Welcome to PatsFans.com

Jon Stewart Mocks One-Sided American Media on Israel/Gaza

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by maverick4, Jan 10, 2009.

  1. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,662
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    Hulu - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: Mon, Jan 5, 2009 - Watch the full episode now.

    Watch from the 5th to 8th minute. He mocks the fact that the supposed 'balanced' coverage over Israel/Gaza is basically completely one sided. The comments by every American political official demonstrates how much Israel has us by the balls. Bloomberg's comment at the end of that part is just ridiculous.

    I guess Stewart will soon be demonized as being a self hating Jew or a crazy lunatic for daring to poke fun at the media coverage.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2009
  2. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    Was listening to NPR yesterday in my shop, and they were talking about the Gaza problem. NOT ONCE was the idea entertained that Israel had been choking the life out of Gaza before the rocket attacks were ramped up from Gaza to Israel. Every statement from every guest began with the notion that Israel was responding to Gazan rocket attacks as if nothing ever happened before that. As if Gazans woke up one day and arbitrarily decided to launch rockets at Israel for no reason.

    I think it was wrong - is wrong - for anyone to launch rockets at civilian areas. No excuses. My question is not why Israel launched an offensive...I understand that. What I wonder about is why doesn't anyone want to look at the root of the problems there? Religious extremism (oxymoron, I know), economic warfare, deprivation of natural resources, isolation, living in a total sh!thole, stupidity, power struggles....no one wakes up and says to himself, "I think I'll launch a rocket today", for no reason. Innocents certainly should not be made to suffer for it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2009
  3. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,662
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    I have yet to hear anyone mention in any American media outlet that any sane person would become angry if over 40 years their food/energy/borders were regulated and choked by a government who also incidentally was perceived to have kicked him/her out of their previous land. They make it sound like the extremists came out of nowhere. It's like how we say terrorists "hate our freedom". No they don't, they hate our support for Israel and also for past actions such as toppling their governments or assassinating leaders who disagree with us.

    The entire concept of "blowback" is completely alien to the US/Israeli 1984 group-think. It's always the other group's fault.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2009
  4. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    i love Stewart's perspective on Bloomberg's analogy of a neighbor pounding on your door threatening to kill you... would you call for one cop, or several?

    "Well, that depends ... Did I make him sleep in my hall and pass a check point every time he wanted to take a sh**?"
     
  5. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    41,187
    Likes Received:
    251
    Ratings:
    +970 / 2 / -9

    Oh Boy Jon Stewart
     
  6. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,091
    Likes Received:
    406
    Ratings:
    +889 / 12 / -7

    Wow, Mav learned a new word, blowback. That's just the latest way of saying one thing leads to another, and vice versa, Mav. Don't get so bloody enamored.

    The difficulty with the whole "as if Israel weren't blockading Gaza" is a bit silly. Hamas has been firing off the rockets, with varying degrees of intensity, for quite some time. The latest barrages are not the first, nor, I fear, will they be the last.

    So Jon missed the boat; well, that sucks. And...?

    PFnV
     
  7. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,620
    Likes Received:
    112
    Ratings:
    +339 / 6 / -4

    #91 Jersey

    In 1948 the piece of land that is in question where Palistinians and Jews both claim was to be Divided in HALF, half to each side claiming the land. Isreal accepted the deal, the Palistinians did not. Oh well the rest is HX.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2009
  8. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,862
    Likes Received:
    48
    Ratings:
    +115 / 10 / -15

    #37 Jersey

    I hate to say it, But.....................
     
  9. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,091
    Likes Received:
    406
    Ratings:
    +889 / 12 / -7

    LOL... yep music to your ears no doubt. Most of the time, love the guy.
     
  10. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,124
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +492 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    The FACT is...the current conflict IS Hamas' fault...end of story. Once you start a fight, all bets are off and you get whatever is coming to you.

    If Mexico sent a bunch of missiles at Dallas, you bet your arse we'd fire 1,000 right back back at em. And whose fault would that be? Mexico's of course!
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2009
  11. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,662
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    ...And the brainwashing of the American masses through media is complete, as evidenced by the regurgitation of memes by Mr. Joe Average/Public here.
     
