America's one-eyed view of war:

Mr. Big Dog · August 20, 2006

from your sources: "Israeli soldiers had been seized at around 9am local time across the border from Aita al-Shaab" - that puts the scene of the abduction into Israel.

Nice try, though.

Re-read. I specifically said the last source was less clear. It says 'across the border' but it also says 'on the Lebanese frontier".
You conveniently neglect all the other sources that say it happened in Lebanon and hold onto the few words that suit your idea of things. Also, I am not "trying" anything. You asked for sources. I gave them.

I personally think it is unclear where they were captured.

Across the border from Aita al-Shaab (which is in Lebanon) means inside Israel. "On the Lebanese" frontier might mean either as there are two sides to the frontier - the Isreali side and the Lebanese side. Taking both accounts into consideration, the abduction took place in Israel. Nothing but maybe the wishful thinking of those supporting fanatic organizations like Hezbollah suggests that the abduction took place anywhere but in Israel. Nothing.

PalestineMyHeart · August 21, 2006

The article is not an attack solely against MSNBC and Fox. The article is about U.S media in General, and is simply using these two weak examples to try prove it's point, ignoring the fact that there is the exact coverage he says the U.S doesn't see on other channels. By the way, coverage of Lebanese cities in rubble was not only on CNN. As I said, you would have to be a complete imbesile if you thought the only people getting shelled were the Israelis.

The article states its premise quite clearly: that there are 2 sides to every story, but you wouldn't know it to watch U.S. mainstream media (in particular Fox News and MSNBC.) The writer points out that in the American media, there is no real debate of Israel's premise that history began on July 12th, that Israel is the "good guy" and that Hezbollah is the "evil guy," and that everything Israel is doing is perfectly justified... and to even dare to question such premises is "unnecessary and suspect."

Showing clips of the rubble in Lebanon while merely repeating the Israeli government's talking points is not "fair and balanced coverage." It is "spin," a continuing attempt to give Israel's war crimes against a civilian population legitimacy and justification.

Ask yourself: when it comes to Israel's invasion of Lebanon, why is there far more debate even in Israel's own media than in American mainstream media ? Discussion of the conflict in Europe, Asia, South America and other parts of the world is not nearly so one-sided. So.... ask yourself... could the lopsided coverage in the U.S. possibly be connected to the identities of the owners of almost all of American mainstream media and their own personal political sympathies ? Could it possibly be related to America's massive taxpayer support of Israel, which might possibly be jeopardized by unfavorable public opinion ?

Finally... ask yourself... how much would you trust American TV coverage of such issues if it were Muslim sympathizers who owned and programmed most of what you're watching ? Would you find it "suspect" or "biased" in any way ?

Ban Hammer · August 21, 2006

The article is not an attack solely against MSNBC and Fox. The article is about U.S media in General, and is simply using these two weak examples to try prove it's point, ignoring the fact that there is the exact coverage he says the U.S doesn't see on other channels. By the way, coverage of Lebanese cities in rubble was not only on CNN. As I said, you would have to be a complete imbesile if you thought the only people getting shelled were the Israelis.

The article states its premise quite clearly: that there are 2 sides to every story, but you wouldn't know it to watch U.S. mainstream media (in particular Fox News and MSNBC.) The writer points out that in the American media, there is no real debate of Israel's premise that history began on July 12th, that Israel is the "good guy" and that Hezbollah is the "evil guy," and that everything Israel is doing is perfectly justified... and to even dare to question such premises is "unnecessary and suspect."

Showing clips of the rubble in Lebanon while merely repeating the Israeli government's talking points is not "fair and balanced coverage." It is "spin," a continuing attempt to give Israel's war crimes against a civilian population legitimacy and justification.

Ask yourself: when it comes to Israel's invasion of Lebanon, why is there far more debate even in Israel's own media than in American mainstream media ? Discussion of the conflict in Europe, Asia, South America and other parts of the world is not nearly so one-sided. So.... ask yourself... could the lopsided coverage in the U.S. possibly be connected to the identities of the owners of almost all of American mainstream media and their own personal political sympathies ? Could it possibly be related to America's massive taxpayer support of Israel, which might possibly be jeopardized by unfavorable public opinion ?

