87 and gofer,"blame the victim",isn't this what both of you have been doing regarding 9/11. Grow up.get away from the computer and go out and experience life.
Israeli Untouched War Crime Qana 1996
- Thread starter Researcher87
- Start date
That article was written by one Degborah Passner, the campus affairs director for the pro-Israel media monitoring organization CAMERA, which was once described as the pre-eminent pro-Israel propaganda pukehole. Enough said about that.
It's like getting an opinion on Hitler from Goebbels, and claiming it is unbiased.
... just cuz you say it, doesn't make it so. We need some facts here, please. Which leader? When was it said? How was it verified? Which Israeli atrocity caused that statement to be made, if it was made at all? Facts and cites please.
Once again, how about some facts please? Got an url? A cite? Back this up, please.
Got any support for this? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I would be extremely suspect of a Hezbollah action outside of its immediate geographic sphere. It would make no sense. Sounds like another Mossad false flag operation.
I never insult, Colpy. I just call it like I see it. I await a debate, but just posting things you feel like saying, without any factual basis or support, does not make you a master debater, regardless of how you may wish to picture yourself as one.
We are all at the mercy of a forum's moderator. Some of us more so than others.
I am still waiting for you to post a fact, supported by an unbiased source. From what I have read in here by you, at least in this thread, you have yet to start debating.
I see that the mods have banned Researcher despite the fact that he backed up his posts with links. By contrast, the mods have permitted certain right wingers to remain on the forum even though they do not back up their claims with proofs and resort to endless name calling and insults. Researcher and I have been subjected to innumerable insults but nothing is done by the mods to stop it. Why the double standard?
Once again, how about some facts please? Got an url? A cite? Back this up, please.
Got any support for this? I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I would be extremely suspect of a Hezbollah action outside of its immediate geographic sphere. It would make no sense. Sounds like another Mossad false flag operation.
I never insult, Colpy. I just call it like I see it. I await a debate, but just posting things you feel like saying, without any factual basis or support, does not make you a master debater, regardless of how you may wish to picture yourself as one.
We are all at the mercy of a forum's moderator. Some of us more so than others.
I am still waiting for you to post a fact, supported by an unbiased source. From what I have read in here by you, at least in this thread, you have yet to start debating.
I see that the mods have banned Researcher despite the fact that he backed up his posts with links. By contrast, the mods have permitted certain right wingers to remain on the forum even though they do not back up their claims with proofs and resort to endless name calling and insults. Researcher and I have been subjected to innumerable insults but nothing is done by the mods to stop it. Why the double standard?
Care to back that up with some facts?
I can back up the opposite with real people with real names and true stories about discussing how they dislike the Hezbollah over an Israeli shell in their livingroom.
And your ignorant immediate dismissal of globally known facts, just once again proves to an entire forum, that you are as intellegent as a turd.
Facts and Final Status Issues
Many media accounts have misrepresented the "final status" issues that are now the subject of intensive negotiations at Camp David, often distorting Oslo, UN resolutions, the demographics and history of Jerusalem, and Middle East history in general.
Thus on July 6th Reuters ran a "fact box" which grossly misstated the terms of UN Resolution 242 (passed in the wake of the June 1967 Arab war against Israel), grossly misstated the terms of UN Resolution 194 (passed in the wake of the 1948 Arab war against Israel), and greatly exaggerated the Palestinian population of the city of Jerusalem by confusing the city itself with the Palestinian Authority-designated Jerusalem Governorate, a far wider area encompassing numerous surrounding towns and villages.
In a story on July 11th the New York Times made similar errors concerning Resolution 242, informing readers that "The Palestinians want a settlement based on United Nations Resolution 242, which calls for an end to Israeli occupation of the entire West Bank and Gaza, seized in the 1967 war." That is not what the resolution says.
