you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
Isreal needs to use the "iron choke" along with the iron dome! Enough is enough. These trouble maker have rained down more missiles on Isreal than the Germans rained on Britain during WWII. At the last count, they have fired more than 8,000 missiles on Isreal, why? I think this is a dress rehearsal for Iran, fearing what Isreal may do to stem the Nuclear threat they face from Iran. Don't be shocked if Hezbollah starts pelting isreal with rockets in the north.
Why do these "peaceful" foes want to WIPE Isreal from the earth? Ishmael was also blessed, so what's their problem? I guess Isreal must be a racist nation too....bwahahahahaha
I think Israel should take Gaza back piece by piece (only what they can defend) until those fools come to realize they will lose it all. To the victor belong the spoils. By the way, where is this peace loving U.N. the libs love so much.
Crystal, agreement here! They gave back Gaza and this is the "thank you" and gratitude they are getting. As for the "peace loving" satans, they will activate their "responsibility to protect" resolution to try and force Isreal back to the '67 lines. Pres. Obama once suggested it, so they may see it as a green light like their "suatainability development" resolution. Blame the JEWS for world problems. What da heck, Adolf did!
Re: "Isreal needs to use the "iron choke" along with the iron dome! Enough is enough. These trouble maker have rained down more missiles on Isreal than the Germans rained on Britain during WWII. At the last count, they have fired more than 8,000 missiles on Isreal, why? I think this is a dress rehearsal for Iran, fearing what Isreal may do to stem the Nuclear threat they face from Iran. Don't be shocked if Hezbollah starts pelting isreal with rockets in the north.
Why do these "peaceful" foes want to WIPE Isreal from the earth? Ishmael was also blessed, so what's their problem? I guess Isreal must be a racist nation too….bwahahahahaha"
Covering This Gaza War
11/20/2012, Sherine Tadros
It's incredible to watch this war being covered on the inside, as it should have been during the previous war, by hundreds of foreign as well as local journalists.
In 2008 Israel and Egypt sealed their borders confining the journalists to the outskirts of the war inside the Strip. Myself and Ayman Mohyeldin (now NBC Foreign Affairs Correspondent) were left to describe what was happening to the outside world. We couldn't cover every strike, every tragedy, we couldn't be everywhere and we weren't awake 24 hours a day. Now, Gaza is under the microscope, whether via social media, print, radio, TV -- there is no ignoring what is raging within.
I have my own theories as to why Israel decided not to lock out the journalists this time around, but that is for another post.
Gaza is not a particularly hard story to cover; it's happening all around you. The biggest problem for journalists is in fact that it is so obviously an unbalanced conflict -- there is no equating Israel with Gaza, Palestinian fighters with the Israeli Army and rockets with missile strikes.
But it's precisely that which journalists struggle with. We are taught to be neutral, impartial, balanced. But this is not a balanced conflict and in the pursuit to even things out, some have ended up reporting the wrong story, emphasizing things they would normally not emphasize in the interest of looking balanced.
This week I heard a TV correspondent, who I very much respect and admire, throw back to the studio with the words "as Palestinians call it, the Israeli siege on Gaza." She was standing in Gaza City where Israeli ground forces were surrounding the perimeter of the Strip. Warships surrounded the sea and drones and F16s patrolled the skies above. If there was ever a time to call Gaza under siege with certainty, it was then. Yet as she stood talking about the strikes and the people killed, her need to be balanced at the end made her unable to tell the cold bold truth.
There is a general problem with media when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The need to sanitize events so as not to be controversial and upset the wrong people, the lack of humanizing the conflict for fear that it will make you look sympathetic or worse empathetic to the Palestinians, which could be career suicide. But not being bold and telling it how it is ultimately is a disservice to the truth and to journalism.
There are some simple facts about this story that I challenge anyone to disagree with yet are so often missing from coverage:
Hamas is not Gaza. Gaza has over 1.5 million Palestinians living in it. There are mothers and fathers and brothers and babies. There are people that have no interest in politics. Gaza is a society, not an island of terrorists. You cannot use the words Gaza and Hamas interchangeably. Similarly, Hamas is the ruling authority in Gaza -- there is no such thing as a Hamas school, or a Hamas police station or a Hamas ministry. These are adjectives are used by Israel to justify the targeting of these sites. Many if not most who work in these institutions are not members of the Hamas organization. There is also a difference between a member of Hamas and a Palestinian fighter. Again a distinction is so often lost.
But the thing journalists seem to be struggling most with right now is what constitutes a legitimate target. A house with 10 family members, including kids, women and old people is struck with a missile. They all die. There is initial outrage. But then the Israeli army says it was targeting a "Hamas official." Suddenly the coverage is different. The line about the Hamas official is put into every script without question or context -- all is well now because initially the story seemed unbalanced, too risky to report because it sounded too bad to be true (even though in 2008 Israel shelled the Samouni house killing over 25 members of the same family).
