New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard

New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/)

- Political Discussion (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/12/political-discussion.html)

- - Hamas breaks week-old cease fire (http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/12/211299-hamas-breaks-week-old-cease-fire.html)

Hamas breaks week-old cease fire

Week-old Gaza cease-fire is breached - CNN.com

CNN's headline is in the passive voice... yet Hamas broke the cease-fire.

Prior to Israel's reaction, CNN nonetheless took the liberty of accompanying the story with two photos, one of a ruined mosque, and one of a mourning Palestinian crowd.... despite the fact that the story was Hamas killing a soldier on patrol, during a cease-fire, at that time without even news of an Israeli response.

Now that Israel has fired back, the story reports in the lead sentence that Hamas did this and Israel did that, not even "then." As if the two events were simultaneous. The preponderance of readers who see a headline and a first 'graph say "oh who knows," and skips the "buried lead" of the story, paragraphs into it, by which one can untangle who broke the cease-fire.

So much for the "Zionist press" theory.

Anybody want to speculate on the exact mechanism by which Israel FORCED Hamas to break the cease-fire?

PFnV

Re: Hamas breaks week-old cease fire

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa (Post 1264828)

Week-old Gaza cease-fire is breached - CNN.com

Unbelievably when I first saw this, prior to Israel's strike following the Hamas cease-fire breach, the headline was just as I labeled it in this post. Now the CNN headline is miraculously in the passive voice. CNN nonetheless took the liberty of accompanying the story with two photos, one of a ruined mosque, and one of a mourning Palestinian crowd.... despite the fact that the story was Hamas killing a soldier on patrol, during a cease-fire.

Now that Israel has fired back, the headline says the cease-fire "is broken," and reports in the lead sentence that Hamas did this and Israel did that, not even "then." As if the two events were simultaneous. The preponderance of readers who see a headline and a first 'graph say "oh who knows," and skips the "buried lead" of the story, paragraphs into it, by which one can untangle who broke the cease-fire.

So much for the "Zionist press" theory.

Anybody want to speculate on the exact mechanism by which Israel FORCED Hamas to break the cease-fire?

PFnV

I've already stated my position clearly. Wipe Hamas off the face of the earth. They are not the same as a country with a standing army. That just foolish rationale.

Rule: If you're not a country, then you don't need an army. Imagine if every ethnic group in American felt they needed an army! :rolleyes:

Re: Hamas breaks week-old cease fire

Full disclosure: I do not think the headline was ever in anything but the passive voice. That was my mistake, and I edited my post to reflect it. CNN refused to assign responsibility both times, not just the second time.

Other aspects of the story still irritate me.

PFnV regrets the error.

PFnV

Re: Hamas breaks week-old cease fire

The audacity to claim the western media has been anything other than a Public Relations firm for Israeli policy is pretty amazing.

ZNet - Israel's Lies

Quote:

Israel's Lies

January 26, 2009 By Henry Siegman
Source: London Review of Books

Henry Siegman's ZSpace Page

Join ZSpace

Western governments and most of the Western media have accepted a number of Israeli claims justifying the military assault on Gaza: that Hamas consistently violated the six-month truce that Israel observed and then refused to extend it; that Israel therefore had no choice but to destroy Hamas's capacity to launch missiles into Israeli towns; that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, part of a global jihadi network; and that Israel has acted not only in its own defence but on behalf of an international struggle by Western democracies against this network.

I am not aware of a single major American newspaper, radio station or TV channel whose coverage of the assault on Gaza questions this version of events. Criticism of Israel's actions, if any (and there has been none from the Bush administration), has focused instead on whether the IDF's carnage is proportional to the threat it sought to counter, and whether it is taking adequate measures to prevent civilian casualties.