• UN Security Council Resolution 242
Context for the resolution: On May 15 of 1967 Egypt's President Nasser sent columns of tanks and troops - eventually numbering 1000 top line Soviet-built tanks and 100,000 troops - across the Suez Canal and into Sinai where they continued until they reached the Israeli border. The following day Nasser ordered UN peacekeeping troops to leave the border region, where they had been stationed since 1956. The UN peacekeepers complied immediately, whereupon official Egyptian radio announced:
After the war, which the Israelis won decisively, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 242, which, after difficult negotiations, was carefully worded to require that Israel withdraw from "territories" rather than "the territories." This construction, leaving out "the," was intentional, because it was not envisioned that Israel would withdraw from all the territories, thereby returning to the vulnerable pre-war borders. And any withdrawal would be such as to create "secure and recognized boundaries."
The British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution to the Council, has stated that, "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."
Our UN Ambassador at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, has stated that, "The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and the 'June 5, 1967 lines' ... the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal." This would encompass "less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure."
The reasoning of the United States and its allies at the time was clear: Any resolution which, in the face of the aggressive war launched in 1967 against Israel, required complete Israeli withdrawal, would have been seen as a reward for aggression and an invitation to future aggression. This is assuredly not what the UN voted for, or had in mind, when it passed Resolution 242.
There is one final thing to be said concerning the missing "the." Some commentators have argued that since the French "version" of 242 does contain the phrase "the territories," the resolution does in fact require total Israeli withdrawal. This is incorrect — the practice in the UN is that the binding version of any resolution is the one voted upon, which is always in the language of the introducing party. In the case of 242 that party was Great Britain, thus the binding version of 242 is in English. The French translation is irrelevant
Finally, it should also be noted that by withdrawing from Sinai after the peace treaty with Egypt, Israel has already vacated 91 percent of the territories it gained in 1967.
• UN General Assembly Resolution 194
Reuters and other media outlets have uncritically accepted Palestinian claims that Resolution 194 established a Palestinian "right to return to their homes in villages and towns now part of Israel." No such right was established; instead, in its relevant paragraph, the resolution suggested (not required, since it was passed by the General Assembly rather than the Security Council) that:
Finally it should be noted that all the Arab states voted against Resolution 194, precisely because it did not establish a "right of return," and because it implicitly recognized Israel.
• How many Palestinian refugees?
Many reporters have uncritically accepted Palestinian claims that there are today roughly 4 million Palestinian refugees, and that these people were somehow expelled from Israel. Thus, the usually reliable John McWethy on ABC's World News Tonight reported that "3.7 million refugees ... were forced out of Israel and are demanding the right to return and be compensated." Recent research by Israeli scholars such as Efraim Karsh (Fabricating Israeli History: The New Historians) have thoroughly discredited authors such as Benny Morris and Ilan Pappe who had charged Israel with mass expulsion of Palestinians during the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli war. Of course, it should be remembered that the Palestinian refugee problem was caused by this war, and that the war was initiated by the Palestinians themselves and by the five Arab states whose armies invaded Israel the day it declared independence. It should also be remembered that the roughly 550,000 Palestinian refugees were not alone — there were a similar number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries. At great expense and effort the newly born state of Israel settled these Jewish refugees. Unfortunately, the Arab states, many of them flush with oil wealth, made no such effort, often acting to keep the Palestinian refugees in continuing, festering poverty, all the better to use them as a weapon against Israel.
With regard to the Palestinian refugees today, according to the "Report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East - 1 July 1997 - 30 June 1998" there were 3,521,130 refugees as of June 30, 1998 (Table 1). However, the report (available at www.unrwa.org) also states that:
• Arabs refused Israel's 1949 offer to unconditionally admit 100,000 Palestinians
As a goodwill gesture during the Lausanne negotiations in 1949, Israel offered to take back 100,000 Palestinian refugees prior to any discussion of the refugee question. The Arab states, who had refused even to negotiate face-to-face with the Israelis, turned down the offer because it implicitly recognized Israel's existence.
Despite this, on humanitarian grounds Israel has since the 1950's allowed more than 50,000 refugees to return to Israel under a family reunification program, and between 1967 and 1993 allowed a further 75,000 to return to the West Bank or Gaza. Since the beginning of the Oslo process Israel has allowed another 90,000 Palestinians to gain residence in PA-controlled territory.
