist leadership.

That's why.
 
2004-06-16 04:12:14 PM
mc frontalot
It was macabre, not Habraham and I who said that. I didn't know if macabre was kidding or serious so I elected not to respond to his comment.

My bad. Certainly didn't intend to blame the wrong person.

Thanks for providing a viewpoint we don't hear often in the US.
 
2004-06-16 04:12:35 PM
2004-06-16 03:57:11 PM TheConvincingSavant

2004-06-16 02:59:49 PM

Is this not hate speech? And should submitter not be banned for such?

------
Wow, what a pansy ass tattle tell. Now THAT could get me banned, not somethinkg I meant as an obvious joke.
 
2004-06-16 04:15:35 PM
Wow, if that isn't the most ignorant, stereotyped, incorrect assessment of the situation I have ever seen. The only thing you were right about is the mostly ineffective Arab leadership. Oh, and there really isn't an Arabic word for Israeli, so when people say Jew (in Arabic) in reference to Isaelis, they mean Israeli in English. It's kind of like how most Americans call the Native Americans (even the different tribes) Indians. They don't mean Indians as in people from India, it's just the word most people use.
 
2004-06-16 04:15:42 PM
mc frontalot

My family that lives inside Israel-proper and hold Israeli citizenship can't own property, can't get a permit for a landline phone, can't find employment, can't ride the buses, can't visit "Jew only" areas of Israel, and have to carry special cards identifying them as "non-terrorists." But they can vote, so good for them!

Maybe they don't want to ride the buses so they don't get asploded. Maybe the Israeli government is just trying to protect them.

/Just saying it's an impossible situation over there. Maybe Israel should just let all the nice Palestinians with funny packages strapped to their chests walk right in! I wonder why they won't befriend people who want to "drive them into the sea?"
 
2004-06-16 04:17:49 PM
Errr not ME.
 
2004-06-16 04:20:03 PM
mc frontalot --
You miss a major obstacle -- namely, whether or not the negotiations have any relevance to the most extreme elements. If there were to be two separate states, then theoretically the Palestinian Authority would have the responsibility for reining in those who would continue attempting to eliminate the Israeli state. To put it mildly, it does not seem entirely beyond dispute that the PA would have either the capability or the will to do so when that might risk a Palestinian civil war. That would mean that Israel would be trading land for, well, continued bombings and shootings.
 
2004-06-16 04:22:07 PM
mc frontalot

Oh... in response to your longer post above.

1. What's wrong with a dual capital system with a neutral Dome of the Rock / Temple Mount area patrolled by the UN?

2. Agreed. The settlements need to go. Period.

3. There will never be a right of return. You know this. Doing so would destroy Israel.

So the Palestinians give up the right of return, the Israelis give up the settlements, and you split Jeruselem (something that's already de facto on the ground). I know it's naive, but in theory, what's wrong with this solution? Surely continuing to kill each other year after year isn't the answer...
 
2004-06-16 04:23:10 PM
2004-06-16 04:20:03 PM Korovyov

I was talking about what stalled the original peace talks (1993 to 2000), not the current violence. There wasn't a problem with suicide bombings during that time. Had those three major issues been resolved, there would probably be a full Palestinian state at this time.
 
2004-06-16 04:26:27 PM
Anyone notice how everyone who actually saw the movie had a positive impression of it and felt that the sympathetic presentation of Al-Jazeera was fair? I only skimmed so correct me if I'm wrong, but not one of the people who is pushing the most jingoistic presentation of Al-Jazeera as the proverbial stooge of jihad claims to have seen the movie. Of course, this does not make the movie real or true, it just points out to me the sad fact that people are unlikely to consume media outside of their already established beliefs...

Oh, sorry, this thread has been jacked for the input of all the Israel/Middle East policy experts to discuss how we're gonna clear up that little conflict, which I admit is much more important. Let me know when you work it out, 'kay?
 
