Achieving Peace in the Middle East

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by KnightWriter, Sep 23, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ksid Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 15, 2002
    star 4
    Arafat is an incompetent corpulent slob, he's the Jabba the hutt of the Arab world, if you get my analogy ;). I even heard he tried to open a casino in the west bank.(and the scary thought is that, there's more like him in the mid-east).

    And you know something, I have a belief, that all these leaders know one another. Whether it be Saddam Hussein or Sharon. They know and communicate with each other. Then it's left to us smaller guys to argue it out, while they enjoy power.

    But, anyway I think the long term solution is if you create economic opportunity for the region. Lot of these are socio-economic problems in the veneer of religion.

    Do you think people are going to fight if you create economic opportunity? I know that if me or you were born in a refugee camp with all our dreams squashed, we'd take out our anger as well. Even Ehud Barak said that, if he was born a palestinian child he'd be a fighter. So I think in the long run the soltution will have to be a reasoned one (as most always ends up to be) where both sides realize their mutual advantages and start working along those lines.
  2. ksid Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 15, 2002
    star 4
    Oh btw, Vader, another good book you might want to read is Tom Friedman's "from Beirut to Jerusalem". Excellent book.

    In it he says that Arafat was actually willing to negotiate a long time back but the Likud gov't in power at the time, thought they could find other solutions. It was only after the Gulf war that the situation changed.

    But yeah, last thing we should want to do, is get into who did what to whom first. Nobody can win that argument.

    What needs to be done is to bring hope on the ground, something which is eroding fast. Instead of passing recriminations and polarizing the situation.



  3. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    And you know something, I have a belief, that all these leaders know one another. Whether it be Saddam Hussein or Sharon. They know and communicate with each other. Then it's left to us smaller guys to argue it out, while they enjoy power.

    I could believe that of the arabs but not of the Israelis; it's not that I think them incapable of corruption, but they have rather frequent elections over there.

    But, anyway I think the long term solution is if you create economic opportunity for the region. Lot of these are socio-economic problems in the veneer of religion.

    Yes and no. I used to strongly support this argument, but am beginning to veer away from it. Economics and lack of democracy certainly play into it in a major way, but a lot of this is also plain religious hatred, irrespective of the economics. Hatred of jews has been a way of life in the arab world for a very long time, and even though the majority of muslims, even muslim arabs, are not anti-jewish, their leaders have discovered that capitalizing on whatever sentiment does exist and overblowing it is a good way to keep the masses placated.

    Not sure how to solve that one. I guess moderate democratic governments and education would help.

    Do you think people are going to fight if you create economic opportunity?

    In this instance, yes. There are examples all over the world of peoples displaced into refugee camps, especially in africa, and they're not blowing themselves up in record numbers just to kill civilians. No, the actions being taken on behalf of this problem seem to be unique to the conflict; I think there is more than economics to this. Religious indoctrination has a lot to do with it. A good start here would be for each side to stop teaching its children to devalue the other.

    I know that if me or you were born in a refugee camp with all our dreams squashed, we'd take out our anger as well.

    But that's the thing, a lot of people don't.

    Even Ehud Barak said that, if he was born a palestinian child he'd be a fighter.

    But that reflects the specific culture of arab/Israeli interaction in the middle east: confrontation, appearance of strength, "toughness". Either this goes on a lot less all over the world with people in similar situations, or the media just covers it a lot less. Both are possible; it's probably a mixture of the two.

    In it he says that Arafat was actually willing to negotiate a long time back but the Likud gov't in power at the time, thought they could find other solutions. It was only after the Gulf war that the situation changed.

    I don't really believe that at all. Arafat is like Saddam; pretend to co-operate, pretend to want peace, and then support the terrorists, hoping that they will win or Israel will break. In the 80s, the conflict had shifted to Arafat taking up residence in Lebanon and directing terrorism from there. That led to Israel's disastrous invasion and eventual withdrawal; their perceived weakness at pulling back only encouraged arafat and other terrorists.