Middle East peacemaking has been smothered in deceptive euphemisms, so let me state bluntly that each of these claims is a lie. Israel, not Hamas, violated the truce: Hamas undertook to stop firing rockets into Israel; in return, Israel was to ease its throttlehold on Gaza. In fact, during the truce, it tightened it further. This was confirmed not only by every neutral international observer and NGO on the scene but by Brigadier General (Res.) Shmuel Zakai, a former commander of the IDF's Gaza Division. In an interview in Ha'aretz on 22 December, he accused Israel's government of having made a 'central error' during the tahdiyeh, the six-month period of relative truce, by failing 'to take advantage of the calm to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the economic plight of the Palestinians of the Strip . . . When you create a tahdiyeh, and the economic pressure on the Strip continues,' General Zakai said, 'it is obvious that Hamas will try to reach an improved tahdiyeh, and that their way to achieve this is resumed Qassam fire . . . You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they're in, and expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing.'

The truce, which began in June last year and was due for renewal in December, required both parties to refrain from violent action against the other. Hamas had to cease its rocket assaults and prevent the firing of rockets by other groups such as Islamic Jihad (even Israel's intelligence agencies acknowledged this had been implemented with surprising effectiveness), and Israel had to put a stop to its targeted assassinations and military incursions. This understanding was seriously violated on 4 November, when the IDF entered Gaza and killed six members of Hamas. Hamas responded by launching Qassam rockets and Grad missiles. Even so, it offered to extend the truce, but only on condition that Israel ended its blockade. Israel refused. It could have met its obligation to protect its citizens by agreeing to ease the blockade, but it didn't even try. It cannot be said that Israel launched its assault to protect its citizens from rockets. It did so to protect its right to continue the strangulation of Gaza's population.

ZNet - BBC & Gaza

Quote:

BBC & Gaza

January 27, 2009 By Deepak Tripathi
Source: CounterPunch

Deepak Tripathi's ZSpace Page

Join ZSpace

The BBC finds itself embroiled in a serious controversy every few years, but this is the mother of all for decades. The essence of the latest storm is this. A few days ago, the Disasters Emergency Committee of the United Kingdom, an umbrella group of thirteen leading charities, came out with a plan to launch a television appeal to raise funds for humanitarian relief in Gaza. The umbrella organization includes names like the British Red Cross, Save the Children, Care International and Oxfam. The BBC refused to broadcast their appeal. Its Director-General, Mark Thompson, and Chief Operating Officer, Caroline Thomson, came out with two reasons. The corporation's ‘impartiality would be compromised' and how could the BBC be certain that money raised would go to the ‘right people'?

The refusal, and the reasons given, by the BBC have infuriated many people in Britain and abroad, where World Service has a devoted audience. There have been angry demonstrations in London. More than ten thousand complaints had been received by Sunday and the number was growing. Blogs and newspaper websites are inundated with messages attacking the decision, despite a determined counter-offensive by a handful of pro-Israel entries that keep repeating themselves. Leaders of all major political parties have criticized the corporation. They include ministers in a British government that pursues pro-Israel policies. Christian clergymen and prominent members of the British Jewish community have called upon the BBC executives to reconsider their decision.

The Archbishop of York summed it all up when he said, "It is not a row about impartiality, but rather about humanity." He compared the situation to British military hospitals treating prisoners of war as a result of their duty under the Geneva Conventions. "By declining the request of the Disasters Emergency Committee," the Archbishop said, "the BBC has already forsaken impartiality."

Not one BBC journalist I know agrees with the decision. Writing in the Observer newspaper on January 25, 2009, the respected former Middle East correspondent of the corporation, Tim Llewellyn, calls it ‘a cowardly decision' that ‘betrays the values the BBC stands for'. John Kampfner, another ex-correspondent, says in a recent article in the Guardian that, apart from some honorable exceptions, the questioning of Israeli spokespeople during the Gaza conflict has been weak compared with, for example, the widely-acclaimed Channel 4 News. Kampfner's verdict - Israeli officials have rarely been truly pressed on BBC outlets.

Re: Hamas breaks week-old cease fire

Until Hamas comes up with a better stated position than the elimination of Israel I'm not going to worry too much about whether or not the coverage has been fair. It's tragic yes but Hamas can end this now.

Re: Hamas breaks week-old cease fire

Since the stated goal of Hamas is the destruction of Israel then it would make sense the cause of the break in the cease-fire by the terrorist organization was to carry on its mission of destroying Israel..

sometimes things are so simple.