• Israeli compensation to Arabs who lost property; no Arab compensation to Jews
Arabs who lost property in Israel are eligible to file for compensation from Israel's Custodian of Absentee Property. As of the end of 1993, a total of 14,692 claims had been filed, claims were settled with respect to more than 200,000 dunums of land, more than 10,000,000 NIS (New Israeli Sheckels) had been paid in compensation, and more than 54,000 dunums of replacement land had been given in compensation. Israel has followed this generous policy despite the fact that not a single penny of compensation has ever been paid to any of the more than 500,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries, who were forced by the Arab governments to abandon their homes, businesses and savings.
• Jerusalem
Many press reports have repeated Palestinian claims that Israel is "ethnically cleansing" Jerusalem of its Arab residents. Some, like Agence France-Presse (AFP), have even used the offensive term "judaisation" (July 5, 2000). Once again the facts are otherwise — since 1967 Jerusalem's Arab population has grown faster than its Jewish population. For example in the period 1967 - 1996 the city's Jewish population grew by 113.1 percent, while its Arab population grew by 163.7 percent. Similarly, home construction in the Arab sector also outpaced home construction in the Jewish sector.
[SIZE=-2]rev 11/03/2000[/SIZE]
UN Security Council Resolution 242
The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter.
1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2. Affirms further the necessity:
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3. Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
4. Requests the Secretary General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Copyright © 2000 by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. All rights reserved. This column may be reprinted without prior permission.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] © CAMERA • 2005 • All rights reserved [/FONT]Home [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
Many media accounts have misrepresented the "final status" issues that are now the subject of intensive negotiations at Camp David, often distorting Oslo, UN resolutions, the demographics and history of Jerusalem, and Middle East history in general.
Thus on July 6th Reuters ran a "fact box" which grossly misstated the terms of UN Resolution 242 (passed in the wake of the June 1967 Arab war against Israel), grossly misstated the terms of UN Resolution 194 (passed in the wake of the 1948 Arab war against Israel), and greatly exaggerated the Palestinian population of the city of Jerusalem by confusing the city itself with the Palestinian Authority-designated Jerusalem Governorate, a far wider area encompassing numerous surrounding towns and villages.
In a story on July 11th the New York Times made similar errors concerning Resolution 242, informing readers that "The Palestinians want a settlement based on United Nations Resolution 242, which calls for an end to Israeli occupation of the entire West Bank and Gaza, seized in the 1967 war." That is not what the resolution says.
• UN Security Council Resolution 242
Context for the resolution: On May 15 of 1967 Egypt's President Nasser sent columns of tanks and troops - eventually numbering 1000 top line Soviet-built tanks and 100,000 troops - across the Suez Canal and into Sinai where they continued until they reached the Israeli border. The following day Nasser ordered UN peacekeeping troops to leave the border region, where they had been stationed since 1956. The UN peacekeepers complied immediately, whereupon official Egyptian radio announced:
As of today there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain anymore to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which shall result in the termination of Zionist existence.
On May 22 Egypt blockaded Israel's southern port of Eilat, under international law a casus belli, or act of war. On May 27 Nasser stated "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel," and the following day he stated "We will not accept any ... coexistence with Israel."
After the war, which the Israelis won decisively, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 242, which, after difficult negotiations, was carefully worded to require that Israel withdraw from "territories" rather than "the territories." This construction, leaving out "the," was intentional, because it was not envisioned that Israel would withdraw from all the territories, thereby returning to the vulnerable pre-war borders. And any withdrawal would be such as to create "secure and recognized boundaries."
The British UN Ambassador at the time, Lord Caradon, who introduced the resolution to the Council, has stated that, "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."
Our UN Ambassador at the time, former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, has stated that, "The notable omissions - which were not accidental - in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and the 'June 5, 1967 lines' ... the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal." This would encompass "less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territory, inasmuch as Israel's prior frontiers had proved to be notably insecure."
