Can you look at this map and say Israel does not systemically appropriate land?

The sort of bigot who likes to suck up to Holocaust deniers like Carloslebaron. Oralboy is filth pure and simple, he has no redeemable features whatsoever, and his continued existence is a stain on humanity.

The Palestinian move in the UN Security Council was defeated. It didn't even have enough votes to pass.

No word on the European alternative, or Germany's proposed modification to the European alternative.

The Palestinians are now launching an official bid to join the ICC.

Of course, trying doesn't mean succeeding.

It'll be better for all if the Palestinians fail, but it will be interesting to see what moves Israel makes in response if the Palestinians succeed.

I'd like to see Israel finish building the Security Fence, declare it as their official border, and annex everything to the west of it.

If the Palestinians succeed in joining, it'll be interesting to see their reaction when they end up being tried in the ICC instead of the Israelis.

Only proves how inhumane you are.

'Do's' and 'Don’ts': Things I Learned Writing about the Middle East | Ramzy Baroud
Author : Ramzy Baroud

Ramzy BaroudRamzy BaroudRamzy Baroud -- World News Trust

Jan. 1, 2014

Writing and reporting about the Middle East is not an easy task, especially during these years of turmoil and upheaval.

Following and reporting on these constant changes without a deep and compassionate understanding of the region will achieve little but predictable and lackluster content that offers nothing original, but recycled old ideas and stereotypes.

From my humble experience in the region, I share these “do's” and “don’ts” as to how the Middle East should be approached in writing and reporting.

Question Terminology

To start with, the term “Middle East” is itself highly questionable. It is arbitrary, and can only be understood within proximity to some other entity, Europe, whose colonial endeavors imposed such classifications on the rest of the word.

To question the term “Middle East” is to become conscious of the colonial history, and the enduringly fierce economic and political competition that is felt in every facet of life in the region. Keep this in mind and learn to question many other terms: extremist, radical, moderate, terrorist, pro-western, liberal, socialist, Islamist, Islamic, anti-Islamist, secularist, and so on. These are mostly misleading labels. They might not mean at all what you think they do. Their use is often political as opposed to direct reference to an ideological or political position.

Learn the Language

If your reporting is intrinsically linked to the Middle East, then you must learn a language. If you are not an Arabic-speaking journalist, you must invest the time to learn Arabic (or Farsi, Turkish, etc, depending on the specific region of your interest). Even a local companion would hardly help bridge the language divide, for she/he is likely to have their own biases and limitations. Moreover, much is often omitted and lost in translation.

Speaking the native language will gain you more than access, but trust as well, and help you develop real compassion with people who are in greater need to be heard.

Start at the Bottom

Arundhati Roy is quoted as saying: “There's really no such thing as the 'voiceless.' There are only the deliberately silenced, or the preferably unheard.”

Every Middle Eastern country has its educated elites. They are often approached by the media out of convenience. They often speak one foreign language or another; they know what a sound bite is, they don’t require much training; and they are always ready with their talking points. Although they may be the ideal media guest, they may be the least-qualified to comment on a story.

Your best bet as a reporter is to start from the bottom, the people who are mostly affected by whatever story you are reporting: the victims, their families, eyewitnesses, and the community as a whole. While such voices are often neglected or used as content fillers, they should become the center of any serious reporting from the region, especially in areas that are torn by war and conflict.

Side with the Victim, but be Careful

True, there might be more than one side to the same story, but that should not be the driving force of your reporting.

Start by being aware of your limitations to report on a story without feeling sympathy towards people who are the subject of your report: a Syrian mother separated from her children, a Gaza father, who lost his wife and five kids to Israeli bombs, an Egyptian democracy activist on a prolonged hunger strike, and so on.

One of the greatest flaws in how the Syria war is reported is the simplistic and polarizing approach and terminology. Most media weep for the Syrian people, but the victim and victimizer differs when seen from the perspective of Al Jazeera vs. Al Mayadeen, to Press TV, to Russia Today, to Fox News, to the BBC. Manipulating who qualifies to be a victim, is a highly political question with far-reaching consequences.

