Ok liberals, what about this? "Israelis Gun Down Two Palestinians" Propaganda.
 

Australian Broadcasting Corporation reports this violent headline: "Israelis Gun Down Two Palestinians."

When you read a headline like this, what is your reaction? Most people would assume that Israelis attacked Palestinians unprovoked, the usual leftwing propoganda portraying Israel as Aggressor, and Palestinians as Victim. Wrong! The article goes on to acknowledge that one of the Palestinians threw grenades at soldiers as he tried to storm a border crossing, and the other Palestinian tried to attack the settlement.



Israelis gun down two Palestinians

Israeli forces have killed two Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, one of whom threw grenades at them as he tried to storm a border crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip.

Palestinian medics say they have also recovered the body of a man killed outside a Jewish settlement in northern Gaza.

Israeli military sources say soldiers shot him overnight when he tried to infiltrate the settlement.

The latest casualties raise the Palestinian death toll to 30 since Hamas militants blew up an Israeli tank in Gaza on Saturday, killing its four crewmen.

http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s790387.htm

Major news network. Propaganda. Don't believe it. Don't!

It's propaganda. We all know Palestinians are a peace loving people.

I am not sure I would enjoy living in a country that has a daily body count summary. it is a shame because Arabs and Jews have been peaceful neighbors throughout history. Only in the 20th century did these problems begin.

Do you really have to be a liberal to be against Israel.

Please explain.

Or are you just using a buzzword you dont quite clearly understand?

No, I would think they killed 2 palestinians and read th earticle. It takes 14 words to get to the "attack" part.

Nobody will object to these acts... it is self-defense position....


It's very different from :

Activist's memorial service disrupted

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Wednesday March 19, 2003
The Guardian

Israeli forces fired teargas and stun grenades yesterday in an attempt to break up a memorial service for Rachel Corrie, the American peace activist killed by an army bulldozer in Gaza on Sunday.
Witnesses including several dozen foreigners and Palestinian supporters say Israeli armoured vehicles tried to disperse the gathering at the spot in Rafah refugee camp where Ms Corrie was crushed to death.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...917178,00.html

Ya dont hurt the poor Palestinians. They only come in peace.

You mean "pieces".

No, they leave in pieces.. :winkwink:

No, not at all, but had I said "Ok liberals and conservatives..." it wouldn't have been quite the same.

Anti-Israel conservatives? Fuck yeah, there's plenty. All the paleocons such as Pat Buchanon, and even Bush Sr.'s record on Israel was dismal.

Then you're the exception. Gun Down? That doesn't sound like self-defense.

Quote:

Nobody will object to these acts... it is self-defense position.... It's very different from : Activist's memorial service disrupted Chris McGreal in Jerusalem Wednesday March 19, 2003 The Guardian Israeli forces fired teargas and stun grenades yesterday in an attempt to break up a memorial service for Rachel Corrie, the American peace activist killed by an army bulldozer in Gaza on Sunday. Witnesses including several dozen foreigners and Palestinian supporters say Israeli armoured vehicles tried to disperse the gathering at the spot in Rafah refugee camp where Ms Corrie was crushed to death. http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...917178,00.html

The Guardian probably has the worst record in the entire UK for being anti-Israel.




We've analyzed hundreds of publications for anti-Israel bias. The British Guardian seems among the worst.


Who's Watching the Guardian?

As we have seen in past months, many media outlets perform contortions in order to present the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in "even-handed" terms. They feel obligated to assign equal blame to Israel for the fighting and bloodshed.

In recent weeks, the British Guardian goes even further. It places no blame whatsoever on the Palestinians. In article after article, and editorial after editorial (called a "leader" in England), the Guardian places sole blame on Israel, on Israel's new prime minister, or on Israeli Defense Forces. Here are selected violations of media objectivity, courtesy of the Guardian:


When a Palestinian terrorist killed 8 Israelis by ramming into a bus stop, the Guardian defended him as "a sort of Palestinian everyman who finally snapped because of the combined pressure of the four-month uprising and Israel's economic blockade." Despite his having admitted to carefully planning the attack, the Guardian said the attack was "far from being the calculated aim of a dedicated terrorist," and claimed that the killer was merely drowsy from medication.


