Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bias against Israel: "Stone Throwers"

Chacham (981) writes | more than 10 years ago

User Journal 9

Honest Reporting, a website dedicated to showing the media bias against Israel, has another unbelievable article, this time on the Arabs "throwing stones".

Honest Reporting, a website dedicated to showing the media bias against Israel, has another unbelievable article, this time on the Arabs "throwing stones".

The IDF has reported that the Arabs are throwing cinder blocks, the type used in buildings, not stones. Well, Yahoo! News has a story with a picture" from the Associated Press, showing this in action.

These "stone throwers" are using deadly force.

cancel ×

9 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

For What It's Worth (2, Interesting)

DaytonCIM (100144) | more than 10 years ago | (#7908825)

I cannot agree with your assertion that the Media is biased against Israel.

I think what you label as Bias is really a conscious effort by the media to get people interested in the news. 30 years ago, ABC World News was on for one hour. 20 years ago, it went to 30 minutes, followed by a game show. 10 years ago, ABC News was moved to 6:30 to make room for "Entertainment/Show Biz News/Gossip" shows.

The truth is that a majority of Americans are more interested in the latest Survivor/American Idol/Ben and JLo story than they are any story about Israel and/or Muslims.

The News Media of today has to insert some "entertainment" in the stories or people simply don't watch and advertisers simply don't pay.

What you call bias is simply the Media getting your attention in order to sell ad time. One week the Media is PRO-Israel, the next Anti. It really depends on what they can sell to the public and what advertisers are willing to pay.

If you're really interested in the News (from a non-Biased POV), then I suggest the BBC. Very different from American News (and the dreaded FOX and CNN).

Out.

bias != fog of war (1)

js7a (579872) | more than 10 years ago | (#7946828)

Look, on one side you have kids throwing deadly cinderblocks and suicide bombers taking out dozens of bystanders at a time. On the other side you have retaliatory missle strikes that routinly take out far more bystanders than targets, along with indiscriminate bulldozing of bystanders' homes.

It is easy to find examples of real bias, if you look in the official propaganda of each side. But the truly telling fact here is that critics from each side accuse the same media outlets of opposite biases. [tompaine.com]

Inaccuracies and questionable vocabulary are merely the fog of a propaganda war.

Re:bias != fog of war (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#7949493)

suicide bombers taking out dozens of bystanders at a time

How do suicide bombers take out bystanders? They specifically target civilians! (Think of Sabarro Pizza shop, civilian bus rides, open markets). Suicide bombers to not go for army installations.

On the other side you have retaliatory missle strikes that routinly

Missle strikes routinely? Missle strikes are rare from Israel, unless in a targetted killing.

take out far more bystanders than targets

The total is probably somewhere near ten bystanders. Unless you mean harmed. In which case a few more have been hospitalized.

along with indiscriminate bulldozing of bystanders' homes.

Bystander's homes are nto bulldozed. Homes are only bulldozed when they belong to the bomber, or his family (when he lived there), and the Supreme Court must authorize it.

Perhaps you don't realize that the over one-thousand Israelis killed are overwhelmingly civilians. The overwhelming majority of the Arabs killed were militants.

Re:bias != fog of war (1)

js7a (579872) | more than 10 years ago | (#7949860)

How do suicide bombers take out bystanders? They specifically target civilians!

Right, in Israel the suicide bombers only take out bystanders, not government targets, presumably because large numbers of people tend not to congregate around those targets, which are themselves well defended.

Missle strikes are rare from Israel, unless in a targetted killing.

Rare? As far as I can tell, the last one was Dec. 30th, and it was the second in less than a week. Have there been any palestinian bombings in the past three years that weren't followed up by retaliatory strikes?

The total is probably somewhere near ten bystanders. Unless you mean harmed. In which case a few more have been hospitalized.

In the most recent attack, one target and about 10 bystanders were wounded, and the other target wasn't. Have there been any attacks on either side that have injured more milita{ry,nt} targets than bystanders?

Homes are only bulldozed when they belong to the bomber, or his family (when he lived there)

Is there any other nation in the world that punishes the relatives of criminals?

... and the Supreme Court must authorize it.

Link, please. All I can find [google.com] are reports of a singular Israeli Supreme Court decision allowing the practice and a whole lot of denied appeals. I can find nothing [google.com] indicating any Israeli court ever denied permission to buldoze.

Perhaps you don't realize that the over one-thousand Israelis killed are overwhelmingly civilians.

How can that be? I thought all Israeli (men?) are required to serve in the military.

Re:bias != fog of war (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#7953613)

Right, in Israel the suicide bombers only take out bystanders, not government targets, presumably because large numbers of people tend not to congregate around those targets, which are themselves well defended.

Which means that they attack civilians, and there is no such thing as bystanders to them.

Rare? As far as I can tell, the last one was Dec. 30th, and it was the second in less than a week.

A missile strike? I am unaware of them using missles in such things.

in the past three years that weren't followed up by retaliatory strikes?

Well, considering the Arabs attacks mutiple times daily, the overwhelming majority are not responded to. Nearly nightly Arabs fire mortars, and they are mostly disregarded, since them almost alwys miss people.

Here [www.idf.il] 's a quick link to what the IDF noticed. Note how there are few retailiations, unless the terrorist was there at the time of the incident.

In the most recent attack, one target and about 10 bystanders were wounded,

Missile attack? And even if more "bystanders" have been hurt (which many times means a scratch) how many were killed?

Have there been any attacks on either side that have injured more milita{ry,nt} targets than bystanders?

The overwhelming majority of Arabs killed are militants. That is, they have explsosives, have laid explosives, or are shooting. It is rare that a civilian is killed.