Learn History

Consider this, a once fringe group like the Houthis of Yemen is becoming the kingmaker of a country, whose central government is by name only, and whose military is divided between sectarian, regional and tribal allegiances. How is one to report on this fairly new phenomenon without developing a solid understanding of Yemeni history and historical divides, regional and international politics that have greatly disturbed any sense of normalcy in that Arab country for decades?

History is essential to understanding any conflict in the region, because every single conflict has its own protracted history. Understanding this history is essential to fathoming the complexity of the present.

Raise Questions

Don’t be afraid to raise questions and provide context that you, and, at times, only you believe is essential to the story.

The so-called Islamic State (IS) is a relevant example. Virtually unknown few years ago, IS is now supposedly the greatest danger facing the Middle East, as its oddly composed, but well-armed battalions are moving in multiple directions, leaving in their wake gory stories of death and destruction. But how is one to position a story of this magnitude? What would be a proper context?

Remember, no such major upheavals happen in a vacuum. Dare to question the motives in the selective reporting of others.

Avoid Subjective Language

Don’t use the words “terrorist” and “terrorism” unless in proper context. You are not the judge of who is and who is not a terrorist, a term that doesn’t reference a fact but a political perspective. There are many such terminologies that are pitfalls that could compromise the credibility of your reporting.

Don’t Be a Tourist

Reporting, especially from conflict zone is a huge responsibility. Sometimes, misleading reporting can cost lives. Avoid the passer-by casual reporting, as in a young New Zealander hopping from Yemen, to Bahrain, to Egypt, to Tunisia in two weeks, producing a whole number of articles for whatever outlet willing to publish, but without scratching the surface of a story. Five days in Sana’a and a week in Bahrain, doesn’t make you an international reporter, doesn’t give your insight much merit and, frankly does a disservice to the profession. You cannot possibly inform others of what you hardly comprehend.

Don’t Get Too involved

The opposite of the hopping reporter is the “expert” journalist, westerners and others who spend many years reporting from a single country. They can be enormously helpful in conveying a truly authentic story, with consistency over time. The pitfall however is that some get too involved, thus taking sides and falling into the trap of the divided politics of the areas from which they report. Lebanon is rife with such examples. Also, Kurdistan in northern Iraq, for it was accessible to western journalists for many years. Thanks to them, much of the Iraq story in skewed and one-sided.

Don’t Generalize

When your interest in the Middle East is centered on a single topic, for example, the Arab Spring, you are deemed to oversimplify and generalize. You are compelled to look for common dominators between “Arab Spring countries”, while willfully dismissing all else.

Avoid generalizations to a fault. It will require more research on your part, but that is what sets a serious reporter from others.

And finally, always remember, writing and reporting are a learned process, and there is always something new for all of us to learn. So remain humble, and always welcome the opportunity to learn new things.

- Ramzy Baroud has been writing about the Middle East for over 20 years. He is an internationally-syndicated columnist, a media consultant, an author of several books and the founder of PalestineChronicle.com. He is currently completing his PhD studies at the University of Exeter. His latest book is My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story (Pluto Press, London).

True, I found myself ashamed that we always side with Israel in the end no matter the context. If we had sided with Palestinians having a state with Israel still voting no, would it have still failed? If so, how will it ever pass? It doesn't matter what agreements are reached, Israel is not going to allow an independent Palestine capable of being part of the world community out from under their thumb.

Source

One of the landowners in the Palestinevillage is an American citizen, Israel Radio reported.

Source

I saw that on yahoo news. Wonder how or if it will portrayed in the US media. I tell you, after almost twenty years on the message boards, I have lost any illusions I may have had with world politics and our place in it.

I personally think the right in the US can let go any of their notions of Obama being a Muslim or in any way sympathetic with Palestinians.

I'm really interested in hearing what Mr. Netanyahu will do in response.

