Hope and Dispair in the ME

[Bleeding Red]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

The thing to remember about history is that it is constantly rewritten. Gerry Adams and Sein Fein were terrorists. Nelson Mandela was jailed as a leader of a terrorist or subversive organization. And has been mentioned here, many former Israeli leader and cabinet ministers were considered terrorists prior to the establishment of the State of Israel.

It has also been said here many times that the Government of Israel actively worked to disarm these early terrorists. Begin renounced terrorism as the means to the end, became a politician and made peace with Egypt.

You can't seem to acknowledge that Palestians, or Hezbollah for that matter, have any legitimate grievances. You just slap the terrorist label on them.

The peoples grievances may be legitamate, the organizations using terrorism as the means to their end (whether that end is Palestitian Statehood or the Elimination of Israel) are not.

The main rationale for the Election of Hamas as the PA government is that the people kicked out a corrupt government, not that they abandoned the peace plan. Fine, they are a legitamate government. They could have announced that they are renouncing terrorism to concentrate on the needs of their constituants and improve their economy and hope to be able to sit with representatives of the State of Israel, which they recognize and will work with. The Gaza pullout gave them a six month to opportunity to act like a government. they could have incorporated their militia into the Palestinian Police force, cracked down on militants by shutting down bomb factories and disarming those that would not join the PPF. Success at ending the launches of rockets from Gaza at Israel, I don't think would have mattered so long as Hamas showed they were willing to even try.

Instead the first act of Hamas followers in Gaza was the public execution (without trial) of Yassir Arafat's cousin. Gaza was described as the "Wild West" in the CTV news report last night. Kidnappings of foriegn nationals is a job description instead of a criminal act.

Arafat told the West he would renounce violence, recognize Israel, crack down on militants in the PA and work towards peace. What he told the Arab world and his actions were a bit different, but what he told the West got him recognized, legitamized and cash. I would think that if Hamas said the same then the cash would flow and recognition would be there.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Though hezbollah was certainly engaging in well orchestrated propaganda events, I think an easy answer is available as to why there wasn't more media attention on the lebanese side. It's much easier to report the news when you're not in any real danger. Because of the disproportionality of the Israeli air attack, being inside these urban areas was unsafe for journalists, while journalists 'embedded' in Israeli tank units inside northern Israel for example, were at considerably risk, and were to a point, 'safe'.

Come on Flash. On some news reports I saw out of Israel, the rockets were raining down literally 1 mile from where the reporter was standing. You could see it in the background.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

The thing to remember about history is that it is constantly rewritten. Gerry Adams and Sein Fein were terrorists. Nelson Mandela was jailed as a leader of a terrorist or subversive organization. And has been mentioned here, many former Israeli leader and cabinet ministers were considered terrorists prior to the establishment of the State of Israel.

Yes history is constantly rewritten... but not overnight. As I said in my last post:

"There's a reason why they haven't been recognized - their history and their refusal to abandon it. If they choose to totally abandon their militia tactics and history, there wouldn't be much of a reason to continue to ignore them after a significant length of time proving this abandonment. Until such time, there isn't much of a reason to recognize them."

Hamas and Hizbollah may be on the way to being legitimate political parties and on their way to being recognized. They still have to stand the test of time to see if their actions and words are long standing policy shifts or just a short-term whim. The former (long-term policy shift) will get them recognition and legitimacy in the political arena. The latter (short-term whim) will simply re-inforce what they are perceived to be - terrorist organizations.

Can they change? Of course they can... but it's up to them to prove that they have changed.

Originally Posted by longsuffering

You can't seem to acknowledge that Palestians, or Hezbollah for that matter, have any legitimate grievances. You just slap the terrorist label on them.

Of course I don't support their attacks on innocent civilans but I do consider that they have legitimate grievances with Israel or the IDF.

I believe that they do have legitimate grievances... but it's the way they try and address those grievances that gives them the terrorist label.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Now certainly secracy played a part but then reporters were able to catch up with Israeli commandos on lamas inside Lebanon....why couldn't one reporter catch a barrage or 5 of missiles?

I don't know why. You don't honestly believe the media didn't want to capture such an event, do you? That'd be quite the, umm, conspiracy theory to believe that the western media is collaborating to ignore or suppress rockets being fired at Israel, especially since that very same media reported every day on how many rockets were fired and what the damage inside Israel was.

EDIT: I did see a news report just tonight that had footage of rockets being fired from Lebanon, from what looked like a residential area no less, and then the footage cut directly to explosions on an Israeli street.

