240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

[UGAalum94]

I don't think there would have been any reason for a person to have ever believed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

Yeah, and while I agree that there are unfortunate consequences for some Palestinians, if you're (Israel) opposing a side willing to use women and children in suicide attacks, then even families are suspect.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I don't think there would have been any reason for a person to have ever believed it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

Yeah, and while I agree that there are unfortunate consequences for some Palestinians, if you're (Israel) opposing a side willing to use women and children in suicide attacks, then even families are suspect.

Ahh thanks. I guess I haven't learned not to believe everything reporters tell you! haha.

And that is definitely true about suicide bombers and such. I guess, to me it's more logical that they would be suicide bombers if they were traveling from the West Bank to Israel, instead of traveling within the West Bank (and without a British camerapeople).

[SWTXBelle]

I am concerned about the lack of media coverage in Gaza - if everything is on the up and up, why not allow reporters in? The International Red Cross has criticized Israel, which is almost unheard of. We are getting only bits and pieces of what is really going on, and of course it is being spun to death.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I am concerned about the lack of media coverage in Gaza - if everything is on the up and up, why not allow reporters in? The International Red Cross has criticized Israel, which is almost unheard of. We are getting only bits and pieces of what is really going on, and of course it is being spun to death.

Because we don't really need to know? Because they know it will be used as propaganda? Israel doesn't care what we think, and I admire that. They know what they need to do to protect themselves and they're doing it.

Israel has already been condemned by most of the "International Community" what do they have to gain with more publicity?

It's a war. The situation is going to be terrible.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Israel has already been condemned by most of the "International Community" what do they have to gain with more publicity?

We should be allowed to see if Israel's claims are correct. Like, to see if those UN schools truly had weapons, to see if Hamas really is using innocents as shields, or what the "face of Hamas" looks like. Are they 14-16 year olds like AlphaDelta claims?

I would like to see that Israel is not just the big bad wolf that is huffing & puffing and trying to blow Gaza down.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by epchick

We should be allowed to see if Israel's claims are correct. Like, to see if those UN schools truly had weapons, to see if Hamas really is using innocents as shields, or what the "face of Hamas" looks like. Are they 14-16 year olds like AlphaDelta claims?

I would like to see that Israel is not just the big bad wolf that is huffing & puffing and trying to blow Gaza down.

So that what? We'd be better able to discuss it on message board about Greek Life?

I don't think anyone disputes that that Hamas intentionally launches its rockets from civilian areas. Have you read the stories about how Israel used to call in advance to let civilians in the area know they were about to hit the area?http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/0...-calls-th.html

[UGAalum94]

It's not that that I deny Israel has innocent civilian blood on its hands from this and other previous altercations.

But I think people hold Israel to a ridiculously high standard considering the situation that it's in. It's basically surrounded by countries that harbor large groups of people who would like to see it wiped off the map. It constantly faces the possibility of attack in a way that most of us can't even imagine.

And furthermore, and this may just be a personal quirk, I have little doubt that if Israel could know without certainty that it wouldn't be attacked, the Israelis would live in peace with their neighbors. I can't say the same for the groups that plague Israel with violence.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

So that what? We'd be better able to discuss it on message board about Greek Life?

I don't think anyone disputes that that Hamas intentionally launches its rockets from civilian areas. Have you read the stories about how Israel used to call in advance to let civilians in the area know they were about to hit the area?http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/0...-calls-th.html

Seriously? Since when can we only discuss Greek-related things on here? That isn't even worth discussing.

Seeing has how the Palestinians don't have an army, every area is a civilian area.

So Israel tells Gaza residents they have 10 minutes to leave their house or else it's gonna get bombed. Where are these residents suppose to go? The neighbor's house? A UN school? Make a run for the border?

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

And furthermore, and this may just be a personal quirk, I have little doubt that if Israel could know without certainty that it wouldn't be attacked, the Israelis would live in peace with their neighbors. I can't say the same for the groups that plague Israel with violence.

Israel can't live in peace with their neighbors, because Israel refuses to try and negotiate. Hamas wants Israel to recognize the rights of Palestinians. Hamas wants to gain land back from the 1949 Armistice agreements (which Israel agreed to). Hamas wants those two things for there to be peace.

Do I think that if that stuff were to happen that there would be peace? Who knows, but if that were to happen and Hamas turns around and reneges on the agreements, then at least Israel could say they tried. Then maybe the views of the "International Community" would change, and Israel would gain more favor.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Because we don't really need to know?

"We" being the international community - since when does a country get to decide that the rest of the world doesn't "need to know"? ( and yes, there is a certain irony here,given some of the U.S. actions in and about Iraq, but it's still WRONG) Stalin did a heck of a job of keeping information we "didn't need to know" from us, I guess, as have various African and Asian leaders I can think of. We are coming up on the 20th anniversary of Tienanmen Square - do you think China thought we "needed to know" about that? So we should just forget about the whole news reporting thing - they'll let us know what we "need to know". I propose that we need to know what exactly is going on - there have been reports of Israel violating the Geneva Conventions - so let's see if it's true.

And considering the amount of aid Israel receives from the U.S., and the effort they have put forth in public relations, I think it fair to say that they care a great deal about U.S. opinion. I believe what you are interpreting as not caring about U.S. opinion is actually being so secure in what you think it is that you think you can do anything without impacting it.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

"We" being the international community - since when does a country get to decide that the rest of the world doesn't "need to know"? ( and yes, there is a certain irony here,given some of the U.S. actions in and about Iraq, but it's still WRONG) Stalin did a heck of a job of keeping information we "didn't need to know" from us, I guess, as have various African and Asian leaders I can think of. We are coming up on the 20th anniversary of Tienanmen Square - do you think China thought we "needed to know" about that? So we should just forget about the whole news reporting thing - they'll let us know what we "need to know". I propose that we need to know what exactly is going on - there have been reports of Israel violating the Geneva Conventions - so let's see if it's true.

