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

[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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by epchick

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?

Well, notifying them at least allows them to escape with their lives. It's not an "or else" message as I understand it. It's a "hey, we're going to bomb this building in 10 minutes; get your family out." Which it kind of counter to the strategy of suicide bombing or random rocket fire.

Perhaps I should have said, heavily populated area vs. civilian area. My point is still that the selection of where to fire from and where to store weapons seems to be to intentionally place them in areas that will be troubling to outsiders should they get hit, rather than say a warehouse on the outskirts of town. (Here's a strike on a Mosque: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwP_LusgPAw) Is that Israel's fault? Does that mean Israel should ignore the presence of weapons that threaten its security?

I didn't mean there was anything at all wrong about our discussion. I'm obviously enjoying participating in it. I just think that we all in the US tend to think we should know stuff and that our opinions matter as much to the rest of the world as they do in our country. Knowledge of what was really happening in Gaza could theoretically change our domestic policy towards Israel, but we can probably wait until after Obama takes office to really fret too much about making a change.

ETA: Even if you knew for sure that Israel was absolutely in the wrong, what would you do? Protest? Write a letter to your political representatives? I'm not trying to single anyone out; I'm not planning any pro-Israel actions myself. I just mean there's something a little bit silly about thinking that our opinions should matter to Israel, rather than to each other talking in this thread.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Well, notifying them at least allows them to escape with their lives. It's not an "or else" message as I understand it. It's a "hey, we're going to bomb this building in 10 minutes; get your family out." Which it kind of counter to the strategy of suicide bombing or random rocket fire.

Perhaps I should have said, heavily populated area vs. civilian area. My point is still that the selection of where to fire from and where to store weapons seems to be to intentionally place them in areas that will be troubling to outsiders should they get hit, rather than say a warehouse on the outskirts of town. (Here's a strike on a Mosque: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwP_LusgPAw) Is that Israel's fault? Does that mean Israel should ignore the presence of weapons that threaten its security?

I didn't mean there was anything at all wrong about our discussion. I'm obviously enjoying participating in it. I just think that we all in the US tend to think we should know stuff and that our opinions matter as much to the rest of the world as they do in our country. Knowledge of what was really happening in Gaza could theoretically change our domestic policy towards Israel, but we can probably wait until after Obama takes office to really fret too much about making a change.

ETA: Even if you knew for sure that Israel was absolutely in the wrong, what would you do? Protest? Write a letter to your political representatives? I'm not trying to single anyone out; I'm not planning any pro-Israel actions myself. I just mean there's something a little bit silly about thinking that our opinions should matter to Israel, rather than to each other talking in this thread.

That is why i'm saying we need more media in the area. All we hear (from Israel) is that Hamas is putting their weapons and people in civilian houses, UN schools, mosques, etc. but is that fact? Has it been proven that those places really did have weapons? If Israel claims there are weapons stored in a certain location, why can't they raid the location instead of bombing it?

I think notifying them is a good thing, it allows the innocent Gazans to escape, but for how long? No place in the Gaza strip is safe, so these people are just gonna keep running from place to place everytime they get a call from Israel. It's a game of cat & mouse, eventually the people aren't gonna have anyplace to run. What's gonna happen then?

800+ Palestians have died since Dec. 27 while only 13 Israelis have died (10 of those being soldiers). You can't tell me that most of those 800+ are actual Hamas militants.


I don't think that us, as Americans, should think our opinions matters more than anothers, but I think it is in our best interest to gain as much knowledge as we can (on both sides) so that we just don't blindly support one side or the other.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by epchick

That is why i'm saying we need more media in the area. All we hear (from Israel) is that Hamas is putting their weapons and people in civilian houses, UN schools, mosques, etc. but is that fact? Has it been proven that those places really did have weapons? If Israel claims there are weapons stored in a certain location, why can't they raid the location instead of bombing it?

I think notifying them is a good thing, it allows the innocent Gazans to escape, but for how long? No place in the Gaza strip is safe, so these people are just gonna keep running from place to place everytime they get a call from Israel. It's a game of cat & mouse, eventually the people aren't gonna have anyplace to run. What's gonna happen then?

800+ Palestians have died since Dec. 27 while only 13 Israelis have died (10 of those being soldiers). You can't tell me that most of those 800+ are actual Hamas militants.


I don't think that us, as Americans, should think our opinions matters more than anothers, but I think it is in our best interest to gain as much knowledge as we can (on both sides) so that we just don't blindly support one side or the other.

Sure, but I can also understand why Israel has some higher priorities right now.

Can you see that you're sort of talking about of both sides of your mouth? On the one hand Israel shouldn't "occupy" the territories; the other hand, they shouldn't use air strikes, they should raid every suspected storage area or combatant hide-out.

And yep, I think the arms storage thing is pretty proven. Did you see the You-tube and the double explosions?