The reasoning of the United States and its allies at the time was clear: Any resolution which, in the face of the aggressive war launched in 1967 against Israel, required complete Israeli withdrawal, would have been seen as a reward for aggression and an invitation to future aggression. This is assuredly not what the UN voted for, or had in mind, when it passed Resolution 242.
There is one final thing to be said concerning the missing "the." Some commentators have argued that since the French "version" of 242 does contain the phrase "the territories," the resolution does in fact require total Israeli withdrawal. This is incorrect — the practice in the UN is that the binding version of any resolution is the one voted upon, which is always in the language of the introducing party. In the case of 242 that party was Great Britain, thus the binding version of 242 is in English. The French translation is irrelevant
Finally, it should also be noted that by withdrawing from Sinai after the peace treaty with Egypt, Israel has already vacated 91 percent of the territories it gained in 1967.
• UN General Assembly Resolution 194
Reuters and other media outlets have uncritically accepted Palestinian claims that Resolution 194 established a Palestinian "right to return to their homes in villages and towns now part of Israel." No such right was established; instead, in its relevant paragraph, the resolution suggested (not required, since it was passed by the General Assembly rather than the Security Council) that:
refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date ... [R]epatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of refugees and payment of compensation [should be facilitated].
Thus the resolution required any returning Palestinian refugees to first accept living at peace with their neighbors in Israel, therefore accepting Israel's right to exist. Very few of those refugees, even today, seem truly willing to accept this. It should also be noted that (1) the resolution applies equally to Palestinian refugees from Israel, and to the similar number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries who came to Israel after 1948, and (2) that it placed repatriation, resettlement, and payment of compensation on an equal footing.
Finally it should be noted that all the Arab states voted against Resolution 194, precisely because it did not establish a "right of return," and because it implicitly recognized Israel.
• How many Palestinian refugees?
Many reporters have uncritically accepted Palestinian claims that there are today roughly 4 million Palestinian refugees, and that these people were somehow expelled from Israel. Thus, the usually reliable John McWethy on ABC's World News Tonight reported that "3.7 million refugees ... were forced out of Israel and are demanding the right to return and be compensated." Recent research by Israeli scholars such as Efraim Karsh (Fabricating Israeli History: The New Historians) have thoroughly discredited authors such as Benny Morris and Ilan Pappe who had charged Israel with mass expulsion of Palestinians during the 1948-49 Arab-Israeli war. Of course, it should be remembered that the Palestinian refugee problem was caused by this war, and that the war was initiated by the Palestinians themselves and by the five Arab states whose armies invaded Israel the day it declared independence. It should also be remembered that the roughly 550,000 Palestinian refugees were not alone — there were a similar number of Jewish refugees from Arab countries. At great expense and effort the newly born state of Israel settled these Jewish refugees. Unfortunately, the Arab states, many of them flush with oil wealth, made no such effort, often acting to keep the Palestinian refugees in continuing, festering poverty, all the better to use them as a weapon against Israel.
With regard to the Palestinian refugees today, according to the "Report of the Commissioner-General of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East - 1 July 1997 - 30 June 1998" there were 3,521,130 refugees as of June 30, 1998 (Table 1). However, the report (available at www.unrwa.org) also states that:
UNRWA registration figures are based on information voluntarily supplied by refugees primarily for the purpose of obtaining access to Agency services, and hence cannot be considered statistically valid demographic data; the number of registered refugees present in the Agency's area of operations is almost certainly less that the population recorded.
Moreover, not only does the UN admit the figures are of doubtful accuracy, there being obvious reason for families to claim more members and thereby receive more aid, the UN also admits that the total includes 1,463,064 Jordanian citizens, who cannot by any stretch be considered refugees. Indeed, if they are refugees, then the more than 500,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries who came to Israel after 1948 were nonetheless still refugees even after receiving Israeli citizenship, as are their descendants (since, in these claims, descendants of Palestinian refugees are themselves considered refugees). That is, there would be in Israel today at least 2 million Jewish refugees from Arab countries. Whether or not one accepts that the descendants of refugees are themselves refugees, if the claims of the Palestinian refugees are now being discussed, so should the claims of these Jewish refugees.