    One good way to help the peace process would be western insistence that other ME arab nations stop funding anti-Israeli terrorism. If the UN were to pass resolutions condemning Iran and Syria for supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, respectively, then perhaps the Israeli leadership would soften its position. Right now, Sharon views the UN as highly hypocritical, blasting Israel for retaliation and keeping silent on arab atrocities; this has resulted in the "it's us or them" attitude that has poisoned the peace process for so long.

    But I'm getting ahead of myself here. Solutions on both sides are needed, concessions on both sides are needed. BTW, another excellent book you might find interesting is "Why Terrorism Works" by Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School Professor. Fascinating reading.

    Great discusssion with you :).

    Peace,

    V-03



    a
  4. ksid Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 15, 2002
    star 4
    Vader-

    Not that Israel isn't a democracy. It's just that I wouldn't be surprised if Sharon, has communication lines open with Saddam (Saddam, is interested in his own survival, he doesn't give jack squat about ideology, religion, politics. If by politics you mean public service etc. Much like most other arab leaders he's only worried about one thing - his grip on power). And Not, that they don't hate each other.

    But, yes accountability is what keeps all democracies in-line in the long run and minimizes corruption. (which is something lacking in other mid-east countries)

    >About better economic opportunities improving religious tolerance.

    hmmm...I guess the Jury's still out on that one.

    I do think it's more of a generational issue. These countries have gone through colonization and these absolute dictatorships. So of course there's been this paranoid Jew hatred which has been utilized. But on the other hand, I think the common man always wants to stand the middle ground. It's these other voices which are always taking him to either extremes. So yes, I agree with you in a way. I don't think it's something which cannot be improved by more openness and better education.

    At least, once we get these dictatorships out of the way and allow the moderate arab voice to speak for itself. I think they will come to a middle ground. The more you suppress people, the more people are going to go to other extremes. As you can see from this current outcropping of modern loonies.

    If you can judge from mid-east history though, they have things going for them. These are largely mercantile societies, on the edges of the meditaranean, and mostly interested in trade (I mean the grass-roots people, not the people in the basements). Yes, there's always fear of "the other". But still, going by mid-east history people are more or less happy to go about thier business, trade or farming, if a more tolerant ruler is in place. Their's been a genuine lack of perscution on a grand scale of minorities, such as in the hey-day of the middle-ages, inquisitions etc in the mid-east. So I don't think it's something which cannot be changed subjectively.

    I've specially talked to many younger people from the mid-east and they lack the jingoism of the older generation. They are more attuned to the idea of Israel and interested in openness with Israel.

    But I think for that to take place Israel, will down the road have to become more middle-eastern eventually, instead of the European roots of it's founders. But either way I think Israel has a lot to offer, if the cards are played right. If you take the long run view, Israel at the end of the day will have to live with the people of that region.

    Check out this lecture the Aga khan (a leader of a sect in Islam) gave at Brown University in 1996. Very interesting some of the things he said, I'll include the link below:

    With the deaths of King Charles the First, and Louis the Sixteenth, Western culture initiated a process of secularisation which grew into present day democratic institutions, and lay cultures. Islam, on the other hand, never endorsed any political dogma. So the historical process of secularisation which occurred in the West, never took place in Muslim societies. What we are witnessing today in certain Islamic counties, is exactly the opposite evolution, the theocratisation of the political process. There is no unanimity in the Islamic world on the desirability of this trend but it would certainly be less threatening if the humanistic ethics of the faith were the driving force behind the processes of change.

    http://www.amaana.org/univ/brown.html

    So, anyways that's another problem with Islamic societies. Resolving the political dynamics. But, in a way I do think, generational changes are taking place.

    Also another factor I just thought of, for the turbulence in the region is that, people there are more untouched by modernity than us, more unsensitized and only now coming to grips with it. Tv, porn etc are now making in-roads on their traditional wa
  5. POLUNIS Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 2
    So, you have been to Israel, ksid? Just how are the settlers making life a living hell for the Arabs?
  6. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    Probably because there are a few Israeli settlers taking up relatively large pieces of land while the much more numerous Palestinians are squeezed into a small space.