Finally... ask yourself... how much would you trust American TV coverage of such issues if it were Muslim sympathizers who owned and programmed most of what you're watching ? Would you find it "suspect" or "biased" in any way ?

and the same could be said of the tv programming you watch too

PalestineMyHeart · August 21, 2006

ok i'm starting to get sick of being told which side to support

I think that was the point of the article: that American mainstream media tells you which side to support, without any real debate.

Ban Hammer · August 21, 2006

ok i'm starting to get sick of being told which side to support

I think that was the point of the article: that American mainstream media tells you which side to support, without any real debate.

same for al jizzera

PalestineMyHeart · August 21, 2006

Finally... ask yourself... how much would you trust American TV coverage of such issues if it were Muslim sympathizers who owned and programmed most of what you're watching ? Would you find it "suspect" or "biased" in any way ?

and the same could be said of the tv programming you watch too

Actually, I prefer newspapers and wire services....

dalegg · August 21, 2006

The writer points out that in the American media, there is no real debate of Israel's premise that history began on July 12th

Once again, what U.S news services was this guy watching? The Israel spokespeople nevre claimed history started on July 12th. In fact that is their biggest problem, that all of this has been going on for decades.

So.... ask yourself... could the lopsided coverage in the U.S. possibly be connected to the identities of the owners of almost all of American mainstream media and their own personal political sympathies ? Could it possibly be related to America's massive taxpayer support of Israel, which might possibly be jeopardized by unfavorable public opinion ?

Oh this again. Okay. Ask yourself this- if there is this vast media bias for Israel's side of the story, then why would they ever show the Lebanese carrying away dead children AT ALL? Just one image of that is enough to sway the sympathy of millions of Americans and cause us to question Israel's tactics. If the media in the U.S is so controlled by the Jews, then it would seem the first thing the executives would want to do with their power were be to crush the theory that their is such a bias. I mean afterall, they control the information don't they?

ceriserose · August 21, 2006

Of interest to me, shortly after reading this thread this morning, I was in the car with Hubby and listened to NPR for the first time. They actually had some very interesting items on the Lebanese civilians hurt. It was definitely not a pro-Israel piece of journalism.

Anyway, not of huge import to the discussion, but thought I'd throw that in there.

PalestineMyHeart · August 21, 2006

No bomb would have fallen and no life wasted if Hezbollah hadn't sbuck into israel to kidnap two Isreali's. That might be a one-eyed view to some - to me, it's a simple cause and effect relation. The blood of the Lebanese that fell victim to the armed conflict is on Nasrallah's hands. And yet, many Lebanese actually celebrate and admire their butcher.

Contrary to what you've been brainwashed with, history did not begin on July 12th. According to the U.N., Israel has been the far more frequent violator of Lebanon's border, making illegal incursions on an almost daily basis since 2000.

No Hezbollah rocket would have struck Israeli cities if Israel hadn't started bombing Lebanese cities and villages. After all, Hezbollah did not begin firing Katyushas until after Israel started strafing Beirut. Talk about cause and effect.

Israel has far more blood on its hands than Hezbollah... Israel's butchered more than fifteen thousand Lebanese.

"And yet, many Zionist bootlickers actually celebrate and admire their butcher."

dalegg · August 21, 2006

No Hezbollah rocket would have struck Israeli cities if Israel hadn't started bombing Lebanese cities and villages. After all, Hezbollah did not begin firing Katyushas until after Israel started strafing Beirut. Talk about cause and effect.