2004-06-16 04:29:57 PM
2004-06-16 04:03:32 PM mc frontalot

I believe the settlements should be taken down. But what about the land from 1948 and 1967? Israel has already given the entire Sinai peninsula (won from Egypt) back to Egypt. That land was won in war from other countries that owned it (not a Palestinian government).

If Israel agreed to have half of Jerusalem, removed the settlements, gave up the Gaza strip and West Bank (not the Golan), would the majority of Palestinians agree to that?

I guess what my questions really is, is at what point is it worth losing ideology in order to gain a future?

What solution do you support? I haven't heard of a feasable one besides the two-state plan.

/can't articulate today
 
2004-06-16 04:30:15 PM
The ban on the right of return is so hilariously ironic, given how the entire country of Israel was based on their own "right of return".
 
2004-06-16 04:30:23 PM
mc frontalot
Wow, if that isn't the most ignorant, stereotyped, incorrect assessment of the situation I have ever seen.

Really? Wow. So the Palestinian terrorist groups, who all oppose the two state solution by the way, including much of Fatah, Arafat's little guys, don't ever say that the Jews should be killed? Amazing.

Please, mc frontalot, you are full of shiat. You say the settlements are the problem, yet even Sharon wants to remove the settlements from the Gaza strip and many in the West Bank. The ones that would remain in the West Bank are all concentrated on the "green line" and that territory would be annexed in. Don't like it? Well, maybe Arafat shouldn't have rejected Barak's offer which included splitting Jerusalem, which is the city's name by the way.

Also, Israel already declared Jerusalem the capitol of Israel and yet there was no war. The only that happened is that a lot of countries don't recognize it, and keep their embassies in Tel Aviv.

As to your nonsense of the refugees, the return of refugees to the new Palestinian state was already offered years ago. It is the "return" of refugees to Israel proper that is rejected (though monetary compensation was offered). So, your entire last paragraph was a lie. The whole point of having a seperate Palestinian state would be for it to be a homeland for Palestinians. In fact, the "right of return" to Israel proper was the sticking point that Arafat claims caused him to break off the negotiations in 2000, which is funny since everyone knew from the outset that such a demand would never be accepted. So, yet again, we see the Arab leadership using excuses to step up violence against Israel, mainly to distract the people from their complete failure. The Palestinians in the territories have been given billions in aid money from all over the world, yet virtually none of it made into the people's hands. It went straight into the pockets of the leaders and to pay for more weapons and explosives.

But no really, it's the Jews fault.
 
2004-06-16 04:31:02 PM
2004-06-16 04:22:07 PM modernhamlet

Why shouldn't my family be allowed to return to our country? Why should we have to live elsewhere to make the Israelis happy? My family had been living in Haifa for as far back as anyone knows. Let's say the Palestinians give up the right of return and a Palestinian state is created. What good does that do me, as a Palestinian? I still can't go back. At the same time Israel has unlimited immigration for Jews living outside of Israel. That's my problem with it.

As for the dual capital system, I don't have any problems with it as long as Al Quds Mosque remains in Palestinian or Muslim hands. I can't speak for the other Palestinians who may oppose it.

Yes, I agree violence isn't the answer; it hasn't gotten either side anywhere. At the same time, I'm not going to condemn the Palestinians who use violence to resist because I understand how difficult life is for them. You must have a lot of self-restraint not to lash out against those who drop bombs and bulldoze your homes.
 
2004-06-16 04:32:53 PM
My solution? Actually, this is Michael Moore's solution (circa 1996) which I find very amusing, if ridiculous. Relocate Israel to Bavaria and pay for rebuilding the whole country there out of German cash. The Germans started this mess, let them pay to fix it. I think they can sweat a little more of that weight.
 
2004-06-16 04:33:55 PM
Well, I spent too much time looking up old maps. Sorry, mcfrontalot, I've mentally attributed other people's posts to you. It's so frustrating when I think about those peace talks... Soooo close, but nothing. Imagine how much better everyone's situation would be right now.
 