    Think U.S. vs. Indians, but with alot more Indians than U.S. citizens.
  7. POLUNIS Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 2
    JediFlyer, do you have any proof that this is indeed the case? What about all the Jewish refugees from Arab nations after Israel's independence? They were forced to leave, but they were not compensated. Israel had to foot the bill for them and take them in.

    So...the Arabs, who control over 99% of the Middle East, cannot spare some land for a few million brother Arabs?

    I have a strong suspicion that these Arabs want to keep a disgruntled population in Israel's borders in order to foment unrest. The Arab states could not defeat them militarily, so now they are resorting to using Fifth-column tactics.
  8. ksid Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 15, 2002
    star 4
    Polunis What are you talking about? There are palestinians whose home's are there. There are Christian palestinian's whose holy sites are in Bethlehem, Nazareth. Muslim Palestinian's whose holy site's are in Jerusalem, Hebron. You want them to just up and leave?

    How would you feel if someone came in and threw you out of your house? Which is tantamount to what you're talking about in the territories. The rest of the Arabs don't even care about the Palestinian's any more. They want to wash their hand's of them.

    Sometimes I do feel the stance on this region, is based on the warped morality play inherited from the cowboy & Injun days.

    It's not as easy as drawing a line in the sand.

  9. ksid Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 15, 2002
    star 4
    Polunis regarding the settlers I already answered that. If you had read my earlier post you would've known.

    Cutting down olive groves, lack of water resources, confiscation of land etc.

    Check out www.gush-shalom.org

    Let's move on....




    "Through the Force, things you will see. Other places. The future...the past.
    Old friends long gone."
  10. POLUNIS Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 2
    In the interest of peace, I would say kick the "Palestinian" Fifth-column out. Why should a sovereign government have to tolerate a population that goes out of its way in targeting civilians for gruesome deaths, not military personnel?

    Most of the "Palestinians" did not even move there until the first half of the 20th century. Their immigration was encouraged, but the British were trying to prevent too much Jewish immigration. Jews have always outnumbered the Arabs, if you would care to consult the facts.

    They are not the suffering saints you style them to be.

    I would have no problem with the "Palestinians" staying as long as they quit the homicide bombing and submit to the sovereign authority of the Israeli government. If they do not want to do so, then that is their problem, not Israel's.
  11. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Something interesting....

    Check out this site "arabnews.com". It's an english saudi online newspaper.

    Near the bottom of the page, there is an article on how the saudi government fined a company that bought a bunch of cell phones manufactured in Israel, and chastised them for helping the "enemy Israeli economy".

    The propaganda on that site is amusing....check it out. It also refers to jerusalem as "occupied jerusalem".

    Peace,

    V-03
  12. TheScarletBanner Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 19, 2002
    star 4
    "Palestinians"

    By placing the word Palestinian in quotes, you show your contempt for them. No need for quotes, as that's what they are: Palestinians.

    staying as long as

    As long as nothing. They have as much, if not more, right to be there than Israel.

    they quit the homicide bombing

    It's suicide bombing. Making into a silly, emotive phrase like that is similar to me calling Israel an 'evil empire bent on the utter annhilation of all Palestinians by means of weapons of terror and destruction' - a little... melodramatic.

    and submit to

    Palestinains should not have to submit to a Government they do not support, nor live under (i.e., West Bank and Gaza).

    the sovereign authority

    Israel's right to sovereign authority is questionable, and it has no right to use that authority outside of its bounds.

    If they do not want to do so,

    And they do not.

    then that is their problem,

    How is that so? The same could be said about the American Revolution.

    By revolting against the British, the Americans were defying the "sovereign authority" of America's government, as they had every right to; it was the British problem too. Just as, in this case, it is the Palestinian right to, and an Israeli problem too.

    - Scarlet.
  13. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Ah, I love the tennis-like biases flying back and forth! It's so black and white, Israel = Good, Palestine = Bad, vice versa. When will you learn!!!

    The Israelis can be total s**** if they want to. Ask yourself, is it accidental that Palestinian communities of, say, 100,000 get as much water as Israeli communities of 10,000? No, it's not fair.

