Wow! Arafat is willing to sacrifice 70 Palestinians for every dead Israeli.

Well CMRockFan,

At least this time you didn't try to change what the writer was stating, you simply went to the Jerusalem Post, in Israeli Paper and found something that has about as much bias as Al-Jazeera towards Osama Bin Laden.

 

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/12/19/News/News.40203.html

<I>Arafat adviser Bassam Abu Sharif said that Arafat's comment was taken out of context, <B>either to purposely manipulate public opinion</b> [if true, looks like it worked pretty well] or by someone who misunderstood the Arabic.</B>

"Whoever translated it, translated it wrong," Abu Sharif said.

He said Arafat was responding to a question about his cease-fire order despite continuing Israeli attacks. According to Abu Sharif, Arafat said if Sharon continues the attacks despite our opposition, it means that he doesn't want negotiations and he doesn't want peace. Then, Arafat added, the Palestinians will always defend themselves and will never capitulate.
</I>

 

This is the side of Arafat that we usually don't hear about in the West... Looks like he's back to his old ways.

What a great leader.

 

<B>Arafat always claims the translator is to blame. </B>

Well, since the translations are done by Israelis.....

Every story has two sides. For some reason, we always assume the Israeli side is the "truth".

 

Sure, Major. It's always the Israeli translator's fault. Arafat is always mistranslated... He's never tried to incite rebellion in his constituency...

I'm sure what he meant to say was "I hope we lose 70 Palestinians for every Israeli. Please don't fight back, people."

This is classic Arafat, Major. He has always "preached war in Arabic while peaching peace in English", as cmrockfan put it. That has always been one of the main problems with dealing with him. He is two faced, always has been.

 

Arafat is one of the original terrorists, and cannot be trusted or believed. He calls himself a freedom fighter, yet all he does is send his minions off to kill innocent Israeli citizens. The Palestinians would be better off without him. They will not get close to having their own homeland until they get leadership that is (1) more moderate and (2)can be believed and trusted by other countries, including but not limited to Israel.

 

I'm a lot more inclined to believe our known allies than known terrorists.

 

<B>I'm a lot more inclined to believe our known allies than known terrorists.</B>

Why? You do realize that our ally is led by a "former" terrorist also, right?

This "loop" is the reason that there will never be ME peace. If Israel does incites something bad, Israel will blame it on the Palestinians. If Palestinians incite something bad, Israel will also (rightly) blame it on them. Because we "believe our known allies" all the time, everything is the Palestinians fault no matter what reality is. Israel can and does basically do anything they please without repercussions. If you believe either side without questioning it, you're being played for a fool.

<B>Sure, Major. It's always the Israeli translator's fault. Arafat is always mistranslated... He's never tried to incite rebellion in his constituency... </B>

Sorry, I disagree. Everything I've heard from neutral-country (western and non-western) news sources completely disagrees with what I read here in the US, which basically just comes from Israel (since we always filter out the Arab side of things as "not credible", as has been done here).

<B>Sure, Major. It's always the Israeli translator's fault. Arafat is always mistranslated... He's never tried to incite rebellion in his constituency... </B>

As opposed to Israel, who claims to seek peace, demands the PA do something to curb terrorism, then blows up PA government buildings and security forces to help ensure that they can't?

 

Major:

At least with Sharon, you know what you're getting - a murderous scumbag. Arafat tries to hide behind words of peace, and has apparently convinced many people (such as yourself) that he's not such a bad guy. You appear to have completely forgotten that he was the OBL of the '70s and '80s...

Must be that Zionist conspiracy again...

You are aware that virtually all non-US sources (except for Indian) filter out the US/Israeli side, aren't you? And are you aware of how hypocritical the statement you made is?

You must be under the mistaken impression that they have never asked Arafat to curb terrorism in his areas. They have asked him to do so hundreds of times in the past, and he has done nothing but talk about peace to Americans and war to Arabs. He's had his chance, and he blew it.

If he won't act - and he's had 8 years to act, so don't give me this crap about "well he can't while the Israelis are attacking" - then the Israelis will. What the f*k are they supposed to do, just roll over and wait for Hamas to kill them all? Arafat isn't doing s*it, so the Israelis are doing it themselves.

I haven't done the math, but as a relative proportion of population, the Israelis losing 25 people in a suicide attack is about like us losing a couple of thousand. Imagine going through a WTC attack on nearly a weekly basis? I don't blame the Israelis one bit for deciding not to wait for Arafat to act - 8 years of lies and violence is enough. Arafat had his chance, and he failed to grasp it. Now, as the Israelis say, he is "irrelevant".

The Palestinians need to find a new leader. And they'd better hurry.