• Arabs refused Israel's 1949 offer to unconditionally admit 100,000 Palestinians
As a goodwill gesture during the Lausanne negotiations in 1949, Israel offered to take back 100,000 Palestinian refugees prior to any discussion of the refugee question. The Arab states, who had refused even to negotiate face-to-face with the Israelis, turned down the offer because it implicitly recognized Israel's existence.
Despite this, on humanitarian grounds Israel has since the 1950's allowed more than 50,000 refugees to return to Israel under a family reunification program, and between 1967 and 1993 allowed a further 75,000 to return to the West Bank or Gaza. Since the beginning of the Oslo process Israel has allowed another 90,000 Palestinians to gain residence in PA-controlled territory.
• Israeli compensation to Arabs who lost property; no Arab compensation to Jews
Arabs who lost property in Israel are eligible to file for compensation from Israel's Custodian of Absentee Property. As of the end of 1993, a total of 14,692 claims had been filed, claims were settled with respect to more than 200,000 dunums of land, more than 10,000,000 NIS (New Israeli Sheckels) had been paid in compensation, and more than 54,000 dunums of replacement land had been given in compensation. Israel has followed this generous policy despite the fact that not a single penny of compensation has ever been paid to any of the more than 500,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries, who were forced by the Arab governments to abandon their homes, businesses and savings.
• Jerusalem
Many press reports have repeated Palestinian claims that Israel is "ethnically cleansing" Jerusalem of its Arab residents. Some, like Agence France-Presse (AFP), have even used the offensive term "judaisation" (July 5, 2000). Once again the facts are otherwise — since 1967 Jerusalem's Arab population has grown faster than its Jewish population. For example in the period 1967 - 1996 the city's Jewish population grew by 113.1 percent, while its Arab population grew by 163.7 percent. Similarly, home construction in the Arab sector also outpaced home construction in the Jewish sector.
[SIZE=-2]rev 11/03/2000[/SIZE]
UN Security Council Resolution 242
The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter.
1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2. Affirms further the necessity:
(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3. Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
4. Requests the Secretary General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Copyright © 2000 by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. All rights reserved. This column may be reprinted without prior permission.[/FONT]
[/FONT]http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=16&x_article=1205
This one is just as good Colpy
This one is just as good Colpy
awww rats... I missed this one when I commented on your willingness to stay outta the mud...
BBC-WATCH: BBC Injects Anti-Israel Focus in Baghdad-U.N. Story
The BBC continues to distort news about Israel, and appears to seek out ways of presenting Israel in an unfavorable light. For example, in an August 20, 2003 online article (“UN: Human Cost of Intervention”) about deaths of U.N. staff in various world conflicts, the article’s Middle East incidents include only those involving Israel and that information is skewed.
Ignoring numerous more recent killings of U.N. staff by Muslim or Arab terrorists, BBC instead cited the 1948 assassination of Count Bernadotte by “Israeli extremists,” calling it “one of the most infamous killings in the organization's history.” The article fails to note that the group responsible for Bernadotte's death was disbanded and members of the group were prosecuted and sentenced to jail for the crime, to be released later under an amnesty program.
The article’s only other Middle East reference is the 1996 incident at the U.N. compound in Qana, Lebanon, which the article calls “the worst attack ever on a UN site,” failing to inform readers that Israel was targeting a Hizballah missile launching site — not the U.N. compound. And if this is an article about the loss of life among U.N. personnel, why is the Qana incident even mentioned? No U.N. personnel died in that attack, although many civilians tragically died. The only photo in the article is curiously not of any U.N. personnel killed, but one showing the aftermath of the Israeli strike at Qana.