  12. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,091
    Likes Received:
    406
    Ratings:
    +889 / 12 / -7

    Complain all you want about the ubiquity of that comparison. It's repeated so often in this case because it's so obvious. If you'd like you can use an example like people in spain lobbing rocket at Frenchmen, or people in haiti lobbing them at the DR. If Haiti didn't get the rocketeers under control -- or worse yet, if the rocketeers were the government of Haiti -- what the hell do you think would happen?

    Like I said, I find Jon Stewart hysterical, and I thought it was hilarious to show a mobius band as the graphic for a "one sided" issue. Great way to poke fun at that perception. But the fact that we're even having a conversation about some hidden right Hamas has to bomb civilians is the "one sidedness" here. Nobody else gets that kind of pass. And not one word on Hamas' declared intention to kill every Jew, wherever they are found, as is declared in their charter. The coverage is almost exclusively of the 30% of the casualties (by UN counts) who are civilians. I have seen idiot after idiot in responses to CNN et al., saying the casualties are "overwhelmingly civilian."

    So beat the damn drum all you want about the uneven coverage. It's just another piece of pro-Hamas propaganda. Why Westerners, whom I would assume to be secularists, would want to carry water for this group is beyond me. But they do. So it goes. sic transit.

    PFnV
     
  13. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    No, it's far from the end of the story. Period. It's much MUCH more complicated than that.

    C'mon PR... You didn't watch the video, did you? Because the Mexico quip was the exact weak analogy that was used within.

    As Jon said, would we be forcing Mexicans to live in Laredo and pass check points when they wanted to take a sh**?

    Frankly, I'm sick to death of this conflict over there. I'm sick of the entire world being dragged into it day after day after day after day. I'm sick of radical Islamist groups LYING and using the plight of the Palestinians as their main cause for Jihad (all but confirmed in Spurlock's documentary). But most of all, I can't believe the short-sighted stupidity of the U.S. and Britain who thought this was a good idea 60 years ago.

    Both sides are to blame. BOTH. It's not one or the other. But also, both sides have huge swaths of their populations who desperately want peace and for the killing of kids and women to stop. Unfortunately, the small segment of radical hardliners who clamor for military conflict always win out... . Just like they did in our country.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2009
  14. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,626
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey


    No one cares about this fact. As Americans, we have to pick a side. Otherwise, who will we know who the wins the bet?

    Rest of post was right on, too.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2009
  15. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,091
    Likes Received:
    406
    Ratings:
    +889 / 12 / -7

    Forest level: Absolutely. Tree level: You know how I get.

    By the way, the Brits wanted out on any terms 60 years ago. The whole world expected a bloodbath, and damn near got one. Out of 600,000 Jews of Israel, 6,000 died in the war. That would be the equivalent of 3 million Americans today (or 20,000 Gazans.)

    But by the '48 war, there was little if any sentiment among Arabs in favor of tolerating a Jewish presence in the Palestine mandate. Jews were killed for being Jews increasingly, leading up to the riots of the 20s and 30s. This is how the idea of a binational state there died; frankly, the rejectionist point of view was and has always been that the middle east must be Judenrein -- even while the Arab elites were selling swaths of land to the Yishuv, i.e., the Zionist Jewish community.

    The original rejectionist complaint, prior to the violence that made partition the UN's solution, was that Jews bought land. And had the Jewish community in the old mandate lost that war, but had managed to hold on to said purchased land, deeds of sale and all, we would still be dealing with elements who could not accept Jewish land-owners in the former Palestine mandate. Palestine (or more likely, Syria, which the rejectionists insisted they be annexed to,) would have declared the purchase of that land wrong and illegitimate as well; that was the original source of the violence leading to the partition.

    To the dilletantes on this issue, all this looks like a lot more "who did what when..." Indeed, it is only important to know the history if one cares why we are where we are, and if one asks a Palestinian he will say that part is not important, and that what is important is people lost their homes and land when the Arab League lost the '48 war. Only he'll call it the naqba ("catastrophe.")