Re: Hamas breaks week-old cease fire

Really, Wildo?

Then why did CNN run the story that "the cease-fire is broken," and then bury the lead?

Why did they run the story with two pictures suggesting Israeli aggression against Palestinians?

Why not run a picture of Hamasniks rigging explosives, or a picture of Hamasniks in ski masks brandishing their weapons?

No, they chose to run pictures that fits the standard narrative of Israelis inflicting suffering, no matter what the actual story was.

I am sure the BBC should really help charities collecting money to funnel through Hamas -- oh they didn't mention that Hamas will not allow independent distribution of relief aid? How did that detail slip?

It's really nice that a blogger on Z-net thinks otherwise, and of course I know that you think otherwise. That's fine. There's a significant number of well-scrubbed little Western faces on my television everynight, decrying the horrible murderous Israelis (through the "zionist" media, yet,) and that's fine too. There are always loud liars and there are always those prepared to believe them -- for example the phantom "massacre" in Jenin, and the photoshopped smoke in Hizbollah-friendly "journalistic" sources. There were also those "extra" dead, who ran from "atrocity" to "atrocity" for posed horror photos. We're not idiots, Wildo.

PFnV

Re: Hamas breaks week-old cease fire

I have something to say about this conflict that might very well solve all the problems...Oh, crap! I had it on the tip of my tongue!:mad:

Re: Hamas breaks week-old cease fire

Quote:

It's really nice that a blogger on Z-net thinks otherwise, and of course I know that you think otherwise.

A blogger? How frivilous.

Henry Siegman - Council on Foreign Relations

Quote:

Henry Siegman

Former Senior Fellow and Director for the U.S./Middle East Project, Council on Foreign Relations

Expertise:

Middle East peace process; Arab-Israeli relations; U.S.-Middle East policy
Experience:

Executive Director, American Jewish Congress (1978-94); Resident Scholar, Rockefeller Study Center, Bellagio, Italy (1992); Founder, International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations (1968); Director, American Association for Middle East Studies, and Editor, Middle East Studies (1958-63).
Selected Publications:

Strengthening Palestinian Public Institutions, Report of an Independent Task Force (Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1999); U.S. Middle East Policy and the Peace Process, Report of an Independent Task Force (Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1997); "Arab Unity and Disunity," in Contemporary Middle East (1965); author of over one hundred articles and essays on the Middle East in the New York Review of Books, the New York Times, Washington Post, Commentary Magazine, International Herald Tribune, Nation, Middle East Journal, Islamic World, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Jerusalem Post, Al-Ahram, Al-Hayat, and Ashraq al-Awsat.

Deepak Tripathi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Deepak Tripathi (born 1951) is a British journalist and researcher with a particular reference to South and West Asia, terrorism and United States policy.[1] He was born into a political family in Unnao, the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. His grandfather, Pandit Vishwambhar Dayal Tripathi, was a prominent leader in the Indian independence movement and Member of the Constituent Assembly and later the Indian Parliament — hence the prefix "Vishwa" in his name which he no longer uses.[2] His father, Krishna Dev Tripathi, was also a parliamentarian and an academic.[3]

Tripathi grew up in India, but moved to work in the U.S. at the age of 22. Three years later, in 1977, he relocated to London to work for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).

He worked with the BBC for 23 years until 2000. During this period, he worked as a South Asia specialist, correspondent, producer with BBC News and World Service Radio News, where he edited the Newsdesk programme. He served as the BBC Afghanistan correspondent in the early 1990s, when he helped set up a permanent BBC office in Kabul. He has also reported from Sri Lanka, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Syria.

After graduating with the degree of Bachelor of Arts in politics, economics, sociology and English, Tripathi was a post-graduate student at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, in New Delhi (1973-1974) before leaving to work for Voice of America in Washington, D.C. 28 years later, he obtained a Postgraduate Diploma in Business Administration from Edinburgh Business School (Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland) in 2002.