It was on CBC.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Yes history is constantly rewritten... but not overnight. As I said in my last post:

"There's a reason why they haven't been recognized - their history and their refusal to abandon it. If they choose to totally abandon their militia tactics and history, there wouldn't be much of a reason to continue to ignore them after a significant length of time proving this abandonment. Until such time, there isn't much of a reason to recognize them."

Hamas and Hizbollah may be on the way to being legitimate political parties and on their way to being recognized. They still have to stand the test of time to see if their actions and words are long standing policy shifts or just a short-term whim. The former (long-term policy shift) will get them recognition and legitimacy in the political arena. The latter (short-term whim) will simply re-inforce what they are perceived to be - terrorist organizations.

Can they change? Of course they can... but it's up to them to prove that they have changed.



I believe that they do have legitimate grievances... but it's the way they try and address those grievances that gives them the terrorist label.

I would agree with you, except you are completely dismissing the reasons these parties have the public support that they do. As has already been established, Hezbollah was created as a RESULT of Israeli occupation. Hamas was formed as a RESULT of Israeli occupation. Armed militia's do not gain overwhelming popular support without a serious disenfranchisement of the populace. No substantial portion of a population would ever willfully vote in a militant government without either exceding fear for their safety (1930's Germany, 1950's to present America), or exceding disenfranchisement of their basic rights as humans.

Militancy is, almost without exception, the result of fear, real or manufactured. It's a strategy of last resort.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I would agree with you, except you are completely dismissing the reasons these parties have the public support that they do. As has already been established, Hezbollah was created as a RESULT of Israeli occupation. Hamas was formed as a RESULT of Israeli occupation. Armed militia's do not gain overwhelming popular support without a serious disenfranchisement of the populace. No substantial portion of a population would ever willfully vote in a militant government without either exceding fear for their safety (1930's Germany, 1950's to present America), or exceding disenfranchisement of their basic rights as humans.

Militancy is, almost without exception, the result of fear, real or manufactured. It's a strategy of last resort.

your logic makes no sense. If militancy is a last resort then why did it increase in when Israel withdrew from Lebanon. Militancy can also be caused by hate.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

EDIT: I did see a news report just tonight that had footage of rockets being fired from Lebanon, from what looked like a residential area no less, and then the footage cut directly to explosions on an Israeli street.

It was on CBC.

I think I know the footage you were talking about (the one showing about four rockets firing off in quick succession). It seemed to me that the lighting conditions were so different from one shot to the next that it suggested different times of the day. And I've seen the CBC use that explosion footage before without the preceding rocket footage, so I doubt that there's a direct corrolation between one or the other. I remember watching the report last night and thinking that it's below the usual standards of the CBC, who have been otherwise not too bad in their coverage.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know why. You don't honestly believe the media didn't want to capture such an event, do you? That'd be quite the, umm, conspiracy theory to believe that the western media is collaborating to ignore or suppress rockets being fired at Israel, especially since that very same media reported every day on how many rockets were fired and what the damage inside Israel was.

EDIT: I did see a news report just tonight that had footage of rockets being fired from Lebanon, from what looked like a residential area no less, and then the footage cut directly to explosions on an Israeli street.

It was on CBC.

One thing I do feel is that had AP, Reuters, NYT and such would have stuck with the oldtime wartime photographers we WOULD have seen them. Instead they used stringers with ties (sypathies for sure!) with Hezbollah.

[Flash Walken]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...297119,00.html

A number of journalists claimed during a convention in Jerusalem Monday evening that Israel and the IDF were mostly to blame for the way the foreign media covered the Lebanon war.

The panel of journalists, largely from the international media, convened to discuss their coverage of the war, at a conference arranged by the Media Line agency's Mideast Press Club.

...

"We are very disappointed that the IDF didn't give us more opportunities," he added.

Wood's claims of restricted battlefield access seemed undermined, however, by the London Times' Stephen Farrell, who said: "I spent most of the war within five miles of the border… you have to get up and put your face right up against the glass, and if you can, to put your head through the glass."

Farrell told the panel that the best way to report the war was to witness it first hand, and recounted using binoculars to watch clashes between Hizbullah forces and the IDF.

Responding to the Reuters photo scandal, Farrell said: "I'm not sure I like the allegation that it's local staff who are unreliable. Over the last few years we've seen… apparently respectable, white western American, British, everybody… being sacked and disgraced… integrity is integrity is integrity, whether it's Arab, Israeli, or western."

The New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief, Steven Erlanger, expressed surprise that Israel's view of the war was different to that of its critics, and said that Israelis didn't "quite grasp how the war was perceived outside of Israel."

He lamented the lack of "proportionality" in the war, adding: "This is a charge that came against Israel from the United Nations… the French, the Italians."