Although the article notes Israel's insistence that it was an accident, the BBC's rendition of events in Qana offers no context. It omits that minutes before the Israeli strike in Qana, Israel had been attacked with missiles by Hizballah from a site next to the U.N. compound, a fact noted in the U.N.'s own report. (U.N. Report on Israel's Bombing of the United Nations Compound at Qana, Lebanon, May 7, 1996.)
When Israel struck back at Hizballah’s missile launch site, it inadvertently bombed the U.N. compound nearby, unintentionally harming numerous civilians who had, unbeknownst to Israel, taken refuge there.
The U.N. report further indicates that two or three of the Hizballah terrorists themselves entered the U.N. camp, which the BBC also chose to ignore. In fact, before the tragedy, the U.N. knew about Hizballah’s missile launch site being so close to their compound and attempted to put a stop to it but failed. Time Magazine reported:
More recently in March, 2002, the two members of the U.N. Temporary International Presence in Hebron were killed, and another member was wounded. The wounded officer, Captain Ozarslan of Turkey, reported:
The BBC also omits the ironic fact that U.N. Resolutions have supported terror attacks of the sort just witnessed in Baghdad. Numerous resolutions have endorsed “struggles for liberation from colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle.” (See, for example, U.N. General Assembly Resolutions 3070 and 3328.)
To view the BBC article, click here.
For more on BBC, click here.
The BBC continues to distort news about Israel, and appears to seek out ways of presenting Israel in an unfavorable light. For example, in an August 20, 2003 online article (“UN: Human Cost of Intervention”) about deaths of U.N. staff in various world conflicts, the article’s Middle East incidents include only those involving Israel and that information is skewed.
Ignoring numerous more recent killings of U.N. staff by Muslim or Arab terrorists, BBC instead cited the 1948 assassination of Count Bernadotte by “Israeli extremists,” calling it “one of the most infamous killings in the organization's history.” The article fails to note that the group responsible for Bernadotte's death was disbanded and members of the group were prosecuted and sentenced to jail for the crime, to be released later under an amnesty program.
The article’s only other Middle East reference is the 1996 incident at the U.N. compound in Qana, Lebanon, which the article calls “the worst attack ever on a UN site,” failing to inform readers that Israel was targeting a Hizballah missile launching site — not the U.N. compound. And if this is an article about the loss of life among U.N. personnel, why is the Qana incident even mentioned? No U.N. personnel died in that attack, although many civilians tragically died. The only photo in the article is curiously not of any U.N. personnel killed, but one showing the aftermath of the Israeli strike at Qana.
Although the article notes Israel's insistence that it was an accident, the BBC's rendition of events in Qana offers no context. It omits that minutes before the Israeli strike in Qana, Israel had been attacked with missiles by Hizballah from a site next to the U.N. compound, a fact noted in the U.N.'s own report. (U.N. Report on Israel's Bombing of the United Nations Compound at Qana, Lebanon, May 7, 1996.)
When Israel struck back at Hizballah’s missile launch site, it inadvertently bombed the U.N. compound nearby, unintentionally harming numerous civilians who had, unbeknownst to Israel, taken refuge there.
The U.N. report further indicates that two or three of the Hizballah terrorists themselves entered the U.N. camp, which the BBC also chose to ignore. In fact, before the tragedy, the U.N. knew about Hizballah’s missile launch site being so close to their compound and attempted to put a stop to it but failed. Time Magazine reported:
[SIZE=-1]Two days before, a Fijian Blue Helmet tried to persuade Hizballah fighters not to strike from a site close to another U.N. post up the road. They shot him in the chest. “We are breaking our backs to stop Hizballah from using the U.N. as a shield,” [said] U.N. spokeswoman Sylvana Foa. “Now it's gone to hell in a handbasket.” (Time Magazine, April 29, 1996, “Dark with Blood; Israel Tried to Bomb Hizballah into Submission. But a ‘Grave Error’ Slaughtered More than 100 Lebanese Civilians. Can Diplomacy Do Anything?”)[/SIZE]
It is telling that the BBC also chose to ignore other recent and notable events in the Middle East involving the murders of U.N. personnel. For example, the kidnapping (February 17, 1988) and brutal execution (July 31, 1989) of Lieutenant Colonel William Higgins, Chief of the U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon, goes unmentioned in the article.
