another example of biased media coverage towards pro-israel.

Post Reply New Topic

President George W Bush has underlined the close ties between the US and Israel during a visit coinciding with the country's 60th anniversary.

Speaking in Jerusalem, he praised Israel as a model for democracy.

Mr Bush has also said he believes Israel and the Palestinians can strike a peace deal by the end of the year.

Before he spoke, several people were injured when a rocket fired from Gaza hit the city of Ashkelon. They include a mother and daughter.

Earlier in the day, four people were killed in Israeli military operations in Gaza.

Mr Bush's Middle East visit will include Saudi Arabia and Egypt in an attempt to inject some momentum into the current peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.

His tour will not take in the Palestinian territories but he will meet Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in Egypt.

"We believe that the surest way to defeat the enemies of hatred is to advance the cause of hope, the cause of freedom, liberty as the great alternative to tyranny and terror," he said at a peace conference in Jerusalem.

Correspondents describe President Bush's eyes welling with emotion as he received a standing ovation and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called him as a "great leader, a great friend".

President Bush arrived in Israel earlier on Wednesday - 60 years to the day after Israel declared independence.

But what Israelis celebrate as 60 years of statehood, Palestinians mark as al-Nakba, or "the Catastrophe".

Some 700,000 Palestinians fled their homes or were expelled in 1948.

Many Palestinians also accuse Israel of hurting the innocent and of collective punishment in its attempts to quash Palestinian militants, says the BBC's Katya Adler in Jerusalem.

------------------------------------------------------------


now notice how the people killed in israel's assault which killed 4 aren't specified but the rocket assault that only injurred people specified that there was a mother and a daughter involved? it's a means of making one side anonymous while trying to make the other seem more human and more real and more tangible to the reader. it's done a lot. i've even seen before an article where an israeli girl was injured by a rocket blast and that was the headline and it was on msn.com. no deaths. just someone hurt.


it's use of semantics to shift the population towards a pro-israel stances. it's done a lot in the news. especially with anything regarding palestine/israel.


the media has a VERY pro-israel bias.

indeed

something else i noticed.


how is it simply just an accusation? i thought this issue has been extensively covered by others? hasn't there also been UN resolutions passed condemning such actions in the past too? how is it just a accusation? it's what goes on.

Most news reports do the exact opposite: specify the individual Palestinians killed during a response attack by Israel,
while glossing over the Israelis killed during the original, unprovoked assault from Gaza.

And Israelis fire back at the locations from where the rockets were launched,
whereas the Palestinians routinely fire missles into civilian territories without care
of where they land, so long as they kill as many citizens as possible.
Women and children are bonus targets to them.

Three-quarters of Palestinians voted for Hamas, which shows that three-quarters of Palestinians are terrorists at heart.
They wanna play terrorist? Israel responds accordingly.

While you're at it, skafather, since you know so much,
tell us the stastistic of the percentage of Palestinian children
who will eventually blow themselves up in order to kill Israeli civilians?
That percentage can be deducted from the Palestinian child body count
of collateral damage from Israel's responses to the rocket-launching Palestinians.

Bush was in Israel and the palestinians failed to hit him with a rocket? Useless buggers.

Its a tit for tat issue. If everybody stopped shooting for a while, and stopped bombing back and forth, they might be able to reach a resolution that makes everyone happy.

If you believe Hamas would ever stop shooting just to negotiate, I have a bridge to sell you. The only time they would ever scream cease-fire would be when they're LOSING. That's the definition of a hudna, a temporary stoppage so that they can re-arm. And in places like Sderot, it hasn't ended since the Disengagement.

And even if Hamas declares a hudna and Israel reciprocates, Hamas will just trump up a "situation" to start it all over again. See "Gaza beach incident" and how they tried to malign Israel for something they themselves did, then tried to cover up. Pallywood at its worst, and the only reason they didn't get away with it was because they failed to remove every single piece of shrapnel from a child who was then subsequently treated in an ISRAELI hospital. The one piece that was found did not match IDF artillery, but rather a Hamas landmine.

Never thought for a minute that they actually would, simply noted that if they did.. Hell, the Irish quit with the terrorism. If they can, why not others?

I would rather have a pro-israeli media than a pro-palestinian.

That is not a serious question. How many resolutions, ceasefires, etc have been proposed?

Israel should sign a peace treaty with Syria in exchange for Golan Heights. This might react the Syrians into loosening support for Hezbollah. Afterwards, Israel should bombard Hizbullah targets--effectively terminating their organization, take over Gaza and execute the Hamas generals. Sign an effective peace treaty with the West Bank, put Abu Massen as President of both territories and there: Two state-solution.

Peace in the Middle East isn't achieved without war. No matter what liberal tells you.

Thank you for saying that!

As an American I can be jailed for making such a statement, but I believe I am permitted to smile while you say it!

Proposed.... what I mentioned is the actually DOING IT. Not proposing it.

Because killing the s**t out of everyone has obviously worked really well these past few thousand years...... There couldnt possibly be a peaceful solution...

At various times throughout the irish issue, different sides declared very vocally and with vast amounts of seething vitriol.. that there could NEVER be peace etc etc.. and yet its remarkably un-bomby around these parts these days (at least as far as the Irish are concerned.) Seems almost "peace full"...

When they tightly strap me in, give me lethal injection
just a few moments to live, no remorse for what I did
Was for the benefit of man, I gave the utmost sacrifice
Before more damage could be done I took his life

There was a split second of silence when the dart punctured the skin
Beady eyes rolled back in head, the body dropped from the poison
They could incapacitate me, but could not erase my sneer
I heard a thousand people screaming, while three billion others cheered
He was gone and I would soon be

Executed by the state, all appeals would be in vain
I was not criminally insane, in fact I was found to be
An otherwise caring and respectable member of society
A minor threat except for that one man I killed

As the sedatives take effect, I just smile, close my eyes
There's a priest kneeling next to me, he asks me if I realize
I was going straight to hell and he thought that I should know
That the man I killed's replacement planned this whole scenario
And what I did had no significance at all
----------------

written by a fellow american. nothing like a song fantasizing about killing that worthless scum.

I'm not sure if anyone has informed you of this, but Ireland is not in the middle east.

I would like for there to be peace, but I don't see it happening. Why? Because when Israel is attacked or finds an attacker, Israel will not hesitate to either terminate or capture that person, thus breaking the peace treaty. It has happened many times. Don't forget the mentality of the people there are very against each other. There is also an idea of martyrdom in the religions of that area.


And yes, killing did work for the past thousands of years. The only problem now is that Israel (as a nation) isn't going anywhere and is able defend themselves.

Could you? I suppose if it could be interpreted as a threat, but that seems like a stretch to me. It is (nominally, at least) perfectly legal to say that you hope or wish that a president would die. Giving an indication that you're going to try to harm a president is a different story.

Or harm anyone for that matter.

Ireland isnt the middle east? OMGSHITZORS really? Bears no resemblance to the situation either I suppose.. two ideologically opposed groups attacking each other over the ""unfair" occupation of land. Doesn't sound the same at all....

So, the years of peace in the middle east before Israel became an issue.. when were those exactly? I seem to recall a fairly long history of internecine warfare and invasion, stretching back quite a long time? Or maybe I'm getting it confused with Ireland again.. I dunno.. I think I have the dumb...

You really cant compare the wars before to the one today.