    The Palestinians can be total s**** too. Ask yourself, what did Black September achieve? What has this intifadah achieved?

    There WILL NOT be a peaceful resolution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict until BOTH sides can admit and accept the legitimacy and equality of the others. Otherwise, we will see the same cyclic violence we have seen before. It's like you Americans with your infatuation/obsession with guns; "If we don't have guns, criminals will still have guns so we must have guns to protect ourselves" - ignoring that your having guns also prompts the criminals to have guns, and around and around we go. Israel and Palestine must exist. Simple fact. If not and the Palestinians must live as second (or worse) class oppressed and conquered citizens, as people like POLUNIS would have it, there will be continued violence. A suicide bomber will kill 5 people in a cafe or market, and the IDF will retaliate with missiles, killing 22. In response to the disproportionate use of force, the international community, save the USA, will condemn this action as unjust and barbaric, and the Palestinians will respond with another attack, and we're watching death every day on TV. As long as the Palestinians, who lived there for 2,000 years, are treated like dirt, they will respond with terrorism. (Although the popular, uneducated belief is that terrorism doesn't have it's roots in socio-economic or political realities - it's just evil people who hate freedom and live in caves). And so long as they do that, the Israelis, who were the original inhabitants and the scapegoat of the Christian faith for 2,000 or more years, will respond with force.

    Or has history taught you nothing? Try reading some Edward Said to go with your pro-Israeli rhetoric.

    Also, for those who would say Islamists want Jews dead, and use "There shall be no other religions in the lands of the Prophet" from the Qu'ran to back it up - remember, the Prophet also commanded a respect for other people of the Book - i.e. Christians and Jews.

    E_S
  14. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Well said, Ender.

    Peace,

    V-03
  15. POLUNIS Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 2
    TSB:

    I refer to them with quotes because of the fact that the Jews were the first ones to call themselves Palestinians. Arabs did not call themselves that until quite recently.

    Ender_Sai:

    This is about the most propaganda-laden post I have read in the Senate.

    2000 Years?

    Whatever... The land was not called "Palestine" 2000 years ago. Does Judea, Galilee and Samaria ring a bell for you? It was not until the Second Century a.d. that the land was called "Palestine"; did you know that a Roman Emperor called it that as a way to annoy the Jews, since the name "Palestine" is derived from the Philistines, an old enemy.

    I think you need to learn more history, if you are going to keep on making such dogmatic posts.

    Was "Palestine" ever an independent nation? No, but I do recall you asserting that in another thread until I brought the voice of reality into the discussion. Did this "nation" ever have Jerusalem as its capitol? No.

    Were the Arabs the masters of Jerusalem before the Jews ever were? No, and the assertion that the Jebusites were Arabs (which I have seen entertained elsewhere) is such a patent absurdity, that I will not even bother to elaborate on it.

    The violence has been started by these "Palestinians" time and time and time and time again. How is this Israel's fault? You accuse me of being one-sided, but I do notice you would be guilty of the exact same thing.

    How is Israel supposed to combat an enemy that hides in civilian areas, that sneaks around in civilian clothes, that lurks about in crowded areas, etc.? The blood of any of the "innocents" that died lie squarely on the heads of the terrorists who use civilians as shields.

    Have you also forgotten that the "Palestinians" kill many of their own, those they would consider to be "sympathizers" with the "evil Israeli regime"? There is another helping of those "civilian casualties" you seem to lay at the feet of Israel.
  16. DarthKarde Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2002
    star 5
    The violence has been started by these "Palestinians" time and time and time and time again. How is this Israel's fault? You accuse me of being one-sided, but I do notice you would be guilty of the exact same thing.

    This paragraph perfectly demonstartes your profound lack of knowledge on the subject. Do you not undersatnd the concept of 'The cycle of violence'. Both sides are retaliating to each others latest attacks. To say that one side is starting it all the time is gross distortion of the truth.

    By placing the word Palestinian in quotes, you show your contempt for them. No need for quotes, as that's what they are: Palestinians.