Some of the lopsidedness of the causalities lies with Hamas's methods rather than with Israel's. I'm not sure what more Israel could do, especially as it appeared that Hamas's rockets were gaining both range and accuracy. Having one hit an nuclear plant in Israel was a completely unacceptable risk.

ETA: the reason it doesn't make much sense to me is that it demands a pretty big concession from Israel when there has been absolutely no reason to think it will actually result in increased Israeli security. To the contrary, it exposes Israel to much more risk. Also, it refers to entities that don't really exist as they did in the initial treaty.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by epchick

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?



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.

I'm quoting again to address the last part.

I don't think that what's happening is because of a failure of Israel to negotiate; it's a failure to completely give in.

You may hold out more hope that I do, but the cost of "being able to say they tried" is unacceptably high.

Basically, I think that if you fight a war and win that negates having to honor a previous negotiated treaty. If the war you fought can also be cast as being defensive out your part, that's all the more reason why the previous treaty can be null. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Six_Day_War

ETA: To offer another half baked analogy, mentioning the 1949 Armistice and expecting Israel to honor it in regard to Gaza, makes about as much sense to me as if Russia sought to enforce the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbentrop-Molotov_Pact.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

You may hold out more hope that I do, but the cost of "being able to say they tried" is unacceptably high.

Basically, I think that if you fight a war and win that negates having to honor a previous negotiated treaty. If the war you fought can also be cast as being defensive out your part, that's all the more reason why the previous treaty can be null. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Six_Day_War

ETA: To offer another half baked analogy, mentioning the 1949 Armistice and expecting Israel to honor it in regard to Gaza, makes about as much sense to me as if Russia sought to enforce the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbentrop-Molotov_Pact.

Neither side is every gonna win this war. It's just going to be constant fighting over and over.

I maybe do hold out more hope, but there are gonna be high costs of negotiating and high costs of not negotiating. If Hamas is saying, "hey let's go back to the way it was in from 1949-1967, so that we can get more land for our people and everything will be cool" then why not try it? Israel got the land in 1967, and they undoubtly could regain the land back if this treaty failed.


I don't understand why it doesn't make much sense (as you mentioned in your ETA).

[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?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

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?

You know that things are being covered by both sides, right? There's a big controversy about a clip at CNN. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/...ons/index.html)

Here's there coverage now, some of it is from people in Gaza right now. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/

Here's Huffpo:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/gaza

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there's no coverage or that journalists are being kept completely out.

Here's an article on keeping the foreign press out including explanations:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102/...nalists_banned

It may not be as easy as it usually is, but I suspect that has [ETC] somewhat more to do with not want to be held responsible for killing journalists than it really does with suppressing coverage. But even if it is solely about image control, I don't think Israel has an obligation to let the foreign press in right now. Depending on how long the ban goes on, I might change my mind.

Would you have thought the US obligated to allow foreign press to cover the immediate aftermath of Hiroshima? ETA: or maybe Dresden is a better example.

Interestingly, I guess, if the Israeli press is banned and the international press is banned, Israel is willing to accept the risk that the coverage by completely by people in Gaza, favorable to Hamas.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

You know that things are being covered by both sides, right? There's a big controversy about a clip at CNN. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/...ons/index.html)

Here's there coverage now, some of it is from people in Gaza right now. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/

Here's Huffpo:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/gaza

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that there's no coverage or that journalists are being kept completely out.

Here's an article on keeping the foreign press out including explanations:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102/...nalists_banned

It may not be as easy as it usually is, but I suspect that has [ETC] somewhat more to do with not want to be held responsible for killing journalists than it really does with suppressing coverage. But even if it is solely about image control, I don't think Israel has an obligation to let the foreign press in right now. Depending on how long the ban goes on, I might change my mind.

Would you have thought the US obligated to allow foreign press to cover the immediate aftermath of Hiroshima? ETA: or maybe Dresden is a better example.

Interestingly, I guess, if the Israeli press is banned and the international press is banned, Israel is willing to accept the risk that the coverage by completely by people in Gaza, favorable to Hamas.

The article on the ban on foreign press pretty well covers what I mean when I say journalists are being kept out. So I'm sorry I didn't specify "foreign" earlier. I thought it was apparent that only foreign journalists would need permission to enter.

I wouldn't trust a resident's take on the events going on in Gaza anymore than I would trust an Israel resident's take on the events in Israel - I think it important that journalists from all over (meaning ideologically and geographically) have access. Israel knows that most people will take any Hamas/Gaza journalist's account with a grain of salt - so it's a brilliant way to undercut the credibility of any reports from there. Again, if Israel has nothing to hide the best way to prove it is to allow outside journalists in to report what is really going on in Gaza. The question of whether the CNN video is staged or not would not be such an issue if there were more press in Gaza, who would be in a position to act as a check on each other - it's tougher to stage an event if what is going on is actually being covered by a variety of media.


And yes, if journalists had wanted to go in after Hiroshima (and that was dangerous is a way that simply going into an area under fire is not) I'd say let 'em, as long as the journalists are fully briefed as to the risks.