Well W.O.M, we have at this moment a cross in information. A clear point in this debate where either you are wrong or the media and the official version of the events is wrong. According to this Source:

July 12

* Hezbollah launches Katyusha rockets across the Lebanese border with Israel as a diversionary tactic, targeting the town of Shlomi and outposts in the Shebaa Farms area in Israel. Hezbollah claims its objective is to free 10,000 Arabs captured by Israel.[1]

* Hezbollah's military wing staged a cross-border attack in northern Israel on two Israeli Humvees. Three Israeli soldiers were killed and two were kidnapped, with several civilians deliberately injured. "Fulfilling its pledge to liberate the Arab prisoners and detainees, the Islamic Resistance... captured two Israeli soldiers (Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev) at the border with occupied Palestine," Hezbollah said in a statement.[2]

Maybe the Jews control the Wikopedia, so here is another source that tells it the same way :Also ran by Jews?

So, has history already gotten it wrong? Just one month later?

Edited August 21, 2006 by dalegg

PalestineMyHeart · August 21, 2006

The writer points out that in the American media, there is no real debate of Israel's premise that history began on July 12th

Once again, what U.S news services was this guy watching? The Israel spokespeople nevre claimed history started on July 12th. In fact that is their biggest problem, that all of this has been going on for decades.

But they certainly did claim it. Every anchor and reporter and Israeli panelist repeated the same talking point: "The crisis began on July 12th with Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers...." You admit the conflict has been going on for decades; however no one on Fox or MSNBC stated the reality of what's been going on in the region for years: that cross-border incidents have occurred on almost a daily basis since 2000, and most frequently instigated by Israel. As far as most Americans are being told, it all began out of the blue on July 12th. And as the American media dutifully repeats, it's all about "terrorists" who desire to "wipe Israel off the map."

So.... ask yourself... could the lopsided coverage in the U.S. possibly be connected to the identities of the owners of almost all of American mainstream media and their own personal political sympathies ? Could it possibly be related to America's massive taxpayer support of Israel, which might possibly be jeopardized by unfavorable public opinion ?

Oh this again. Okay. Ask yourself this- if there is this vast media bias for Israel's side of the story, then why would they ever show the Lebanese carrying away dead children AT ALL? Just one image of that is enough to sway the sympathy of millions of Americans and cause us to question Israel's tactics. If the media in the U.S is so controlled by the Jews, then it would seem the first thing the executives would want to do with their power were be to crush the theory that their is such a bias. I mean afterall, they control the information don't they?

The pictures were broadcast all over the world. Israel can't just ignore it. They have to fight it. So their only recourse is to try to spin it in Israel's favor, and that's the overwhelming message you've seen on American TV. How often was this statement repeated: "Israel tries its best not to harm civilians, while Hezbollah tries to target civilians" ? But if you look at the actual casualty figures, Israel was responsible for far more indiscriminate killing of civilians. Israel's "pinpoint surgical strikes" wiped out thirty times more innocent civilians than Hezbollah's crude unguided rockets.

Now. Please try to remember that not all Jews are Zionists, and more importantly, not nearly all Zionists are Jews. So the pro-Zionist media is not to be blamed entirely on "the Jews," as you suggest.

However, the owners of the largest American media outlets are staunchly pro-Zionist. And the continuing Israeli spin on conflicts involving Israel is quite well-documented. It's a cold hard fact. Google FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) for further details if you really want to know....

PalestineMyHeart · August 21, 2006

Not to mention... it has been reported that those soldiers were in Lebanon anyway so according to that Hezbullah did not go into Israel to capture its soldier.

The reports were fake -- the soldiers were captured in Israel.

Also, Hezbullah wouldn't have captured those soldiers if Israel did not kidnap and illegally hold many more Palestinians.

Again, I ask - what does Hezbollah have to do with the Israeli-Palestinian problem?

Is it ok to start a war with another country because you think that country is doing

something wrong? If you answer yes, then by the same logic, the US invasion of Iraq

was perfectly legitimate.

I don't think it's established where exactly the soldiers were taken. Initial reports from reputable news sources did say inside Lebanon. Given Israel's history of violating that border, it's quite possible.

Anyway, if the continued violation of a border is not "war" (at least when Israel does it) then neither is the capture of 2 members of the army that continues to violate that border.