    I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with Scarlet. The Palestinians are a people who deserve recognition just as much as any other.
  17. TeeBee Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 2, 2002
    star 3
    Both sides are retaliating to each others latest attacks.

    Well, which side would you have stop 'retaliating' first? The Palestinian terrorists have had several opportunities recently. What are they 'retaliating' against when Israel lets a bus bombing go unresponded to? What are they 'retaliating' against when the IDF pulls OUT of their towns, as they recently did in Hebron, only to be rewarded with the Tomb of the Patriarchs ambush? Does anyone honestly think that if Israel stopped right now, just sat on it's collective hands for the next 6 months, that all suicide bombings would cease because there is nothing to 'retaliate' against?

    I abhor the pathetic 'cycle of violence' explanation. It should be obvious by now that the terrorists will continue their attacks whether Israel attacks back or not.
  18. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    It should be obvious by now that the terrorists will continue their attacks whether Israel attacks back or not.

    This happens because the terrorists have sworn to destroy Israel and kill all the jews. A majority of palestinians in a recent poll support the goal of "liberating all of palestine". The Israeli government sees this, and concludes the palestinian authority, backed by its citizens, doesn't want peace and retaliates for every act of violence, when in fact it's the terrorists who have so successfully stalled the peace process. Their actions have silenced moderates on both sides.

    If the palestinians thought the Israelis were serious about peace, they would clamp down on terrorism. If the Israelis thought the palestinians were serious about stopping terrorists, they would halt their incursions into the west bank, as well as retaliation.

    Neither side seems willing to take the first step in this "chicken and egg" dilemma, and so the cycle continues.

    Peace,

    V-03
  19. DarthKarde Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2002
    star 5
    Well, which side would you have stop 'retaliating' first?

    Either. It doesn't matter who does only that someone does.

    The Palestinian terrorists have had several opportunities recently.

    As have the IDF.

    What are they 'retaliating' against when Israel lets a bus bombing go unresponded to? What are they 'retaliating' against when the IDF pulls OUT of their towns, as they recently did in Hebron, only to be rewarded with the Tomb of the Patriarchs ambush?

    For each of these gestures by the Israelis there has been an Israeli attack that could be mentioned.

    Does anyone honestly think that if Israel stopped right now, just sat on it's collective hands for the next 6 months, that all suicide bombings would cease because there is nothing to 'retaliate' against?

    Israel still occupies Palestinian land. Only when there is a credible peace process is there a chance of ending palestinian militancy.

    I abhor the pathetic 'cycle of violence' explanation. It should be obvious by now that the terrorists will continue their attacks whether Israel attacks back or not.

    The cycle of violence is not an excuse, it is a fact. This does not justify acts of retaliation but it does explain them. To deny 'the cycle of violence' is to show complete ignorance of the situatution.

    This happens because the terrorists have sworn to destroy Israel and kill all the jews. A majority of palestinians in a recent poll support the goal of "liberating all of palestine". The Israeli government sees this, and concludes the palestinian authority, backed by its citizens, doesn't want peace and retaliates for every act of violence, when in fact it's the terrorists who have so successfully stalled the peace process. Their actions have silenced moderates on both sides.

    The sideling of moderates on both sides has been the greatest tragedy of the recent violence. However the palestinian people are always likely to respond to polls in such a way while they are subjugated. If there is a genuine peace process then their views may well change. The same goes for Israelis, they will likely consider peace if the violence stops.

    If the palestinians thought the Israelis were serious about peace, they would clamp down on terrorism. If the Israelis thought the palestinians were serious about stopping terrorists, they would halt their incursions into the west bank, as well as retaliation.

    Neither side seems willing to take the first step in this "chicken and egg" dilemma, and so the cycle continues.


    Agreed.

  20. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    This is about the most propaganda-laden post I have read in the Senate.

    What about your "United Despots" one? Not only was it pure, right wing, uneducated fundamentalist drivel, you went out on a limb and supported it! [face_laugh] "The United Despots wants to hold America to ransom for...$100,000,000!" [face_laugh]

    But I'm not going to get bogged into a debate with a bigot. Keep your hatred of the Palestinians to yourself, ok? [face_plain]

    Now, back to the debate:
    TeeBee: I abhor the pathetic 'cycle of violence' explanation. It should be obvious by now that the terrorists will continue their attacks whether Israel attacks back or not.