He then spent five years at the University of Sussex, writing his DPhil thesis - a study of the Afghan conflict during the Cold War. His research findings were published in 'Dialectics of the Afghanistan Conflict: How the country became a terrorist haven' in March 2008. His book is to be published in 2008/2009.

He has a long-standing interest in the study of the effects of superpower rivalries in South Asia and the Middle East and now U.S. policy in the region. As his bibliography shows below, Tripathi continues to write on these and other topics for the History News Network, CounterPunch, Observer Research Foundation, AlterNet, CounterPunch, ZNet and Op-Ed News.[4]

Tripathi is a Member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Political Studies Association.

As for "burying the lead," I guess it depends on whether you think this is the lead;

Quote:

Israel launched its 22-day assault on Hamas, the Palestinian movement which controls Gaza, on December 27. More than 1,300 Palestinians died during the air and ground campaign, and 13 Israelis were killed.

Israel declared a unilateral cease-fire in mid-January, and pulled its troops out by January 21.

or this:

Quote:

Palestinians activated an explosive device and a Palestinian was killed by Israeli helicopter fire early Tuesday in the first incidents of violence since last week's Mideast cease-fire, according to Hamas and Israeli army sources.
A family sleeps outside their destroyed house in Jabalia's Ezbet Abed Rabbo district in northern Gaza.

The explosive device was detonated against an Israeli army patrol along the border just north of Kissufim crossing about 8 a.m. Tuesday.

Both look like pretty accurate assessments to me. Israel slaughters 1,300 Palestinians while losing only 13 of it's own, then DECLARES a cease fire which Hamas is expected not to breach. "That's it we're done killing now, cease fire time!" And you are angry because you don't think a CNN article emphasized that Hamas broke the cease fire that Israel declared?

What if Hamas throws up a few mortars and then says, "cease fire time," is that the standard by which everyone is to be judged or does only Israel enjoy this unique position of murder without repercussion? I can see the CNN headline now; "Israel Breaks Hamas-declared ceasefire following Hamas military operation." What arrogance.

Where are the Palestinian sources in that article? I see quotes from Olmert and Justice Minister Daniel Friedman, but certainly no other voices. And the opening sentence clearly states that Hamas broke Israel's declared "cease fire" but I suppose you expect them not to mention Israel's response or what has led up to this? Just chuck it down the memory hole.....

As for this talking point, unfortunately it's not born out by the facts:

Quote:

I am sure the BBC should really help charities collecting money to funnel through Hamas -- oh they didn't mention that Hamas will not allow independent distribution of relief aid? How did that detail slip?

Quote:

other British news outlets have decided to broadcast the appeal for Gaza. They have accepted the assurance from the Disasters Emergency Committee that it is the committee's job to see the aid reaches the right people. The Charity Commission supports this assurance. And the BBC Director General stands isolated.

Re: Hamas breaks week-old cease fire

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wildo7 (Post 1265024)

A blogger? How frivilous. [editors note: etc. etc. etc.]

Stipulated: a couple of guys with credentials hold opinions you like. Now back to today's news.

Quote:

As for "burying the lead," I guess it depends on whether you think this is the lead;

" Israel launched its 22-day assault on Hamas, the Palestinian movement which controls Gaza, on December 27. More than 1,300 Palestinians died during the air and ground campaign, and 13 Israelis were killed.

Israel declared a unilateral cease-fire in mid-January, and pulled its troops out by January 21. "

or this:

" Palestinians activated an explosive device and a Palestinian was killed by Israeli helicopter fire early Tuesday in the first incidents of violence since last week's Mideast cease-fire, according to Hamas and Israeli army sources.
A family sleeps outside their destroyed house in Jabalia's Ezbet Abed Rabbo district in northern Gaza.

The explosive device was detonated against an Israeli army patrol along the border just north of Kissufim crossing about 8 a.m. Tuesday. "

Really, Wildo? For a news story -- not an opinion screed -- that's a tough call to you? Why not start the story "Israel, which was attacked by five Arab armies upon the day of its founding in 1948, has been attacked once again"?