Hopefully he will see a need to clarify Israel's border with the alleged Palestinian state, and so will finish building the Security Fence around Jerusalem and in other areas where Israel has so far bowed to pressure not to build it, and then declare it as Israel's official border and annex all land to the west.

Even if they declare the Security Fence as their official border, Israel is still justified in retaining full military control over all of Area C due to the fact that the Palestinians are aggressors who refuse to ever make peace.

I understand that the United States is likely to respond by cutting off all funding to the Palestinian Authority and collapsing their government.

It is very unlikely that anything that CI says is ever true.



There is NEVER any shame in siding with the good guys.



That question does not make sense.



"It" seems to refer to something within the nonsense question that you asked just above, so this question also is unanswerable.

(I'm not trying to be offensive. I just can't give an answer if the question makes no sense.)



If you want to be ashamed of something, you should be ashamed of the false accusation that you just made against Israel.

Israel has offered the Palestinians an independent state over and over and over and over again if only the Palestinians would make peace with them. The Palestinians always reply by murdering as many innocent Israelis as they can (children if they can manage it).

The US and Israel along with a couple of other countries under US pressure voted against Palestinian resolution calling for Israeli withdrawal from the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem and the establishment of a Palestinian state by late 2017.

However, Revelette, even if the draft had received the minimum nine votes in favor, it would have been defeated by Washington's vote against it. The United States is one of the five veto-wielding permanent members.

The US consistently votes in favor of Israel and vetoes any votes against the Zionist nation, even when it's obvious Israel has committed crimes against humanity....like in 2006 when Israel sensed they were losing the war, they resorted to using white phosphorus chemical (similar to a nerve gas) against Hezbollah in Lebanon. AIPAC, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has tremendous clout with the US congress; this special interest group contributes huge sums of money to most congressmen/women regardless of party affiliation to guarantee the US dance to Israel's tune. AIPAC's power is so dynamic and controlling within the American congress that it's often speculated Israel is in charge of the Israeli/Palestinian policy.

Well, that was the case before Obama who is not controlled by Israel and on the contrary there is much tension between the two leaders. Obama threatened Netanyahu with dropping UNSC Veto if they did not halt the settlements. Still, President Obama does not really do much to upset the applecart for Israel and has asked Israel to put a halt to the settlements. One leak out of the Israeli government was said by Lieberman, that "Obama will not always be president."

The US vetoes all UN resolutions against Israel and this has only succeeded in making the Zionist nation more defiant and rebellious as well as creating many Israeli enemies. Out of all the problems in the middle east, the intransigent Israeli/Palestinian conflict is like a metastasizing cancer with ripples throughout the middle east. The US has made many enemies because of its double standard regarding Israel and is not trusted in the middle east by Israeli leaders. The Palestinians ask Israel to stop building settlements until the two sides have reached an agreement regarding borders; Israel tells the US, "NO" they will settle the issue of settlements in the final stages of the Peace talks. It's like two people arguing over a piece of cheese; Israel continue chipping away at the cheese while talking to the Palestinians about a two-state solution. At the rate this scenario is going pretty soon there will be no cheese/land to argue over because Israel would have gobbled it all up or built so many settlement there simply is no land left to build a Palestinian state.

Oops! The above statement is wrong and should read:

"The US has made many enemies because of its double standard regarding Israel and is not trusted in the middle east by Israeli neighbors."

Stop lying, Adolf. Israel has never committed any Crimes Against Humanity.



Again stop lying. White phosphorous is nothing whatsoever like nerve gas. It is a legitimate weapon used by most of the world's militaries. The US military recently made ample use of it in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The notion that Israel was ever losing the war is silly. Israel wreaked substantial destruction in Lebanon.



No such double standard.



Even if that were true, it's the Palestinians' own fault that the process drags on without them ever making peace.

And you are neglecting the reality that, if there were ever a peace agreement, all land going to the Palestinians would have the settlements withdrawn from it, just as settlements were withdrawn from Sinai and Gaza before that land was handed over.