However, the bombing of a country, including its civilians and infrastructure, certainly IS a declaration of war. Israel started it. It was a war for which Israel had prepared, even eagerly anticipated, for more than a year.... and was simply awaiting an excuse to begin.

Funny how Israel's "self-defense" always involves invading other countries.

No Hezbollah rocket would have struck Israeli cities if Israel hadn't started bombing Lebanese cities and villages. After all, Hezbollah did not begin firing Katyushas until after Israel started strafing Beirut. Talk about cause and effect.

Well W.O.M, we have at this moment a cross in information. A clear point in this debate where either you are wrong or the media and the official version of the events is wrong. According to this Source:

July 12

* Hezbollah launches Katyusha rockets across the Lebanese border with Israel as a diversionary tactic, targeting the town of Shlomi and outposts in the Shebaa Farms area in Israel. Hezbollah claims its objective is to free 10,000 Arabs captured by Israel.[1]

* Hezbollah's military wing staged a cross-border attack in northern Israel on two Israeli Humvees. Three Israeli soldiers were killed and two were kidnapped, with several civilians deliberately injured. "Fulfilling its pledge to liberate the Arab prisoners and detainees, the Islamic Resistance... captured two Israeli soldiers (Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev) at the border with occupied Palestine," Hezbollah said in a statement.[2]

Maybe the Jews control the Wikopedia, so here is another source that tells it the same way :Also ran by Jews?

So, has history already gotten it wrong? Just one month later?

Shebaa Farms is not "in Israel," it's illegally occupied Lebanese territory.

Israel really shouldn't be moving its civilians into such an area -- it's a violation of the Geneva Convention.

And again, it's not clearly established where exactly the soldiers were taken. Initial reports did place the events inside Lebanon. Wouldn't be the first time Israel violated the border (see the U.N. documentation for more info.....)

Time for bed now... good night

dalegg · August 21, 2006

Once again, what U.S news services was this guy watching? The Israel spokespeople nevre claimed history started on July 12th. In fact that is their biggest problem, that all of this has been going on for decades.

But they certainly did claim it. Every anchor and reporter and Israeli panelist repeated the same talking point: "The crisis began on July 12th with Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers...." You admit the conflict has been going on for decades; however no one on Fox or MSNBC stated the reality of what's been going on in the region for years: that cross-border incidents have occurred on almost a daily basis since 2000, and most frequently instigated by Israel. As far as most Americans are being told, it all began out of the blue on July 12th.

This is in context to the current event. The back and forth of rockets that started this round of events started on July 12th. How should the Fox anchor have begun the broadcast on July 12th?

"Good evening ladies and gentlemen, 2000 years ago the Jews were driven out of Israel.......

(2 hours of history pass)

"Then in 1948......"

(Another 2 hours passes)

"Then in 1967...."

(Another 2 hours pass)

"and after the U.S left Lebanon...."

(..and finally 6 hours into the broadcast)

"So in order to get back these 10,000 innocent arabs, Hezbollah launches an attack against Israel posts, kills 3 soldiers and kidnaps 2."

At some point you just have to tell the news. Any one with any sense will take commentaries as commentaries. You think they made the Israelis look like victims? I saw broadcasts that showed dozens of Lebanese lying dead followed by a broadcast of an Israeli woman crying because she was nervous and uncomfortable in her bomb shelter. This is a natural reaction of any civilian, but to show these clips back to back like this makes the Israeli citizens problems look trite.

Shebaa Farms is not "in Israel," it's illegally occupied Lebanese territory.
Israel really shouldn't be moving its civilians into such an area -- it's a violation of the Geneva Convention.

And again, it's not clearly established where exactly the soldiers were taken. Initial reports did place the events inside Lebanon. Wouldn't be the first time Israel violated the border (see the U.N. documentation for more info.....)

Time for bed now... good night

No you don't!! You only replied to the minor points. The main question is when did the Katyusha rockets start falling. And this completely illustrates my objection to your painting the media here as Israeli biased.

