Absence of Concern

[Gnevin]

This image is interesting

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Intifada_deaths.svg

[Pangurban]

When Hardy draws attention to the moral equivalence between the deaths of Israeli and Palestinian civilians, he is quite right, both are equally repugnant. But desperate people do desperate things, and in all wars civilians suffer. What must be exposed is the banal, sanatised reporting which attempts to paint both sides as equally culpable, or in some cases blame Hamas. During a 6 month ceasefire, not one Rocket was fired, yet Israel continued to enforce their embargo, denying Palaestinians access to even the most basic needs. Water and Electricity was cut off, food and medicines were severely restricted, Farmers were denied access to their land. All these actions were a clear breach of the ceasefire by Israel. Yet despite almost daily condemnations by the U.N., who described the situation as the greatest humanitarian crisis facing the World today, Israel remained indifferent to the suffering. It was only when Hamas resumed their Rocket attacks to draw attention to their plight, that the main-stream media reacted in their usual fashion by attemting to blame the victims. In doing so they have lost all credibility as impartial News organistions. Hardy is a very intelligent Man, he may for the sake of argument equivocate, but he knows the truth

[ONeill]

Hardy's correct in that Fisk's use of 'just' does seem to indicate a smidgen of bias in his reporting. However I think he's (the Meathman) also using that slip to bash Fisk more so than anything else. It wasn't really important to the ethos of the report.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Fisk has put almost a lifetime of reporting effort into experiencing and faithfully reporting what the pitiful Middle-East is all about, and he hasn't been afraid to jeopardise his own personal safety in so doing, not in the slightest. I don't understand Hardy's antipathy, I feel it to be benighted and reactionary in the extreme. Mylestheslasher calls it correctly, in my opinion, in that he has a well-read take on the body of Fisk's (extensive) work.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Hardy's correct in that Fisk's use of 'just' does seem to indicate a smidgen of bias in his reporting.

I would disagree with that. The Israelis have justified the massive use of force shown in the last number of days by pointing to the recent missile campaign. This missile campaign did not produce any injuries, never mind one death. In the light of that statistic, many elements of the media are asking if 350+ dead is a disproportionate response, and it is against this background that Fisk used the term of 'just twenty dead'.  The use of this body count may appear cold or callous, but it in no way points to Fisk in any way justifying those deaths or saying that they are somehow less important than the deaths of other innocents - what he is trying to do is paint the context for the events that have occurred in recent days.

However I think he's (the Meathman) also using that slip to bash Fisk more so than anything else. It wasn't really important to the ethos of the report.

Notwithstanding our difference on Fisk's article, I would agree with that. To my mind Hardy you clearly don't like Fisk and you have let that influence your argument - that is disappointing.

As regards Fisk, I have to say I applaud anyone who is willing to rise above the parapet and speak on behalf of the downtrodden - the Palestinian people are definitely that.

The Israelis have shown themselves again to be ruthless people, filled with a lust for revenge. The air raids have prompted an absolute barrage of rockets into Israel in return and hardened attitudes in the Gaza Strip. That was always going to be an obvious consequence of their actions - they would have known that and it would suggest that the real reasoning for their actions have been a bit of electioneering as well as the aforementioned lust for revenge. It was also obvious that in such a densely populated area, there would be significant collateral damage, i.e. death and injury of the innocents. That again was taken into account when the fighters were launched - bottom line is they place no value on the lives of ordinary Palestinians.

The Israeli government minister (whose name escapes me) at least had the good grace not to burst out laughing when he talked about the fact that the ordinary Palestinians were their friends. Those words I imagine would ring hollow with the mother of the five little girls who were killed yesterday.  

[Gnevin]

Hardy's correct in that Fisk's use of 'just' does seem to indicate a smidgen of bias in his reporting.

I would disagree with that. The Israelis have justified the massive use of force shown in the last number of days by pointing to the recent missile campaign. This missile campaign did not produce any injuries, never mind one death. In the light of that statistic, many elements of the media are asking if 350+ dead is a disproportionate response, and it is against this background that Fisk used the term of 'just twenty dead'.  The use of this body count may appear cold or callous, but it in no way points to Fisk in any way justifying those deaths or saying that they are somehow less important than the deaths of other innocents - what he is trying to do is paint the context for the events that have occurred in recent days.

However I think he's (the Meathman) also using that slip to bash Fisk more so than anything else. It wasn't really important to the ethos of the report.

Notwithstanding our difference on Fisk's article, I would agree with that. To my mind Hardy you clearly don't like Fisk and you have let that influence your argument - that is disappointing.

As regards Fisk, I have to say I applaud anyone who is willing to rise above the parapet and speak on behalf of the downtrodden - the Palestinian people are definitely that.