 

Every newspaper has their merits and faults. Al-Jazzera is actual fair to both sides, as evidenced by presenting the Western and traditional points of view in many instances. We have a biased view of them, however, because that is all our news media shows from Al-Jazzera.

Whether or not the same is true about this paper is yet to be seen, but everyone is entitled to their own point of view. The media is generally going to be biased these days, and it is up to the informed to decide what is right and what is wrong.

 

Major, I would agree that we should take news we hear or read with a grain of salt, but you should also realize there are no 'neutral-country news sources.' You can pick any one and they all have their bias. In fact I would go so far as to say there is a major ( ) bias against the US period. I think you would agree since you've been a proponent of the 'everyone hates the US' point of view.

You certainly can't take Israel's word that they aren't/haven't taken action they shouldn't, but by the same token its not hard to discount Arafat's claims since he's had zero effect on reducing terrorism. If you want to move beyond Arafat's terrorist past then you must do the same for Sharon. At this point its easier to do that with Sharon as he isn't actively leading a terrorist organization while Arafat apparently is (assuming he has any control over the Palestinians)...

 

It's not this paper, mfclark. Everyone else is reporting what Arafat said, too. He said it. No debate on that.

He is always saying this crap, has been for years. It's never reported in the West, because everyone wants us to think that he's a nice guy who's victimized by Israel, and the Palestinians are just innocent victims in all of this... The Western media is not biased against the Palestinians, despite claims that it is.

Al Jazeera is clearly biased, too. A few weeks ago they interviewed a number of administration spokespeople, and they edited out those parts they wanted, trying to make it look like the officials were claiming it was a war against Islam. Not surprisingly, after that the administraton won't do interviews with Al Jazeera anymore...

After the recent bombings that left 25 Israelis dead, CNN actually interviewed Hamas spokespeople before it interviewed any Israelis. Pretty unbelievable that they'd interview the terrorists who carried out the attacks before they got the victims' side of the story...

The coverage on all of this has been atrociously biased for years, and until people start to get the honest story - and realize that both sides are to blame, and not just the Israelis - nothing will ever get done. There can be no peace if it's based upon a foundation of lies and denial. That is why I get angry when I see someone talk about Israeli aggressions, while totally ignoring Palestinian terrorism. That is counterproductive.

 

There is also some media bias in the Arab world:

Jordan Times comments on Information Ministry and Arab Countries

<i>
Editorial:
Change in the making

WITH LAST week's appointment of members of the Higher Media Council to regulate the journalistic profession, Jordan became the second Arab country, after Qatar, to sound the death knell for the Information Ministry — an obsolete institution which advanced democracies have long done away with.
Maintaining an intrinsic link between the media and government would have run contrary to the aspirations of His Majesty King Abdullah, who has often expressed the desire to see journalists take care of themselves and their own issues, and all liberals, who have been longing for a more independent state media.

But although the intentions and ideas behind the establishment of an independent Higher Media Council were indeed commendable, one has to admit that the make-up of the council appears more conservative than liberal.

We would like to use this space to first and foremost urge all members of the council to be as independent as possible in the exercise of their mandate and to set an example for their successors, so that journalists and the public can start feeling a real change and benefit from more openness at the onset of the reform.

We also hope that the council will seek to reverse the recent amendments to the Penal Code which placed more restrictions on freedom of speech and imposed severe penalties on journalists and newspapers.

While reimposing jail terms for journalists and editors, allowing the government to temporarily or permanently shut down publications, and listing in an extremely vague language an array of topics that are off-limit to reporters, this autumn's amendments to the Penal Code were rightly blasted by libertarians here and abroad.

As it demands the abrogation of these measures, the Higher Media Council should also produce a code of ethics and equip itself with the right disciplinary bodies and check-and-balance mechanisms to guarantee freedoms while protecting citizens' rights.

Anything short of this would result in a de facto replica of the previous Information Ministry.

Our profession needs serious attention and consideration: no democracy ever developed without a free and responsible media. Most reporters in this country do not possess the “ABC” of their own jobs, not due to their own sloppiness or naivetÈ, but mostly because of lack of training and a widespread, imbedded disrespect for a category of professionals who have often been viewed by many decision makers as mere potential spokespersons or cheap mercenaries.

We believe in the old saying that a good newspaper is a nation talking to itself, and this is what we strive to be, trying not to promote any factions or currents, individuals or groups. Just listening and talking to this complex, at times wounded, at times proud, small, big nation.
</i>


Major,

Do you believe that Arafat has the political clout to control Hamas?





Mango

 

So, if you admit to being an *******, that makes it OK that you're an *******?

That's ****ed up.

 

Check this article out, this dude knows what hes talking about Isreal is as much to blame as Palestinian.

http://www.sptimes.com/News/121601/Columns/US_should_reconsider_.shtml

also u might be interested in this

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=149495;article=13886;show_parent=1