Does anyone stop and ask: even if there was a Hamas official inside the house, is killing ten innocent civilians to take out one official who is obviously under Israeli surveillance justified? Isn't that exactly what the Goldstone report highlighted? Israel has a choice when it decides to hit whether this strike is worth the gain -- if the aim is to take the target out, can they achieve it another time when he is not with his entire family? If the situation was reversed and Palestinian fighters struck a house of an Israeli Army commander, killing him, his mother, his wife and four children, would the media so blindly accept the justification of this being a legitimate target?
The missing context is key. Hamas rocket fire is not a response to the last missile; it's a reaction to six years of siege, bombardment, assassinations, entrapment. The missiles from Israel are not in response to today's rocket fire at Ashkelon; it's the years of rocket fire on communities in Southern Israel. The trigger to this war was an assassination, but the war has been coming for at least two and a half years.
In the end the big question is when will all this end. The simple answer is a ceasefire will come -- just like it did in all Israel's wars -- when Israel deems the job done and feels that Gaza has been punished enough. And this time I do mean Gaza.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Elk, I take it that my opinion from my posting struck a chord with you to trigger a repost of a "journalist's" editorial as a rebuttal to my post. Fair enough. I am not a journalist and have been aware of the Arab-Isreali conflict through the 6-day war in June , 1967, when Isreal not only survived being attacked by the "United Arab Republic", which comprised of Egypt, Jordan and Syria, but Isreal won, in six days, capturing the Sinai peninsula and Gaza strip from Egypt, the West bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan and the Golan heights from Syria.
Other contributors of military forces to the war effort to fulfil Egypt's President Nassers "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight" goal, included Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.
After years of negotiations, Isreal has agreed to and has given back a very viable coastal piece of land, GAZA strip, which was and still is intended to be a sovereign palestinian home land. That said, everything Isreal has done to date is not enough and will not be enough to forge a lasting peace for Isreal, because the Arab and Iranian stated goal is the total destruction of Israel and to "wipe Isreal from the face of the map respectively.
So you see Elk, it would be intellectual dishonesty not to look at the root cause of this age long problem in that region. Where I would conject intellectual dishonesty on your repost is that your "Journalist" failed to mention that all of the provocations that have led to the IDF's military response have come from the palestinians and their leaders, from the days of Arafat to the current Hamas leadership. So, yes elections does have lethal consequences, as harsh as in might sound. The popular dishonesty echoed constantly, is that Isreal is a terrorist state, never mind that they don't shoot missiles at their neighbors.
When known terrorists, like Hamas and the PLO before them, who have sworn to the total destruction of Isreal, and have in their charter, denying Isreal the right to exist, become elected leaders of your "State", use private homes, mosques, schools (while in session), Hospitals, Banks, neighborhoods as rocket and missiles lunching sites, using their citizens as human shields, without regard and respect, to elicit international sympathy, outcry and outrage, are irresponsible and disingenuous to the palestinian people and the world at large. To date, this terrorist leadership have fired from locations like the " Samouni house" your repost mentioned, more than 8, 000 rockets on Isreal. These rockets land, and Isreal is not an empty space. But your piece NEVER DISCUSSED these components of the human tragedy on both sides
In the interest of reality and intellectual honesty, do you think Isreal should ignore this risky reign of terror on her citizens or do they have the right to exist and to defend their people? Contrast the Isreali leadership, with the "elected" Hamas terrorist group, which is exposing its people to unnecessary peril, require close scrutiny for honest discussion.
Nice try Elk, but I am not impressed with a slanted self serving editorial from a "Journalist" who is pretending to be neutral and sympathetic at the same time. In summary, Isreal has a right to exist as well as defend itself. If and when the Palestinians and their sympathizers denounce their stated goal, which denies Isreal's right to exist and stop the rocket terror on Isreal, there will be long lasting peace!
Have you ever wondered why Egypt continues to blockade GAZA also? They are a terrorist organization plain and simple. Its like giving up Chicago to the street gangs after a bloody takeover. Would Illinois sit and do nothing while the gangs robbed and raped and tortured everyone? Yes Hamas tortures and kills the few Christians, Shiites and moderates left in Gaza. The article you posted is from an Arabist-someone who is extremely one sided, has a huge agenda and is always apologizing for Arab behavior. If the writer is so worried about fellow Aram muslims why are they not on the Syrian border or in Iraq??? Because racism always wins out in the Arab muslim mind, plain & simple.
Anyway, Hamas is blockaded from bringing in materials they can use for war. As you can see they have built hundreds of underground tunnels for their fighter as well as underground missile launchers. They are a friggin street gang and nothing more. Don’t believe everything you read as this is just a professional manipulator at work.
For those naive folks, which now appears to include Bill Clinton, the latest from Palestinian leadership from a NYT article.
"In a sermonlike speech laced with Koranic verses, the Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniya, promised on Thursday to “establish an independent state on all Palestine land,” foreboding words from the leader of an organization whose charter prophesizes Israel’s elimination."
Why the United States continues to look at the governments in the region, especially the new Egypt, as "peace partners" is beyond rationale thinking.