The standard style for writing a news story is to report the event that is its subject, telling the who, what, where, when, and (if it is objective and reliable,) the why... and then explain such things as previous events that have a bearing on the event.

The topic of the story is the breaking of a ceasefire. It doesn't "depend" on any such subjective bullcrap how you report an event that quite clearly and obviously transpired this morning. It is pure propaganda to insist that CNN write a story on the military operation commencing in December, when today's story is the breaking of the ceasefire at the end of the operation.

The standard practice, for everybody from AP to Zinsser to Strunk and White, is to give preference to the active voice, not the passive voice, specifically because passive voice detatches all accountability and renders copy unreadable.

So somebody had a very good reason to act as if the ceasefire was broken by... what? A force of nature? The nature of the universe? And that very good reason is the anti-Israel bias of the media in covering these conflicts (this is very similar to the coverage in the Hizbollah war.)

No, "cease fire" wasn't "broken," as if it fell off a shelf or something. Hamas broke the ceasefire. It was an affirmative act by a belligerant party. That's the "Who" and the "What." We also know the "Where" and the "When". As to the "Why," that would be where the story COULD go next. This is certain: We know who did it. But the anti-Israeli press does not want that headline.

Quote:

Both look like pretty accurate assessments to me. Israel slaughters 1,300 Palestinians while losing only 13 of it's own, then DECLARES a cease fire which Hamas is expected not to breach.

Israel and Hamas both "DECLARED" unilateral cease fires. (But CNN conveniently chose not to relay that fact. Effective.) Well, cease fires are not treaties. The only thing enforcing them is more war. So if Hamas wants more war, this is how to get it.

But war kills babies and puppies, remember?

Quote:

..."That's it we're done killing now, cease fire time!" And you are angry because you don't think a CNN article emphasized that Hamas broke the cease fire that Israel declared?

I am angry because the press is basically being used as a cat's paw by those who glorify and embrace violence and hate. And some of our best idiotically compete to go beyond the press in this pursuit. That you stump for them through other means is what mystifies me.

Quote:

What if Hamas throws up a few mortars and then says, "cease fire time," is that the standard by which everyone is to be judged or does only Israel enjoy this unique position of murder without repercussion?

That is precisely what Hamas does; i.e., Israel and Hamas both ceased fire previously. And it's not "a few mortars." It's thousands of rockets, over the course of years. That's something that some other guy far away should ignore, I suppose -- Heaven forbid it were us.

Quote:

I can see the CNN headline now; "Israel Breaks Hamas-declared ceasefire following Hamas military operation." What arrogance.

Hmmm. 90 minute after Hamas attacks, Israel counter-attacks.

Versus....

A week after the end of hostilities, Hamas chooses to attack Israel.

Is that really the same thing?

Quote:

Where are the Palestinian sources in that article?

Oh I'm sure they'll make some **** up soon, and you'll latch right onto it.

[quote]I see quotes from Olmert and Justice Minister Daniel Friedman, but certainly no other voices./[quote]

None of the actual facts in the lead story involve quotes. The quotes come in as CNN decides to go on to talk about Israel providing legal defense to soldiers, something I am sure you will also vilify Israel for. (As opposed to the US, which just declares its military not subject to international tribunals.) Here is the actual lead sentence, which sources both the Israeli military and Hamas:

Palestinians activated an explosive device and a Palestinian was killed by Israeli helicopter fire early Tuesday in the first incidents of violence since last week's Mideast cease-fire, according to Hamas and Israeli army sources.

Quote:

And the opening sentence clearly states that Hamas broke Israel's declared "cease fire" but I suppose you expect them not to mention Israel's response or what has led up to this? Just chuck it down the memory hole.....

Read the sentence. Read it again. Read it until it sinks in. THey purposefully obfuscated the order of events. You cannot determine from this lead sentence who broke the cease fire, as is CNN's intent.

I can re-write that lead more clearly. So could you. So could CNN.

Palestinians activated an explosive device early Tuesday in the first incident of violence since last week's Mideast cease-fire. A Palestinian was killed by Israeli helicopter fire 90 minutes later, according to Hamas and Israeli army sources.

Isn't that clearer?