Big media myths of 2008:

[#juan]

Big media myths of 2008: Russia the aggressor, Israel the innocent, and victory in Iraq.

Big media myths of 2008: Russia the aggressor, Israel the innocent, and victory in Iraq | Straight.com

 

[#juan]

3. Russia’s attack on Georgia was as act of unprovoked aggression
During the August conflict that focused on the Georgian breakaway province of South Ossetia, syndicated columnist Gwynne Dyer did an admirable job outlining a narrative for the war that was seldom found elsewhere. While CNN consistently echoed the Bush administration’s condemnation of Russia for an unprovoked attack and warned that the “Soviet Union” would soon be marching on Europe, Dyer pointed out that it was actually Georgia that attacked South Ossetia. “Russia didn’t threaten Georgia,” Dyer wrote as the conflict continued, “it responded to a surprise Georgian attack on South Ossetia, a territory where there were Russian peace-keeping troops by international agreement.” During the conflict, the mainstream media all but erased this fact and opted to stoke the flames of a greater conflict between the U.S. and Russia that simply did not exist.

 

[#juan]

2. Hamas started the Israel-Gaza conflict in December
I’ve heard this line repeated on major news networks countless times since Israel’s most-recent assault on Gaza began on December 28: “Hamas started this conflict by firing rockets into Israel and Israel has a right to defend itself.” Israel does have a right to defend itself. But the conflict is so much more complicated than this that repeating such a line is simply ignorant. When Hamas was democratically elected as Gaza’s government in January 2006, Israel instituted a blockade, sealing Gaza’s borders and sharply restricting what went in and out of the already-oppressed territory. At the same time, many countries around the world (including Canada) cut off badly needed food and medical aid to Gaza. The result has been a territory under siege, where unemployment hovers around 50 percent, fuel is scarce, hunger is increasingly widespread, and medical supplies have dwindled to dangerously low quantities. (For a comprehensive overview of the effects of Israel’s blockade on Gaza, Sara Roy’s recent piece in the London Review of Books, If Gaza falls…, is definitive.) Hamas’s practice of targeting civilians with indiscriminate rocket attacks is unacceptable and justifies a measured response from Israel. But as the government of Gaza, what should Hamas’s response have been to a siege that is slowly killing its people? Furthermore, commentators such as Gwynne Dyer and Tariq Ali have emphasized the political implications of a war so close to an Israeli presidential election and suggested that the whole mess is nothing more than political posturing. There’s a lot more going on here than ‘who hit who first’.

 

[#juan]

1. The “Surge” brought peace to Iraq
Perhaps no falsehood of 2008 was repeated so often by so many people as three simple words: “The Surge worked”. If George W. Bush is remembered as the man who brought peace to Iraq, the media’s failure to relate the real story of the 2003 U.S. invasion will be as great as the war itself. Three things brought about a calm in Iraq; the least significant of the three was the increase in U.S. troop numbers known as the “Surge”. More important was the so-called “Sunni awakening”, which is the media-friendly term for the cessation of sectarian killings by Sunni groups in Iraq. But as the Straight previously noted, the Sunni awakening was not so much a change of heart as it was a shift in the labour market. Around the same time that the U.S. sent more troops to Iraq, it also began a strategy of simply buying off its enemies. As reported in the Washington Post in August 2007, extremist Sunni groups were given large sums of money to stop killing American soldiers and Shiite civilians. That article pointed out, “Shiite leaders fear that the United States is financing highly trained and well-armed militias that could undermine the government after American troops withdraw.” And the third and most significant reason that violence in Iraq declined through 2007 and remained calm this year is that by 2008, the Iraqi civil war was largely over. As early as December 2006, the New York Times was reporting that most mixed Sunni-Shiite neighbourhoods in Baghdad had been cleansed of minorities and that American forces were building walls throughout the city to separate feuding communities. By the end of 2007, as these maps published in the New York Times show, it was clear that the war was not resolved peacefully; it had simply been fought to completion. Bush’s surge didn’t bring peace to Iraq, it only arrived in time to observe a peace that came as the result of a very bloody civil war.

 

[Cannuck]

"But as the government of Gaza, what should Hamas’s response have been to a siege that is slowly killing its people?"

Denouncing terrorism and making it abundantly clear that they are willing to work peacefully with the Israel and the rest of the world to deal with these issues would be a great first step. Neither side is innocent however Israel has at least shown a willingness to work towards peace with it's neighbors (see Egypt and Jordan).

Whenever I read or hear people discuss the Israel/Palistine in black and white, they generally lose most of their credibility.

 

[darkbeaver]

Interesting stuff Juan. I wonder what the media got right or covered independent of the owner/bankers?
A comparison with the pre-conflict press of the WW2 era would be revealing.

 

[darkbeaver]

"But as the government of Gaza, what should Hamas’s response have been to a siege that is slowly killing its people?"

