blatham wrote:I saw Carter last night on three different appearances, PBS, CNN and NBC (I think it was).
Carter's analysis of the centrality of the Palestine/Israeli issue to Muslim anger and to peace in the middle east is, of course, Tony Blair's position as well. It is also the position of many American analysts and officials with experience in that section of the world. It is also the position of the majority of Israeli citizens, by consistent poll.
But it will be the case that LSM and, I'd guess MC as well, have never read Israeli publications, including Ha'aretz, Israel's leading newspaper (you can read today's issue
HERE. They won't have read Israel's great reporters/writers such as
Ari Shavit. They won't have much of an inkling, if any at all, of the size of the peace movement within Israeli society, of Israeli court decisions on treatment of prisoners, the illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, etc. They are likely quite unaware of how many UN resolutions Israel stands in violation of, offering up similar legal grounds for those forwarded to invade Iraq.
Until they get themselves educated on these matters (and I expect that won't happen) I don't know what use arguing with them might be.
You're probably right, old bean, we probably won't be investing a lot of time in the Haaretz to get our information. The Haaretz is to Israel what the New York Times is to the United States, namely, a large, old, liberal newspaper, although Haaretz doesn't have Jayson Blair.
Here's the Wikipedia on the Haaretz's editorial position:
Quote:Its coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict tends to publish more views sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than other Israeli newspapers, as shown by the reporting of Amira Hass and, to a lesser extent, Gideon Levy. Haaretz strongly supported the Oslo Accords with the PLO. The position of the newspaper in Israel's religious spectrum is decidedly secular. Although space is often given to issues of social justice (exemplified by Ruth Sinai's frequent columns on this topic), the paper's editorial line on economic issues is primarily classical-liberal in the spirit of The Economist. It supports privatization, free-trade, reduction in welfare, lower taxes and strict fiscal practices
25% of the Haaretz Group is owned by a German, Blatham. If you will recall, the 1993 Oslo Acords granted only 22% of the land originally designated for the Palestine State after 1948.
Off the top of my head, and admittedly somewhat of a dismissive assessment on my behalf, to say Haaretz accurately reflects the tone of typical Israeli sentiment is like saying that Military Times accurately reflects the tone of the typical soldier or officer. Military Times is owned by the Gattner Group which is a reknownly left-wing organization.
So I am happy to become educated in these matters, but I refuse to allow myself to being indoctrinated with inaccurate propoganda from a biased news source. While I have no doubt that Israel has a small percentage of its population in a peace movement (surrender to Hezbollah, Iran, Hammas and Syria), it is the same within our country where we have a 10% population who hate our country, and everything that our country stands for.
Tony Blair is posturing for a withdrawal of British troops from the area. What you are saying is that Carter is in agreement for withdrawing troops. Once again, it is a clear mistake to negotiate from a weak position. Such folly would virtually guarantee no country in the future would trust America when they are looking for an ally, and Iran/Syria militant Shiites, the likes of Sadr would become the dominant force in the ME.
Ibrahim al-Jaafari just needs to ferret out Muqtada al-Sadr, capture him and do something cool like publicly hang Sadr and a couple of his cohorts. That would stop a lot of the violence.