    By the time '48 rolled around, the leader of the Palestinians (Amin al Husseini) was an Anti-Jewish Zealot who, to wax Palinesque, palled around with Hitler. Yes, that Hitler. And palled around with as in face-to-face meetings, and public declarations that he looked forward to applying German methods to the Jewish population in Palestine. Meanwhile, the Jews of Palestine had signed up to fight on the British side. And what did that get them? A blockade of immigration to Palestine, among an enormous remnant of those not murdered by Husseini's allies.

    More ancient history. Quite unimportant, I am sure. Also, an historical episode we should ridicule, minimize, and deny, if we are to believe those who are "never listened to," and don't get enough air-time.

    So there are some more of the "trees," the forest notwithstanding. More of the reality of the story we don't talk about and don't want to know about. More of exactly why Ahmidinejad, Hamas and Hezbollah's leadership, and other rejectionists are always keen to deny and denigrate the Holocaust: they see the minimization of this enormous crime as tantamount to delegitimizing Israel.

    And more and more idiots give them the time of day; I am not sure why this is fashionable now among a certain slice of the left, but it is. I suppose there are no commies now to identify with... so the equivalent of calling Stalin "Papa Joe" or Ho Chi Minh "Uncle Ho", is now the defense of Hamas. Look how avant-garde I am! That's pretty much how it looks.

    So-- and not lumping you in with that contingent: if Israel was a bad idea 60 years ago, what would a good idea have been?

    That Jews not buy real estate in the Palestine mandate? But 60 years ago, we had just seen fresh examples of the enormous excesses of anti-Semitism in Europe. 60 years ago, that was the cause celebre, the difference being, there was no "other side" to it, because it was a real, uninvited atrocity of staggering proportions. Pogroms were still going on in Europe after the war. And more importantly, Jews simply wanted to move to land owned by people who were eager to have them.

    Still the British stopped ships and interned immigrants on Cyprus throughout the period. The British blockaded all arms shipments by sea: tricky, nu? The overland routes to Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon were all open. Now who would that be useful to? And to whom would that be utterly without value?

    The Arab League fought what they said woud be a "War of Extermination" against people who had just faced such a war, but were now armed. Not well armed but armed nonetheless. And they were fighting for their homes, the only homes they had. That is why the Arab League lost in '48. There was no American intervention or American arms sales. Ditto the Brits, French, what have you. All sides expected a nice little slew of tragic headlines, and another nice little chapter in the sad, sad history of the Jewish people. Eh well. What's one more?

    And why is this pertinent? Because I keep hearing what a "bad idea" Israel was (and is, for some.)

    Question: you got a better idea? Given the history, I don't think it would be responsible for Jews as a whole not to found their own nation. Do you? Given the treatment of that people in Europe, even in the Middle East, what do you think the wisest thing was to do? Sit in their homes and not form counter-militias, once pogroms in the Mandate had begun? Never attempt to buy homes and land in the Mandate? Not fight for those homes?

    Or is the sin that the tiny new nation won the war?

    I am a Zionist because Jewish survival has never been guaranteed by a non-Jew, and never will be. The U.S., insofar as it is a secular nation, treats Jews as citizens like any other citizen, and has always done so. Whatever its other sins, it has never yet defined Jews as personae non grata. The U.S. is my country, obviously.

    Should the anti-semites I see popping up now and again actually win in America, however, it is comforting to me that Israel is there.

    The "Mavericks" of the world can tell me all about how paranoid I am, because they have only the most tenuous grip on history. They're probably not even aware of what they would call genocides, had they happened to any other people, which repeatedly happened in Jewish history. They will trumpet to the high heavens the horrors befalling a territory that has made war on the country next door. But because it does not suit their political agenda, they will never recognize there is a very good reason that country is next door.

    Everybody's not the same on this count, and I am sure I will now hear all about how Europe could be trusted as a place for Jews to live. In all of history, only America and Israel have served as a home to Jews, where Jews were not slaughtered in the name of the "real" nationality. The obvious conclusion was that Jews were a nationality. Every other nation treated Jews as a nation. Jews came to the conclusion that nationhood was a matter of survival, not ideology.

    Had it been tolerated that Jews bought and held a comparitively tiny patchwork of land in the Mandate, a binational state would have been possible. My own mother sadly reminisces of having gone to a Bedouin wedding when she lived there, and having been presented (as an honor) with a goat's eye to eat. Much laughter ensued... something she does not think would happen now (though a recent Jerusalem Post article posted here makes it seem less than impossible.)