The day after winning the election, Ariel Sharon visited the Western Wall and reverently touched the ancient stones. The Guardian then ran a cartoon by Steve Bell that obscenely dhahahahated Sharon's bloody handprints on the Western Wall. The cartoon desecrates the holiest Jewish site and encroaches on brash anti-Semitism.


The Guardian ran an opinion piece entitled, "Israel simply has no right to exist," which claims that Israeli soldiers "defy their consciences and blast unarmed schoolchildren."


Another Guardian opinion piece compares Prime Minister-elect Ariel Sharon to the worst war criminals of recent memory: "By any reasonable reckoning, he is a war criminal. This is a man of blood, whose history of terror and violation of the rules of war stretches back to the early 50s... Sharon's most horrific crimes are more recent than Pinochet's and his responsibility for the Sabra and Shatila killings is better documented than, say, that of the indicted former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic for the comparable Srebrenica massacre."


The Guardian proclaims that the peace process is "dead ... officially killed off by Israel's prime minister-elect, Ariel Sharon, and by the new Bush administration." No blame is assigned to Yasser Arafat, who unleashed violence in the region through incitement in the PA's inflammatory media, who rejected the far-reaching Barak proposals, and who has violated virtually all commitments made in the Oslo Accords.

Critique:


USING TRUE FACTS TO DRAW FALSE CONCLUSIONS

When the Palestinian terrorist killed 8 Israelis by ramming into a bus stop, the Guardian defended him as "a sort of Palestinian everyman who finally snapped because of the combined pressure of the four-month uprising and Israel's economic blockade." Your article also claimed that the killer was merely drowsy from medication.

The Palestinians continuously argue that Israel does not allow them to

continue working in Israel and support their families. But did the Palestinian who perpetrated this atrocity really snap from economic pressure, as you claim? He was one of the lucky inhabitants of Gaza to hold a steady job -- working for almost 6 years with the same bus company! On the contrary, this one man may have well jeopardized the livelihood of an additional 200 Palestinian drivers who live in Gaza, and are employed by the same bus company, some -- for 25 years.

Could you please explain why the Guardian provides moral and medical justification for this multiple murder of innocent Israeli civilians? And why -- despite his having admitted to carefully planning the attack -- do you report that the attack was "far from being the calculated aim of a dedicated terrorist"?

* * * * *

SELECTIVE OMISSION

In a Feb. 9 article, "The new old peace process," Derek Brown claims that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is "dead... officially killed off by Israel's prime minister-elect, Ariel Sharon, and by the new Bush administration."

Certainly Yasser Arafat deserves the bulk of the blame for the murder of the peace process. He rejected the far-reaching and unprecedented Israeli concessions made at Camp David and in later negotiations. Arafat then made mockery of the Oslo agreements that he signed, particularly his commitment to resolve differences peacefully, by releasing Palestinians terrorists from jail, and by inciting violence in the PA media.

Why does the Guardian not highlight Arafat for blame?

* * * * *

DISTORTION OF FACTS

Your Feb. 8 cartoon, showing Ariel Sharon leaving bloodstains on the Western Wall, is in particular poor taste. This cartoon distorts the facts, and desecrates the holiest Jewish site.

Sharon served as a soldier and officer, as did Yitzhak Rabin, Dwight Eisenhower and Lord Montgomery. They all gave commands that sometimes led to civilian casualties. War is not sterile, but war is governed by humane rules of engagement that Israel and its military officers follow.

Terrorism, however, is beyond the pale. The terrorism of Yasser Arafat -- hijackings, massacres, and deliberate targeting of civilians -- are all ignored by your publication, in favor of vilification of Israel and Sharon. Does the Guardian ever show Arafat kneeling at the al Aqsa mosque atop the Israeli victims of the Munich massacre? Or atop the civilians bombed in airports, sidewalk cafes and Jerusalem buses? Or atop the wheelchaired Leon Klinghoffer, killed on the Achille Lauro? Or atop the Christian victims in the Lebanese town of Damour?

I would appreciate a response explaining why the Guardian hammers away at Israel and its democratically-elected prime minister, while ignoring the bloody actions of Palestinians and their leader, Yasser Arafat.

http://www.honestreporting.com/artic...g_the_Guardian$.asp