2004-06-16 04:33:55 PM
The Palestinan leadership, a majority of the Palestinan people, and most of the Arab world hate Jews and Israel with a religious fervor. They don't want to live side-by-side, they want every Jew to die. They don't want half of Jerusalem, they want all of Jerusalem, the West Bank, the East Bank, Tel Aviv, etc. They don't believe that Jews have a right to exist as a people or that Israel has a right to exist as a state.

That's why Arafat refused the deal Clinton tried to broker, one where Israel gave the Palestinans 99% of what they wanted - for nothing in return except hatred by the neighbor-state they were creating. All Israel wanted to keep was half of Jerusalem. Are they expected to just hand over their most holy city?? Would the Muslims hand over Mecca?

That being said, what is Israel supposed to do, exactly?
 
2004-06-16 04:34:37 PM
mc frontalot-

As the Israeli-Palestinian issue continues on, I'm struck at how little the Palestinian side actually wants to achieve any resolution to their conflict. Their demands - 48 borders, rule of Jerusalem, and right of return are nothing short of ludicrous.

It's one of the worst failings - first of the British, exasperated by the United Nations - that promises were made to Palestinians and Israelis of the same land. Two wars were fought to solve this conflict - both initiated by Arab nations, heavily supported by the Palestinians, and won by the Israelis. Defeat after defeat, the Palestinian dictatorship (leadership would be far too democratic a word) returns to talking points which are untenable. Israel won Jerusalem. Its sad a Muslim holy site exists there, but the Arab armies could not hold it. Thus its gone. The 48 borders might have existed in 48, but that was almost 6 decades ago. The reality is, because Israel has control of the territory, they can decide the borders, the 2004/2005 borders (hopefully). The Palestinians might not like it, but we come back to the original point their side lost the wars, all quite badly. Right of return is almost too silly to discuss. The very nature of the demand in essence calls for the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

But really, these demands arent about achieving any sort of livelihood for the Palestinian people. The demands exist for little more than talking points to justify the destruction of a state.
 
2004-06-16 04:35:55 PM
Up here in CanadaEH. We don't get Fox News here but do get CNN. Most of us think CNN is such an Bush PR machine....till I got to watch Fox on a visit to the US a month ago. I've seen bits of Al Jazeera, and had it translated to me; Arab slant:yes, serving the Arab Govs..no. But Fox, I killed myself laughing that anybody, I repeat anybody, could buy that crap. Pravda was more fair and balanced.

/Thank God for the CBC and BBC
 
2004-06-16 04:37:38 PM
2004-06-16 04:30:23 PM BeowulfSmith

The PLO doesn't oppose a two-state solution. In fact, they were responsible for the Oslo Peace Accords which envisioned a two-state solution. Also, the European Union, the single largest monetary contributor to the Palestinians, only used their money for infrastructure building. However, they have halted all infrastructure building because, and I paraphrase "the Israelis keep blowing it all up." So you're wrong. Please offer documentation that the right of return was offered for all Palestinian refugees. And I never said it was "the Jews" fault, so please don't put words in my mouth.

2004-06-16 04:29:57 PM LilyDurona

The Golan Heights is Lebanese/Syrian territory so it has nothing to do with the Palestinians. The Sinai Peninsula is Egyptian territory so it also has nothing to do with the Palestinians. What you're talking about is the broader Arab-Israeli disputes. My hope is the establishment of a fully sovereign Palestinian state per the pre-1967 borders with the full right of return for Palestinian refugees such as myself.
 
2004-06-16 04:38:28 PM
Hanoi Jane

So you say a conquered people have no rights? I'm sure the Polish, or the American Natives, would love to hear you say that.
 
2004-06-16 04:39:40 PM
mc frontalot

What country do you know of that would let in unlimited numbers of people who hate that country, don't recognize its right to exist, and want it destroyed?