    Had the Peale partition plan been accepted on the Arab side in the '30s, Israel would have been a tiny state, tinier than the Israel in the '48 partition plan. Had the '48 partition plan been accepted, Israel would have been a tiny and indefensible little area, far smaller than after the war. And had the result of '48 been accepted, there would be no issue of Israeli actions in Gaza or the West Bank, whether they decided to constitute themselves as Palestine, or to join with Egypt and Jordan.

    But none of these things came to pass. The battle-cry since the early 20th century was that no Jew should be allowed in Palestine... dating back to the British defeat of the Ottomans (despite the toleration of minorities the Ottomans practiced). Arab nationalism was on the rise; they'd hear nothing of the "old ways" of toleration.

    The Jews who first bought land there were right to do so, particularly given the subsequent events of that century. The Jewish communities who insisted on self-defense were right to do so. The Jews who decided to form a Jewish state in their part of the partition were right to do so, and the Jews who defended that Jewish state in 1948, '56, and '67 -- and today -- have been right to do so.

    I have said many times before and am glad to say again, that a Palestinian state must exist. Precisely because of the history after the '48 war, Palestinian national consciousness is a fact, and a Palestinian national homeland makes perfect sense. But a Palestinian state or government committed to the murder of all Jews cannot be considered an acceptable outcome from the Israeli side of this equation.

    And despite what is most fashionable in one's own neck of the woods to say or think, there is an Israeli side to this. And if the rest of the world prefers to think there is not, or should not be, the Israelis themselves will always ensure that the rights of Israelis are adequately represented... even if it's "just a few dozen rockets" we're talking about.

    PFnV
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2009
  16. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,608
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    a fine post...

    i guess it all comes down to how important "sacred holy land" is to each individual at that time... me? if i were a Jew in 1948? after the hand i'd been dealt that decade? ... i'd have probably found a way to get to America...

    i mean no disrespect in quoting Mark Twain here... this is about a landscape, nothing else:

    Of all the lands there are for dismal scenery, I think Palestine must be the prince. The hills are barren, they are dull of color, they are unpicturesque in shape. The valleys are unsightly deserts fringed with a feeble vegetation that has an expression about it of being sorrowful and despondent. The Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee sleep in the midst of a vast stretch of hill and plain wherein the eye rests upon no pleasant tint, no striking object, no soft picture dreaming in a purple haze or mottled with the shadows of the clouds. Every outline is harsh, every feature is distinct, there is no perspective ? distance works no enchantment here. It is a hopeless, dreary, heart-broken land.
     
  17. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,124
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +492 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    It worked! I knew I'd get a knee-jerk response from you Mav...what a surprise.

    It's all just one big frikkn' conspiracy to you Mav, isn't it? I guess you have some fantasy that there is some secret society of maybe 1,000 people who control everything and the rest are just sheep

    BUT NOT MAV!! He's fought against the brainwashing and has deprogrammed himself! :rofl:
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2009
  18. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    27,124
    Likes Received:
    176
    Ratings:
    +492 / 6 / -24

    #18 Jersey

    Actually PC, we DID force Mexicans to live in Mexico, did we not? Not exactly a choice piece of real estate, is it? Now lets say at some point Mexico became a part of the US and some Mexican-Americans resented losing their land and started to use suicide bombing as a means of getting their land back and alienating the remaining American society (which would certainly happen).

    Well, you can see how the same scenario could easily happen. Do you think the rest of us would care how poorly the Mexicans were treated if that happened...I wouldn't care as long as the threat of that kind of terror was under control. It's all natural human behavior when one culture has the power and the other one uses violence. There is nothing happening in Israel that can't be explained by common sense cause & effect historical cultural relationships.

    BTW PC...EVERYONE is sick of it. There isn't one group on this earth that is enjoying what's going on with Israel/Gaza....except maybe the Hamas in Iran. :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2009
  19. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    21,091
    Likes Received:
    406
    Ratings:
    +889 / 12 / -7

    Intro note: coming to America became progressively more difficult through the first half of the 20th Century. There were immigration quotas, so many from each country, each year. I do not know whether they had a specific quote on Jews off the top of my head. I do know this nation regularly refused entry to refugees from Hitler's Europe during the Holocaust. My own family ended up living in France, then Israel, and only moving to American in the late 1950s.