    The cycle of violence is not a justification, merely an accurate, and factually correct, assessment.

    And let's look at this -
    1948: Israel formed by UN Mandate.
    1964: Arab Summit Conference establishes PLO as "the entity responsible for furthering the Palestinian cause and achieving the ultimate objective of the recovery of Palestine as the homeland of all Palestinians" (Harcelrode, Secret Soldiers: Special Forces in the War on Terror, pp 19-20).
    1967: Dr George Habash established the PFLP. (cf. Harclerode, ibid.)

    Why did it take some 16 years for the Palestinians to resort to terrorism? What do Palestinians have to lose? And what do they have to gain?

    TeeBee, I'm not justifying terrorism, I'm saying that for the Palestinians, they cannot see any other option. And for every learned author like, say, Edward Said, there is an Islamist author who'll get the sensationalist attention. There is no justification for the violence, but there is also no justification for allowing the perpetuation of violence by BOTH sides. So long as they continue to think with their hearts and not their heads, we'll see continued conflict. Vaderize-03 said it beautifully, with a clarity lacking in some governments...

    If the palestinians thought the Israelis were serious about peace, they would clamp down on terrorism. If the Israelis thought the palestinians were serious about stopping terrorists, they would halt their incursions into the west bank, as well as retaliation.

    V-03 - that's totally true and I'm willing to bet that it'll be ignored in future anti-Israeli or anti-Palestinian posts. [face_plain]

    E_S
  21. DarthKarde Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2002
    star 5
    V-03 - that's totally true and I'm willing to bet that it'll be ignored in future anti-Israeli or anti-Palestinian posts.

    You are right. It will be ignored. It's far too sensible for many to comprehend. I continue to find it amusing, or worrying I'm not sure which, that so many take black and white perspectives on this most grey of issues.
  22. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    And you and I know the Israeli AND Palestinian sides, so we'll both be called one sided. Sigh... [face_plain]

    How many pro-Israeli people out there have actually read any palestinian literature? Like Edward Said, or example? How can you therefore have an opinion if all you know is the Israeli-biased American media position? ?[face_plain]

    E_S
  23. Red-Seven Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 21, 1999
    star 5
    I've read Edward Said. He's much smarter than I, so I feel a bit foolish in disagreeing and rejecting much of his work. The 'orientalist critique' was insightful and ground-breaking, but he hasn't progressed his ideas in 25 years, and shown intellectual laziness at times.


    The American media is not nearly as biased as everyone would have you believe. It's a myth that exists outside the US...whereas inside the US, most think it is anti-Israeli at times. It may not be objective, but having read a lot of literature across the spectrum, it's not the dregs that some might imply.
  24. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    No, but then you're smarter than many here, 7! ;) Said does write some brilliant stuff on Palestine, but my point was, that IMO there is a real lack of understanding of the Palestinian cause, outside of "Palestinians = terrorists, terrorists = enemies of America = evil". I know Palestinians, who are so passionate about their culture and their land it really makes me sympathetic to them; however, I know many within the Jewish community here who are so erudite in their position on Israel I'm equally as sympathetic to them. They know this; they know I think both sides are holding peace back, as Vaderize-03 so brilliantly observed.

    E_S
  25. DarthKarde Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2002
    star 5
    The American media is not nearly as biased as everyone would have you believe. It's a myth that exists outside the US...whereas inside the US, most think it is anti-Israeli at times. It may not be objective, but having read a lot of literature across the spectrum, it's not the dregs that some might imply.

    I actually agree that the American media are not as biased as many people think. It's major problem is the lack of depth of its foreign affairs coverage. By failing to cover the deeper issues behind the current events the American media often shows an over simplyfied view of events. Hence as E_S put it many people reach the conclusion that "Palestinians = terrorists, terrorists = enemies of America = evil". and fail to understand the more complex issues.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.