Denouncing terrorism and making it abundantly clear that they are willing to work peacefully with the Israel and the rest of the world to deal with these issues would be a great first step. Neither side is innocent however Israel has at least shown a willingness to work towards peace with it's neighbors (see Egypt and Jordan).

Whenever I read or hear people discuss the Israel/Palistine in black and white, they generally lose most of their credibility.

Of course, the official explanation is that 'each side is to blame', in exactly the same way that mostly harmless homemade rockets are equivalent to mass slaughter of hundreds of people using the finest (American) military technology.xymphora

 

[Cannuck]

Of course, the official explanation is that 'each side is to blame', in exactly the same way that mostly harmless homemade rockets are equivalent to mass slaughter of hundreds of people using the finest (American) military technology.xymphora

Nonsense! They are not the same thing and I have seen no one but you suggest this.

 

[earth_as_one]

"But as the government of Gaza, what should Hamas’s response have been to a siege that is slowly killing its people?"

Denouncing terrorism and making it abundantly clear that they are willing to work peacefully with the Israel and the rest of the world to deal with these issues would be a great first step. Neither side is innocent however Israel has at least shown a willingness to work towards peace with it's neighbors (see Egypt and Jordan).

Whenever I read or hear people discuss the Israel/Palistine in black and white, they generally lose most of their credibility.

I think you misunderstand what is going on. Israel's relationship with Jordan and Egypt is different than the people who used to live in what is now Israel. Israel isn't trying to ethnically cleanse Jordan or Egypt, nor is Israel trying to herd them into refugee camps. If they were, I imagine they would feel differently. That plus billions in bribe money from the US annually buys a lot of peace.

$50 billion later, taking stock of US aid to Egypt
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak meets with President Bush Sunday in Crawford, Texas.

By Charles Levinson | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor

CAIRO –
Amid fresh fighting by US forces in Iraq, Sunday's meeting between Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and President Bush at his Texas ranch serves as a reminder of America's deep involvement in this other key Arab nation.

Aid is central to Washington's relationship with Cairo. The US has provided Egypt with $1.3 billion a year in military aid since 1979, and an average of $815 million a year in economic assistance. All told, Egypt has received over $50 billion in US largesse since 1975.

The money is seen as bolstering Egypt's stability, support for US policies in the region, US access to the Suez Canal, and peace with Israel...

$50 billion later, taking stock of US aid to Egypt | csmonitor.com

Jordan has a similar deal.

Basically if you make peace with Israel, the US will support your dictatorship with arms, ignore your human rights violations and provide spy equipment for your secret police. The average Egyptian and Jordanian isn't too happy about it, but if they want to complain they can line up at the wall next to the soldiers with the machine guns. The offer stands for Lebanon and Syria, as soon as Israel finishes taking a portion of their countries.

In a way Palestinians President Abbas has a similar deal. He just has to look the other way as Israel screws his fellow Palestinians to get his American paycheck. Sure he can complain, just not too loudly.

 

[Cannuck]

I think you misunderstand what is going on.

I think you misunderstand my history in the ME. I assure you I understand completely.

 

[Francis2004]

earth_as_one I think you misunderstand what is going on.

I think you misunderstand my history in the ME. I assure you I understand completely.

Sometimes it is not so much misunderstanding the topic as much as trying to be understood properly..

I know for myself I have issues expressing myself many times in the right way and probably could write a small post that would make everyone say "Hey he is sooooo right" but instead they say "what the f..k are you saying man"..

 

[Cannuck]

Sometimes it is not so much misunderstanding the topic as much as trying to be understood properly..

...and sometimes it's about people unwilling to approach issues with an open mind. For the most part, discussions about the ME invariably turn into people defending their own position and beliefs and criticizing the side they disagree with.

The biggest roadblock to peace in the ME is the inability to stop looking backward and focus on the future. Most (if not all) discussions of Israeli/Arab conflicts get so bogged down in history and past wrongs that finding acceptable alternatives to the status quo become virtually impossible.

Right now, today, the first step to peace is to have all those concerned embrace peace. Hamas is not willing to do this. The current round of fighting started because of that. The fighting continues because of that. Palestinians are suffering because of that.

 

[earth_as_one]

Who told you Hamas is not willing to embrace peace? The same people who told you Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs and liniks to al Qaeda? How reliable are your sources?

The fact is Hamas recently embraced peace for four months despite repeated Israeli violations. You should read this topic:
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/international-politics/80826-our-news-lying-us-about.html

If you go back and look at Hamas's record objectively, you will see that they respect their truces with Israel, but Israel does not reciprocate. When Israel hits Hamas, Hamas hits back, truce or not.

If you look at past Hamas "truces" or hudna's, you will see that every one of them broke down initially as a result of Zionist violations, not Hamas violations.

Remember the 2003 "Roadmap to Peace"

Here is how it started:
Worldandnation: Agreements met with violence

Here is how it ended:

Five Israeli missiles incinerated Ismail Abu Shanab in Gaza City yesterday, killing one of the most powerful voices for peace in Hamas and destroying the ceasefire that Palestinian leaders believed would avert civil war.