If that doesn't describe your family, then I'm sorry it worked out that way for them. Maybe when buses full of civilians stop exploding, Israel will show a little more trust.
 
2004-06-16 04:43:50 PM
Pxtl

So you say a conquered people have no rights? I'm sure the Polish, or the American Natives, would love to hear you say that.

She never ever said that, and you damn well know it. She simply said that borders get drawn based on who won wars, at one time or another. That's how every line on the map got there. What do you propose? Starting over and every nation in the world draws straws for the land they want?
 
2004-06-16 04:44:34 PM
2004-06-16 04:39:40 PM farkdd

I think you're missing the point: It's not that Israel won't allow Palestinian refugees the right of return to Israel-proper, it's that Israel won't allow Palestinian refugees the right of return even to a future Palestinian state. They're basically saying the 3 million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza can stay and have a country, but the other 3 million Palestinians living abroad are permanently banned from returning to their country. The policy is so horrible that I was denied a visa to Israel in 1996 (during the peaceful times) because I am Palestinian, even though I am a natural born US citizen.
 
2004-06-16 04:45:40 PM
Pxtl-

I don't say that at all. What I do say is when an aggressor is beaten back by a defender, the defender traditionally has had considerably more right to define the terms of their victory. In the case of the pre-67 borders, after the 67 war, the Palestinians had no right to demand them.

Look, Israel has done a lost of awful things to the people inhabiting the territories, but never - outside their political fringe - have they called for the destruction of the Palestinian people. Mainstream politicos in Israel do not call for the mass deportation of the Palestinians from the occupied territories. Yet the inverse appears to be the foundation of Palestinian policy, otherwise this would have been solved under Clinton.
 
2004-06-16 04:46:33 PM
The ban on the right of return is so hilariously ironic, given how the entire country of Israel was based on their own "right of return".

OK, let's read our sixth-grade history books. It's NOT based on a "right of return". The entire country was made by the British. You know, those well-mannered, monocle-wearing, tea-drinking flannel-suit wearers? They made a country named Israel, one of the laws of which was, "If you are Jewish, you can emigrate here." Like, say, children of Americans born outside of America being able to move to America without having to apply for green cards, etc. Although there's still a lot of arcane paperwork involved in moving to Israel and you have to be able to prove that you're either currently Jewish or of believable Jewish decent.

This is the history of the Palestinian "right of return": the British decided to create two states: one for Jews, one for Palestinians, who were not living in their own country at that time, as there was no Palestine. Other countries, such as Syria and Jordan, told the Palestinian Arabs living in the lands that became Israel, that if they left and fought against the newly-created state of Israel, that when they were successfully defeated (because no one could anticipate that Israel would win) they would have the right to return to their old homes. "Right of return" is intrinsically tied up with the destruction of Israel. That's why it's a problem.

Also, please note that Israel does not have to agree to anything. Bad press doesn't bother them, and suicide bombers don't scare them. Compromise is the only answer.
 
2004-06-16 04:46:53 PM
mc frontalot
Why shouldn't my family be allowed to return to our country?

What you are demanding is politically impossible. If Israel allows 3 million Palestinians to return and become citizens, then Israel quickly ceases to exist. This isn't an issue that the people of Israel will ever, EVER budge on.

I didn't say it's fair. No solution is going to be fair in everyone's eyes. The settlers believe with all their heart and faith that they BELONG in the settlements. They aren't going to think it's fair that they must leave either. (I'm not comparing your situation with theirs directly. I'm just trying to demonstrate how differently the other side views the situation.

There are a lot of refugees in the world that will never be able to go home. I agree it sucks. But you have to face the reality of the situation.

To paraphrase LilyDurona... At what point is it necessary to give up the past in order to gain a future?
 