    But to the point: PC, yes, I think a great deal goes back to the whole period from the late 19th Century to 1948, yes.

    The cleverest part (and by "clever," of course, I mean "insane") of the '48 partition plan was that the borders of the "Jewish" part of the partition and the "Arab" part of the partition were drawn intentionally to be mutually indefensible:

    [​IMG]

    I originally chose a version detailed enough that you can see the city of Hebron in the middle of the would-be Arab state in the partition... but it gave me problems. Hebron was one of the areas that had been Jewish continually for millenia -- yet the Jews said, alright, we can live without Hebron (just for example) when the partition was drawn. Drawing nation-states by ethnic bounds cut both ways.

    Here's the British Peel partition plan, made in 1937, which was also rejected by the Arab side but accepted by Jews in Palestine (the area from Jerusalem to Jaffa, as well as the enclave of Nazareth and some other areas, were to remain a "mandated" area in this plan):
    [​IMG]

    I am not sure what the UN thought it was doing with the '48 map. There had been escalating violence for decades when this plan was voted on. The hope originally was that the mutually indefensible borders would naturally result in mutual respect for one anothers' borders, though no such result of such an unstable arrangement has ever been pointed out to me. Further, the UN seems not to have noticed that the nascent Jewish state would be surrounded not only by the Arab bit of Western Palestine, but also by hostile Arab League nations. But mutually indefensible was the word of the day.

    By the way, I say Western Palestine, because this is the map of Britain's Palestine Mandate:

    [​IMG]

    Transjordan (later just Jordan) was created in "Eastern Palestine" (to the east of the Jordan river,) and specified as forbidden to Jewish settlement, leaving the strip of land we currently discuss at length.

    From the time of the Balfour Declaration, in which Britain said "Her majesty's government look favourably on the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine," the die was cast. Balfour did not even specify a state, so Britain had no problem saying "it depends what the meaning of national home is" when they were talking to Arabs, who, after all, had oil.

    The 1948 boundaries virtually guaranteed war, and the surrounding states of the Arab League made clear they would have none of this partition nonsense; the Palestinian Arabs' representative, the Mufti of Jerusalem (Amin al Husseini,) was an adamant Jew-hater, and similarly rejected any plan recommended by Britain (charged with administering the Mandate,) or the U.N. (which eventually drew up the 1948 map.)

    The original complaint was the existence of Jews at all. In retrospect, the anti-Israeli community, whether Arab, Western, or other, now bitterly complains about the outcome of the '48 war. I would as well. The innocent were displaced and dispossessed by that war.

    I am currently in communication with an Arab Muslim Palestinian... we continue the argument on "the internets" when we can't get together for coffee. I try to tread lightly. He was born in Jerusalem, and I was born in Burlington--I am not "the Israeli side," though I may have family there.

    Palestinians too are a people who have suffered greatly, by dint of history and by dint of what I would call an unabating failure of leadership (and not because they did not fight often enough, fiercely enough, etc. etc. etc.)

    So yeah it's right to say this is a thorny as hell issue. It's just not the simple issue we like to present it as.

    When Arafat rejected the Taba peace deal in the 90s, Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia told him he was committing a sin against the Palestinian people. It was certainly neither the first nor the last sin committed against them.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2009
  20. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,662
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    PR you just regurgitated the media memes and talking points that all the politicians and icons simultaneously put out there without even realizing it. It's not a conspiracy, it's a GREAT example of how all the one-sided media bias filters down to influencing Average Joes like yourself. The same thing happened to American morons who justified our initially going into Iraq, repeating the memes thrown out there at the time.

    As for PFnV, to keep mentioning myself in your posts as some sort of role model or example of an anti-semite, really destroys any credibility you have as a rational thinker, of for your Zionist movement. It merely proves my point that any neutral or objective 3rd party observer will be automatically character assassinated by Zionists for not being "balanced" (meaning completely pro-Israel).
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>