More recently in March, 2002, the two members of the U.N. Temporary International Presence in Hebron were killed, and another member was wounded. The wounded officer, Captain Ozarslan of Turkey, reported:
[SIZE=-1]“We saw a Palestinian standing in the middle of the road. The (car’s) lights were on and we saw him. He was in a Palestinian police force uniform. He was carrying a Kalachnikov. We shouted towards him, ‘We are TIPH, don't shoot.’” When they stopped their car, Ozarslan said, “there was only 5 to 6 meters between the men and our car and he didn't stop (shooting). We told him we are from TIPH and he didn't care. He kept shooting toward us.” (“Two Observers Killed in Hebron,” UPI, by Joshua Brilliant, March 26, 2002.) [/SIZE]
Even this recent concrete example escapes the BBC's notice.
The BBC also omits the ironic fact that U.N. Resolutions have supported terror attacks of the sort just witnessed in Baghdad. Numerous resolutions have endorsed “struggles for liberation from colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle.” (See, for example, U.N. General Assembly Resolutions 3070 and 3328.)
To view the BBC article, click here.
For more on BBC, click here.
OH RIGHT!
And you guys post stuff from The Lone Gunmen Incorporated, and expect us to swallow it whole!
The writer footnotes what is down as FACT, so you'll have to DEBUNK it. Is every source she quotes anti-Arab?
Saying "Oh, I don't trust your sources, because I don't agree with their political stance" does NOT constitute DEBATE. There is no such thing as an "unbiased source" on ANY controversial topic, and especially not on the Arab-Israel conflict.
The quotes are legitimate, the murders in Argentina happened, Hezbollah does wish to destroy Israel, YOU need to prove otherwise.
As well, if you want to do comparisons to Hitler and Goebbels, you'd best be looking in the mirror. We're DEFENDING the Jews against those that would murder them all.
And you didn't even bother to address my free-standing post on why I support Israel.
So, pick one, are you intellectually lazy? A supporter of genocide against Jews? An Arab propagandist? Or just not that bright?
You know Colpy, I really like CAMERA, because it provides proof of their sources, and those sources provide proof for their sources. Not to mention that they directly refer to the UN resilutions. Unlike the links the anti'ist crowd give us. Like al-jazeere and so on. If it's anti Israel, it's fact, if it's pro truth, it's pro Israel, so it must be hog wash. Love that justification proccess?
BTW, edited to add...
I'm leaning to the latter, in your questions to QE.
To address your inaccuracies......
1. Lebanon, Egypt, Palestine, and even Iran all have elections. And just like the US, sometimes the results are in question. But more often than not, people like you keep pontificating about democracy, as long as the results suit you, and not the actual people living there. Israel is no rule of law oasis there. They use unarmed Palestinian women for target practice just within the past couple of days. If this is your idea of rule of law, then it is truly twisted.
2. Got any facts and figures, or am I just supposed to go on your say-so?
3. We have seen what happens against an unarmed Arab country with peace loving Israel. Lebanon was almost bombed back to the stone age. Look at Palestine....war crimes by the Israeli regime on a daily basis against a relatively unarmed, captive population. Sorry Colpy, but there is no truth whatsoever to your 3rd fallacy.
4. What that tells me is that, as you mentioned earlier, Israel accepts all Jewish people with open arms, and that is where many choose to go.
It is truly sad that you delude yourself into justifying any number of dead, by laying the blame on Lebanese patriots, and not the unwarranted aggressive acts of a regime that cares not one iota for civilian life if it is an Arab one.
You are using doublespeak. How very Orwellian of you, Colpy.
No problem, here is a reference to the poll.
"The poll reflected this as well, stating that 80 percent of Christians supported Hezbollah, alog with 80 percent of the Druze and 89 percent of the Sunnis."