2004-06-16 04:48:56 PM
mc frontalot:

You know that's untrue. any newly-created Palestinian state would have to decide on its own whether to allow Palestinian refugees to return to the land which will eventually be called Palestine. Upon the formation of an independent state, Israel would have no control over the internal politics of the country - they would only have to make sure the borders are crazy-secure in order to prevent the inevitable continuation of violence that will emanate from the Palestinian state.
 
2004-06-16 04:51:13 PM
Also, you have to realize that most of the 3 million Palestinians refugees don't have citizenship to any country. That means they can't work, can't travel, can't do anything. And a lot of countries don't grand citizenship just because you were born on their soil, so the problem continues through every generation. My grandmother has been without citizenship to any country since 1948. Luckily my father obtained US citizenship and now my grandmother at least has a visa. I'm in the very lucky minority whose parents were able to obtain citizenship.
 
2004-06-16 04:51:34 PM
Pxtl, don't be obtuse.
 
2004-06-16 04:51:48 PM
FOX news. We distort, you comply.
 
2004-06-16 04:52:53 PM
My news listening/viewing routine (as if anyone cares):

Morning: Fox & Friends TV: They're smart, witty, attractive to watch, have puff interviews like all other morning shows, and, admittedly, all three of them lean to the right.

Noon in my car: Rush on the radio for about 10 minutes: He's a big windbag and can stay on one topic for an entire hour, so I've heard about everything I need to hear in ten minutes.

Noon home for lunch: Linda Vester on FOX: She's very intelligent and her and her audience leans to the right. She tries to have two guests at the same time to give both sides. The show gives a lot of the positive things that are going on in Iraq.

Evening home from work: Dan Rather on CBS: Know your enemy. Good God, he'd spend the whole half hour on Abu Ghraib prison for the next 6 months if he could.

Then Jon Stewart's Daily Show: That show is funny and intelligent. Kinda like the left's version of Dennis Miller without the edginess, or Bill Maher with wit. He sometimes makes really stupid arguments, but I like his style and humor.
 
2004-06-16 04:54:12 PM
2004-06-16 04:48:56 PM Hanoi Jane

Oh boy, why can't you people listen? Israel is opposed to the creation of any Palestinian state that will grant the right of return to Palestinian refugees to said state. So Israel won't allow any Palestinian state unless Israel has the final say on the immigration policies. Please be informed.
 
2004-06-16 04:55:23 PM
Also, you have to realize that most of the 3 million Palestinians refugees don't have citizenship to any country. That means they can't work, can't travel, can't do anything. And a lot of countries don't grand citizenship just because you were born on their soil, so the problem continues through every generation.

Isn't this all the more reason to compromise and create a Palestinian state recognized and supported by the international community?
 
2004-06-16 04:57:26 PM
Israel is opposed to the creation of any Palestinian state that will grant the right of return to Palestinian refugees to said state. So Israel won't allow any Palestinian state unless Israel has the final say on the immigration policies.

This, I agree, is complete and total bullshiat on the part of the Israelis.
 
2004-06-16 04:57:31 PM
I think you're missing the point: It's not that Israel won't allow Palestinian refugees the right of return to Israel-proper, it's that Israel won't allow Palestinian refugees the right of return even to a future Palestinian state. They're basically saying the 3 million Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza can stay and have a country, but the other 3 million Palestinians living abroad are permanently banned from returning to their country.

But Israel won't control the new country of Palestine, so they can't say who can and cannot immigrate or visit. If you mean to post-creation-of-Palestine Israel, the government of the country that owns the land gets to decide who can enter it. Can it be unfair? Yes.

The policy is so horrible that I was denied a visa to Israel in 1996 (during the peaceful times) because I am Palestinian, even though I am a natural born US citizen.

I've been denied visas to visit countries because I am Jewish and American. Is it fair? No. Does it piss me off? Yes. Can I do anything about it? No. Because the government of the country that owns the land gets to decide who can enter it.
 
Displayed 50 of 252 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report