I had to look that information up on the internet to find it. Every news cast on television talked about the event as "beginning with the kidnapping of 2 Israeli soldiers". I cannot remember hearing a newscaster state that the event started with "the kidnapping of 2 Israeli soldiers, the killing of 3 others, and the launching of Rockets by Hezbollah". Almost as if they didn't want us to realize it began with more than just a kidnapping.

Edited August 21, 2006 by dalegg

Boiler · August 21, 2006

http://andrewgumbel.com/

First thing I do is check the source, that way I know the Authors usual stance.

I know the Independent, used to read it, so I know the stance they favour and what they believe will appeal to their readers.

More importantly, from the Independent:

Iran vows to push on with nuclear fuel programme

By Anne Penketh, Diplomatic Editor

Published: 21 August 2006

Buoyed by the success of its proxy militia in Lebanon, Iran has rejected a demand from the West, aimed at curbing Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons programme, setting itself on a new course of confrontation.

On the eve of a self-imposed deadline for responding to a Western offer of economic and technology incentives in return for a suspension of uranium enrichment by Iran, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said yesterday: "We won't suspend."

"Everything should come out of negotiations but suspension of uranium enrichment is not on our agenda," Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters in Tehran.

He said that Iran would offer a "multi-faceted response" to the proposed package tomorrow.

Anything short of the suspension of the uranium enrichment that many fear would eventually lead to production of a nuclear weapon, will force the United Nations Security Council to consider its threat of sanctions against Iran. In a resolution adopted at the end of last month, the council ordered Iran to suspend uranium enrichment by 31 August or face the possibility of economic and diplomatic sanctions.

Nicholas Burns, the United States Under-secretary of State for political affairs, warned last week that he expected the Security Council to move rapidly in September to impose sanctions against Iran because of the country's intransigence.

Iran underlined its determined stand by holding war games over the weekend, which included the televised launch of Saegheh ("lightning" in Farsi) short-range missiles. The television commentator said the ground-to-ground missiles had a range of between 50 and 150 miles.

Iran has said the military exercises - called The Blow of Zolfaghar in reference to a sword that belonged to Imam Ali, one of the holiest figures of Islam for Shia Muslims - were aimed at "introducing Iran's new defensive doctrine".

Iran clearly feels it has a strong position in the light of Israel's failure to disarm the Iranian-backed Hizbollah militia in southern Lebanon, despite a 34-day war launched after the Shia guerrillas in Lebanon captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, has warned that Iran would be prepared to use oil as a weapon if sanctions are considered, prompting market analysts to predict a further surge in the oil price as tomorrow's deadline looms.

The proposed package from the West provides for direct talks between Washington and Tehran, as well as an offer of nuclear technology and the easing of some trade restrictions.

However Iran has consistently refused to suspend uranium enrichment, saying that its nuclear programme is purely peaceful, and is permitted under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Western concerns about the prospects of a nuclear Iran have deepened since the beginning of the Lebanon war, which has been described as a proxy war between the US and Iran.

The Iranians may feel that they can play for time because the UN decided that any "further decisions" would have to be discussed by the 15-member Security Council, where veto-holding powers Russia and China have been supporters of Iran.

Buoyed by the success of its proxy militia in Lebanon, Iran has rejected a demand from the West, aimed at curbing Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons programme, setting itself on a new course of confrontation.

On the eve of a self-imposed deadline for responding to a Western offer of economic and technology incentives in return for a suspension of uranium enrichment by Iran, the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman said yesterday: "We won't suspend."

"Everything should come out of negotiations but suspension of uranium enrichment is not on our agenda," Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters in Tehran.

He said that Iran would offer a "multi-faceted response" to the proposed package tomorrow.

Anything short of the suspension of the uranium enrichment that many fear would eventually lead to production of a nuclear weapon, will force the United Nations Security Council to consider its threat of sanctions against Iran. In a resolution adopted at the end of last month, the council ordered Iran to suspend uranium enrichment by 31 August or face the possibility of economic and diplomatic sanctions.