Israeli helicopters struck the car carrying the third most senior Hamas leader in retaliation for Tuesday's suicide bombing of a Jerusalem bus on Tuesday, killing 20 mostly orthodox Jews, including six children.

The missiles also buried a seven-week ceasefire already strained by Israeli killings of Islamic militants and retaliatory suicide bombings, and threw the US-led road map to peace deeper into crisis.

Hamas declared an immediate end to the truce and vowed a bloody revenge for the death of Abu Shanab, who was married with 11 children...

Killing of Hamas leader ends truce | World news | The Guardian

Abu Shanab interview:
My Last Encounter with Ismail Abu Shanab - TIME

Why would Israel assassinate a force for peace within the Hamas leadership if Israel was interested in peace?

You will find an accurate timeline of events leading to the breakdown of the "2003 Roadmap to Peace" here:

...This is how it happened:

On August 8, Israeli soldiers killed two Hamas militants in Nablus. But the retaliation was restrained: on August 12, a Hamas suicide bomber killed one Israeli in Rosh-Ha'ayin and another bomber killed one person in the Ariel settlement. Both suicide bombers came from Nablus. Hamas announced that the hudna would continue. On August 14, the Israeli army killed Muhammad Seeder, head of the military wing of Hamas in Hebron. Five days later, on August 19, a suicide bomber from Hebron blew himself up in a Jerusalem bus, killing 20 men, women and children. Two days later, on August 21, the army assassinated Isma'il Abu-Shanab, the fourth ranking leader of Hamas.

This time it was not even possible even to pin on the victim the appellation "ticking bomb", as is usual in such cases. The man was a well-known political leader. Why was he of all people chosen for assassination? A military correspondent on Israeli TV made a slip of the tongue: Abu-Shanab was killed, he said, because he was "available". Meaning, he was an easy target because he did not go underground after the bus bombing, as did the leaders of the military wing.

This time, at long last, the aim was achieved. The Palestinian organizations announced that they were calling off the hudna. Sharon and Co. rejoiced. Within hours the Israeli army had again penetrated into the centers of the Palestinian towns, starting an orgy of arrests and house demolitions (more than 40 in a single day).

http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery08252003.html

Another example of Hamas's willingness to embrace peace:
Another Hamas Peace Plan Ignored

Obviously I disagree that "looking backward" is a roadbloack to moving forward toward peace. In fact failure to recognize how Israelis and Palestinians arrived at their current situation, is an obstacle to moving forward in a just manner. Without justice, you can't have peace.

If all you knew were today's headlines then you would be unaware of the original injustice of Israel's creation which dispossessed 800,000 Palestinians of their homes, property, bank accounts, family portraits... and turned them into nationless refugees forced to exist on UN handouts. You would not be aware of the 60+ years of injustice these people have suffered and not understand their current anger and frustration.

No, things can't go back to where they were. Creating new injustices to address old ones won't solve the problem either. (That's a root cause of the current problems).

Lookng back at words and actions can be helpful when evaluating trustworthiness. If someone commits atrocities and lies about them in the past how likely is it that they are committing and lying about their atrocities today?

In other words can you believe what the news and Israel tells us about Israel's current actions in Gaza, based on their past record?

Zionists talk about peace and living peacefully with their neighbors, but they initiate violence. Just because their propaganda machine is pretty good at convincing people otherwise doesn't mean its true.

Its a myth that the 1948 war started when Israel declared independance and was attacked by its Arab neighbors. The real name of the war should be the 1947 Zionist Ethnic Cleansing War. The fighting started in November 1947 when Zionists began their ethnic cleansing campaign in Palestine and committed a series of horrendous atrocities. They attacked and ethnically cleansed Palestinians on both sides of the UN partition. Israel's Arab neighbors had to wait until the British pulled out to intervene or risk involving the UK. The Brits waited until the Zionists achieved their objectives before leaving.

That initial injustice which Zionists try to hide all these years later is why so many peope don't understand the current situation. The Zionist Ethnic Cleansing War never ended. Its been going on for 60+ years and it won't end until Palestinians have both freedom and justice.

The current Zionist path of denying justice and committing atrocities will not lead to Israel's longterm peace and security. Zionists may kill a few of their adversaries today. But for each adversary they kill, their adversaries use their atrocities to recruit 100 more.

Eventually Zionist Israel will be defeated. Its only a matter of time. BTW, that not a hope, but a prediction of an inevitable outcome based on what I know. I don't wish to see Israelis suffer any more than I wish to see Palestinians suffer.

 

[Cannuck]

Who told you Hamas is not willing to embrace peace?

Hamas did. Its founding charter commits the group to the destruction of Israel. It's unfortunate (albeit not surprising) that you are unwilling to accept this rather simple reality.