And considering the amount of aid Israel receives from the U.S., and the effort they have put forth in public relations, I think it fair to say that they care a great deal about U.S. opinion. I believe what you are interpreting as not caring about U.S. opinion is actually being so secure in what you think it is that you think you can do anything without impacting it.

My point is more that they currently have higher priorities, like fighting a war, than convincing us that everything they are doing is great. They don't need to ask our permission to defend themselves.

And I also suspect that based on what's happened previously, they have no expectation of getting fair coverage in international reporting.

ETA: I agree with you generally that if you don't have anything to hide, then it makes sense to let the world know what you are doing. But if you know an area is completely unsafe, should you really let journalist in? I don't know, but I don't think the problem with Israel generally is suppression of the press, and if they have strategic military goals to achieve right now, I understand why that's a greater priority. Sure, Israel does get a lot of US support, but that doesn't mean we should expect to exercise prior restraint.
(And I wouldn't be surprised if the US state department had a little better information than you and I are getting. In the short term, I think that's okay.)

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

My point is more that they currently have higher priorities, like fighting a war, than convincing us that everything they are doing is great. They don't need to ask our permission to defend themselves.

And I also suspect that based on what's happened previously, they have no expectation of getting fair coverage in international reporting.

ETA: I agree with you generally that if you don't have anything to hide, then it makes sense to let the world know what you are doing. But if you know an area is completely unsafe, should you really let journalist in? I don't know, but I don't think the problem with Israel generally is suppression of the press, and if they have strategic military goals to achieve right now, I understand why that's a greater priority. Sure, Israel does get a lot of US support, but that doesn't mean we should expect to exercise prior restraint.
(And I wouldn't be surprised if the US state department had a little better information than you and I are getting. In the short term, I think that's okay.)

It's not a question of Israel's priorities - letting journalists in requires absolutely nothing from Israel other then them getting out of the way. The idea that it is appropriate for one side of an armed conflict to decide what should and should not be covered is just . . . dangerous. Journalists should decide whether or not they want to take the risks that war correspondents routinely take - that's their JOB. If journalists only went where there was no danger there is a great deal of information we would never have.

I would HOPE the State Department has better information, but I don't share your confidence. After 9/11, it's a little harder to put your trust in government oversight of security information. Let the journalists in - the more you let in, the more likely you are to get a full picture of what is actually happening. "Fair" would mean both sides getting covered, and that's not what is happening now. Let the journalists in, and while you might have some biased towards one side or the other, with the full coverage that would emerge from it you would have much more in the way of information with which to judge both sides' actions.

It seems to me that those who don't want any more information must have already decided who is right and who is wrong. In that case, sure, why bother letting journalists in?

[epchick]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But if you know an area is completely unsafe, should you really let journalist in?

Journalists have gone into Iraq & Afghanistan when it was completely unsafe. There are some journalists in Gaza (like the reporter from Anderson Cooper 360) reporting, while you can hear gunshots in the background.

"Investigative" journalism like this is dangerous. But i'm pretty sure if the Israelis have only lost 10 people since the fighting began, that the journalists might be a little safer.

[moe.ron]

The first priority in denying access to Gaza by foreign reporters have little to do with safety. It's about controlling information. They learned from the debacle in Lebanon and the mistakes US made in Iraq/Afghanistan and decided that they will tell the media what's going on. By doing this, if a correspondent reported something in Gaza, there is no way to confirmed it if no foreign journalists are in there.

For instance, the UN school bombing, the Israel government said that there was cache of weapons and that is why it's targeted. UN want an open investigation of course. What do the international press do about it, they can't investigate it to confirm that there are weapons there. So, information handled.

[SWTXBelle]

The Canadian/U.S. analogy would only be valid if you had the U.S. throwing up a blockade which prevented Canada from being able to secure basic necessities and for its citizens to be able to lead some sort of normal life. And yes, if "one hand tied behind your back" means not bombing U.N. schools, then yes, I expect them to do it. All that sophisticated military equipment, and they can't do better?

To achieve any sort of lasting peace, both sides are going to have to make some major concessions, and with the Israeli elections coming up I don't see it happening. I hope I'm wrong.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

The Canadian/U.S. analogy would only be valid if you had the U.S. throwing up a blockade which prevented Canada from being able to secure basic necessities and for its citizens to be able to lead some sort of normal life. And yes, if "one hand tied behind your back" means not bombing U.N. schools, then yes, I expect them to do it. All that sophisticated military equipment, and they can't do better?

To achieve any sort of lasting peace, both sides are going to have to make some major concessions, and with the Israeli elections coming up I don't see it happening. I hope I'm wrong.

How about when the location of rockets has particularly been chosen because of it's proximity to a school or hospital? Who is to blame for the destruction of the school, the side that takes it out or the side that deliberately used it as a shield?

I think there's been so much spin about the blockade that I can't respond to it with any accuracy. Israel claims they let "basic necessities" through. Hamas claims otherwise.

I would find a US blockade of Canada strange certainly, but if a bunch of terrorist attacks out of that area were focused on the US, and food and humanitarian aid were getting in, it still wouldn't justify rocket attacks and I'd expect the US government to do whatever it took to make the US safe.