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/lebanon/000441.php
When Israel struck back at Hizballah’s missile launch site, it inadvertently bombed the U.N. compound nearby, unintentionally harming numerous civilians who had, unbeknownst to Israel, taken refuge there.
The U.N. report further indicates that two or three of the Hizballah terrorists themselves entered the U.N. camp, which the BBC also chose to ignore. In fact, before the tragedy, the U.N. knew about Hizballah’s missile launch site being so close to their compound and attempted to put a stop to it but failed. Time Magazine reported:
[SIZE=-1]Two days before, a Fijian Blue Helmet tried to persuade Hizballah fighters not to strike from a site close to another U.N. post up the road. They shot him in the chest. “We are breaking our backs to stop Hizballah from using the U.N. as a shield,” [said] U.N. spokeswoman Sylvana Foa. “Now it's gone to hell in a handbasket.” (Time Magazine, April 29, 1996, “Dark with Blood; Israel Tried to Bomb Hizballah into Submission. But a ‘Grave Error’ Slaughtered More than 100 Lebanese Civilians. Can Diplomacy Do Anything?”)[/SIZE]
No the double speak comes from the ones that have to back peddle on their defence of terrorist organizations.
No the double speak comes from the ones that have to back peddle on their defence of terrorist organizations.
They were gomer...
When Israel struck back at Hizballah’s missile launch site, it inadvertently bombed the U.N. compound nearby, unintentionally harming numerous civilians who had, unbeknownst to Israel, taken refuge there.
The U.N. report further indicates that two or three of the Hizballah terrorists themselves entered the U.N. camp, which the BBC also chose to ignore. In fact, before the tragedy, the U.N. knew about Hizballah’s missile launch site being so close to their compound and attempted to put a stop to it but failed. Time Magazine reported:
[SIZE=-1]Two days before, a Fijian Blue Helmet tried to persuade Hizballah fighters not to strike from a site close to another U.N. post up the road. They shot him in the chest. “We are breaking our backs to stop Hizballah from using the U.N. as a shield,” [said] U.N. spokeswoman Sylvana Foa. “Now it's gone to hell in a handbasket.” (Time Magazine, April 29, 1996, “Dark with Blood; Israel Tried to Bomb Hizballah into Submission. But a ‘Grave Error’ Slaughtered More than 100 Lebanese Civilians. Can Diplomacy Do Anything?”)[/SIZE]
The writer Passner is a pure propagandist, Colpy. It's like trying to sift through the filth and lies of Goebbels. It would take a lifetime to do, and so the shorthand solution is to address it for the worthless crap it is. If you choose to follow crap, and absorb it into your brain as fact, well, then that pretty much tells you what your head is filled with.
If you can come up with an unbiased source (your ilk never really can, can it?) then that is one thing, but to spout propagand as fact merely displays to the readers of this forum, your ignorance. Apparently it may be a willing ignorance, and not accidental at all.
The people in the Middle East do not want to murder all the Jewish people. All Arab countries are on record that if Israel sets it's borders to those of 1967, they will all sign peace treaties with Israel.
End of story. Why won't Israel do that? There is a total peace offer on the table, right now. If the Arab people were set on killing all Jewish people, there would be no peace offer in existence. Sorry if that fact rocks your delusional existence.
I'm all for that peace offer, Colpy. I don't like to see anyone die, not Jewish, not Arab, not Christian, not anyone. You see, I'm not like you. I do not advocate state-sponsored mass-murder simply bwecause the victims are Arab, like you do. I wish it would all stop, and Israel can make it stop, by accepting it's neighbor's peace offer. Israel has ALL the power: it stopped being the victim thousands of Arab deaths ago.
The UN compound was in touch with the IDF at the time of the bombing, about 10 times, warning the Israelis they were getting too close ot the clearly marked UN building. But Israel used laser-guided precision missiles/bombs and killed them anyways. you see, they beauty of a laser-guided missile is that there is no mistake. It hits exactly where it is intended to hit.
One wonders exactly what Israeli atrocities the unarmed UN observers saw, that had Israel so worried that they had to murder them.