Israel usually warns the Arabs (radio and loudspeakers) before an impending attack. In those cases (like the five in Jenin) the civilians decided to stay around.

The only time Israel will hit a civilian as a bystander, is during the rare missile attack, which is usually used on hard-to-get "higher ups" in the terrorist organizations.

Is there any other nation in the world that punishes the relatives of criminals?

Yes. I believe the actual law is a holdover from the British Mandate. It is used less now, since most countries do not have to respond to repeated terrorist activities.

>... and the Supreme Court must authorize it.

Link, please.


The actual law has gone through revisions. Here [go.com] is the first link i found when searching for "idf bulldoze supreme-court" on Google.

>Perhaps you don't realize that the over one-thousand Israelis killed are overwhelmingly civilians.

How can that be? I thought all Israeli (men?) are required to serve in the military.


All Israelis, including women (i think all women are required, the actual law may ne different), serve. However, they only serve for a few years, and then return to civilian life. Plus, there were school bus bombings, and there are many Chareidis that get various exemptions.

Most Israeli's murdered by Arabs are not at the time in the army.

Re:bias != fog of war (1)

js7a (579872) | more than 10 years ago | (#7954268)

Thank you. I learned a lot from both those links.

Here are some the things I noticed in multiple, fairly diverse, outlets in the U.S. media over the past couple of weeks:

  1. The "Geneva Accords" were well-received by everyone except the two governments, who both agreed that the accords were unworkable. This is the first time the American media reported an agreement between the two sides in the past three years. But it was a bitersweet agreement, since they also agreed that their alternative was hoplessly deadlocked.

  2. Prime Minister Sharon proposed evacuating many settlements without significant advance warning, at great philosophical and political cost to himself, in order to uphold the US-backed "roadmap" plan, and remove the deadlock. It was immediatly made clear that the hard-liners in his government would defect if he actually tried that.

  3. A number of commentators pointed out that between 7 and 15 years from now, the Israeli Arab poulation would have a controlling majority in parlament, based on their much more rapidly expanding population. Why this is news all of the sudden, I do not know. Some commentators suggested that this would lead to a lasting peace at the expense of the dominant jewish character of Israel. Others suggested that the Arabs, once in control, would simply unify and rename the country Palestine.

  4. Palestine intends to declare itsself a state again, but I'm not sure why or what good it would do them.

  5. The Israeli scientist who described the secret Israeli nuclear arsenal to the British press is about to be let out of jail after 18 years. The Israeli government is trying to figure out how to keep him from talking and traveling.

It is a very difficult situation to cover objectively, but even if half the news outlets were biased in either direction, it wouldn't make much difference because it is so easy to get many sources of news on each issue. Because of the strength of the views on each side, it is quickly apparent which side has the writer's sympathy, so it is usually fairly simple to sample both sides of any given story.

Re:bias != fog of war (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#7955452)

The "Geneva Accords" were well-received by everyone except the two governments,

The Geneva Accords were accepted by an extreme minority. A few more though it was a nice gesture, but it was rejected as failure. Only the furthest left had anything to do with it.

The fact that it got so much fanfare, is because of the leftist media.

who both agreed that the accords were unworkable

Besides being illegal, the accords were ridiculous. They didn't give anybody what they wanted.

This is the first time the American media reported an agreement between the two sides in the past three years.

This wasn't an agreement. The only thing "official" about it, was that some of the people involved were in the Knesset (not the government, per se).

Prime Minister Sharon proposed evacuating many settlements without significant advance warning, at great philosophical and political cost to himself, in order to uphold the US-backed "roadmap" plan, and remove the deadlock. It was immediatly made clear that the hard-liners in his government would defect if he actually tried that.

He actually gave the orders. The orders were illegal, so a military law was used. The Roadmap was accepted with fourteen reservations, and this evacuation was one of those fourteen. The evacuation seems more to do with US pressure.

The right-wing would leave the government. However, Sharon would be then able to invite more left-wingers into the government and have a nice majority.

A number of commentators pointed out that between 7 and 15 years from now, the Israeli Arab poulation would have a controlling majority in parlament, based on their much more rapidly expanding population. Why this is news all of the sudden, I do not know.

It has been news for a while. And the reason people are talking about it is two-fold. One, the birth-rate amongst Israelis has been dropping. Two, The Chareidim (Orthodox Jews) have a lot of kids, and the government is complaining that the subsidized costs are a weight the givernment is trying to lift. In light of the budget crunches, this became a talking point.

Some commentators suggested that this would lead to a lasting peace at the expense of the dominant jewish character of Israel.

That is an extreme left opinion. The centrist left opinion is to keep the State Jewish at all costs. The standard leftist party is Labor, so seek out their opinions.

Others suggested that the Arabs, once in control, would simply unify and rename the country Palestine.

That is the rightist opinion, and probably dominant in Israel.

Palestine intends to declare itself a state again

There never was a state called Palestine.

but I'm not sure why or what good it would do them

International protection from the EU, France, and most Arab states. The only reason they don;t do it, is to try to get more land first.

The Israeli scientist who described the secret Israeli nuclear arsenal to the British press is about to be let out of jail after 18 years. The Israeli government is trying to figure out how to keep him from talking and traveling.

Interesting.

Re:bias != fog of war (1)

superyooser (100462) | more than 10 years ago | (#7967433)

Palestine intends to declare itsself a state again

Give me the specific dates when Palestine was a state.

Give me the names of its Arab leaders when it was a state.

I await your answers with bated breath.

Re:bias != fog of war (1)

js7a (579872) | more than 10 years ago | (#7967572)

I said "intends to declare" again, not "become" again. They were clammoring about their intent to declare three and five years ago, IIRC.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>