By the Palestinians joining the ICC, both the Zionist leadership and the militant Palestinian leadership, such as Hamas, stand to be charged with various crimes.

The difference between the two, however, is that the Zionist leadership takes matters into its own hands and kills or imprisons militant Palestinian suspects while enjoying complete immunity for its own crimes.

That both extremists, the Zionists and the Palestinian militants, would be subject to persecution would play to the benefit of Fatah.

In regard to retaliatory threats by the Zionists and their lap dog, the US government, Palestinian observer, Riyad Mansour said: "It is really puzzling when you seek justice through a legal approach to be punished for doing so."

Ironically, with the US' threat to withhold its $400 million financial assistance to the Palestinians which would probably collapse the PA government, the farcical "Two-State Solution" of the ethnocentrists would also collapse, and the Zionists would have to deal with the enfranchisement of the Palestinian peoples within their own government thereby effecting a single, bi-national state.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.635096

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4610735,00.html

Both statements are correct. Israelis loathe the US and accept us as a necessary evil.

almost 7 years on, i'm happy to report that i haven't lost any of my ability to see or speak, and so i can still look at this map and say, "Israel does not systemically appropriate land?"

i'm still not sure if the statement is true, nor do i care, but at least it would seem i haven't suffered a stroke or some other serious cognitive injury, though others might argue the point

Hell no!
Israel OWNS the USA! The USA licks Israles arse!!

I agree that many Israeli "leaders" and settlers despise the US and "accept us as a necessary evil." The average Israeli tend to be grateful, however, for US taxpayer money of $3 to 5 billion dollars annually to a country with a population of 8,146,300 people.

My point was the rippling effect throughout the middle east which is caused by US intervention on the side of Israel in defiance of the many crimes committed by the zionist nation against the Palestinians and the continuation occupation of their land and the steady building of settlements in the West Bank and in Jerusalem.

The perception is the US is "Israel's lap dog" (I'm not including the fundamental Christians who think only 144 Jews will get into heaven, for realistically, they're just not that significant), but the truth is more sinister. "Lapdog" means a person or group of persons steeped in admiration or infatuation for a country, person, or conglomerate. This description does not fit the US. What makes Israel's influence in the US congress so impressive is because of vast money contributions from the Israeli lobby and like-minded groups (Sheldon Adelson, a casino magnate worth many billions, is a generous donor to AIPAC on behalf of Israel.) to the ambitious hungry congressional politicians to retain power pure and simple....take the hefty amount of money contributions away and Israel would not stand a snowball chance in hell of getting the attention of the US congress. Once a politician is no longer in office or beholden to AIPAC for campaign funds, he may sometimes speak disparagingly of the Zionist nation, releasing much of the inner contempt he has for Israeli policies.


This slavish devotion to the teensy-weensy nation is highly damaging to the US image. Israel is doing everything it can to sabotage the Iran-US nuclear discussions. Israel has gotten so bad that Netanyahu boldly informed Obama a few weeks ago "not to second guess him again." Was that a threat?! Yet Israel is essential to the US congressional politicians!! Ted Cruz really grovels to the Zionist nation and all politicians pay tribute to Israel by visiting the diminutive state before running for political office.

The fact that the crimes of the "Zionist leadership" are entirely imaginary will prevent them from being charged at the ICC.



The "Zionist leadership" is immune because the supposed crimes are imaginary.

However, Palestinian terrorists will find a difference in that they will no longer be able to be released early in "prisoner swaps" once they are serving their sentences at the Hague.



You meant "prosecution" I presume?



The Palestinians are not seeking justice. They have deluded themselves into believing that Israel will be prosecuted for the untrue allegations that the Palestinians concoct.



I saw that too. Bring 'em down.



The notion of an equitable peace is hardly farcical, but regardless, the Palestinians and their deranged supporters have already collapsed it.



No. The collapse of the two-state solution doesn't mean the Palestinians get to become part of Israel.

The collapse of the two-state solution means that the Palestinians get nothing at all.