The Israelis have shown themselves again to be ruthless people, filled with a lust for revenge. The air raids have prompted an absolute barrage of rockets into Israel in return and hardened attitudes in the Gaza Strip. That was always going to be an obvious consequence of their actions - they would have known that and it would suggest that the real reasoning for their actions have been a bit of electioneering as well as the aforementioned lust for revenge. It was also obvious that in such a densely populated area, there would be significant collateral damage, i.e. death and injury of the innocents. That again was taken into account when the fighters were launched - bottom line is they place no value on the lives of ordinary Palestinians.

The Israeli government minister (whose name escapes me) at least had the good grace not to burst out laughing when he talked about the fact that the ordinary Palestinians were their friends. Those words I imagine would ring hollow with the mother of the five little girls who were killed yesterday.  

Why do you consider the Israeli air raid a provocation too and not a reaction the initial Hamas rockets? Isn't that the problem that it is a circle of violence. Aren't Hamas as much to blame for their peoples suffering as the Israelis?

[Tyrones own]

Perhaps the high civilian death toll could be directly related to the fact that Hamas amongst others have a habit of barricading themselves
into corners surrounded by schools, hospitals and the like from which to direct the rocket attacks into Israel,
the oldest trick in the book yet the media fall for it everytime.
By the way I'm the furtherest thing from a fan of Israel and their heavy handedness
But lets face it I'd rather be here looking in than be in Israel looking out surrounded by such hatred on all sides.
It is a tough one and there are some fine points being made here on both sides.

[Donagh]

Perhaps the high civilian death toll could be directly related to the fact that Hamas amongst others have a habit of barricading themselves
into corners surrounded by schools, hospitals and the like from which to direct the rocket attacks into Israel,
the oldest trick in the book yet the media fall for it everytime.
By the way I'm the furtherest thing from a fan of Israel and their heavy handedness
But lets face it I'd rather be here looking in than be in Israel looking out surrounded by such hatred on all sides.
It is a tough one and there are some fine points being made here on both sides.

F**k, now I've heard it all! 2 million people crammed into a bit of land a quarter the size of Co Armagh and you expect them to have the luxury of being able to pick and choose where they set up shop? Maybe the Israelis should give the Palestinians some of their land back, if only so they can send their tanks against the Hamas AK's without fear of hitting a hospital.

[Tyrones own]

F**k, now I've heard it all! 2 million people crammed into a bit of land a quarter the size of Co Armagh and you expect them to have the luxury of being able to pick and choose where they set up shop? Maybe the Israelis should give the Palestinians some of their land back, if only so they can send their tanks against the Hamas AK's without fear of hitting a hospital.

Yes I do... and wind your neck in FFS

[Gnevin]

Perhaps the high civilian death toll could be directly related to the fact that Hamas amongst others have a habit of barricading themselves
into corners surrounded by schools, hospitals and the like from which to direct the rocket attacks into Israel,
the oldest trick in the book yet the media fall for it everytime.
By the way I'm the furtherest thing from a fan of Israel and their heavy handedness
But lets face it I'd rather be here looking in than be in Israel looking out surrounded by such hatred on all sides.
It is a tough one and there are some fine points being made here on both sides.

F**k, now I've heard it all! 2 million people crammed into a bit of land a quarter the size of Co Armagh and you expect them to have the luxury of being able to pick and choose where they set up shop? Maybe the Israelis should give the Palestinians some of their land back, if only so they can send their tanks against the Hamas AK's without fear of hitting a hospital.

When the West Bank was in Jordan's hands their was no  talk of a state. The Arabs  provoced the 6 day war with Israel and as such lost control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. So while all this talk of returning too the pre 67 borders is well and good it must be remember the Arabs refused Israeli offer of Land for peace before.

[stephenite]

[This missile campaign did not produce any injuries, never mind one death.

I think there was one Israeli fatality as a result of the Hamas missile campaign

[Zapatista]

This missile campaign did not produce any injuries, never mind one death.

Be carefull, if you support the missle campaign Hardy will claim you support the murder of innocent Israelis.

[ONeill]

I would disagree with that. The Israelis have justified the massive use of force shown in the last number of days by pointing to the recent missile campaign. This missile campaign did not produce any injuries, never mind one death. In the light of that statistic, many elements of the media are asking if 350+ dead is a disproportionate response, and it is against this background that Fisk used the term of 'just twenty dead'.  The use of this body count may appear cold or callous, but it in no way points to Fisk in any way justifying those deaths or saying that they are somehow less important than the deaths of other innocents - what he is trying to do is paint the context for the events that have occurred in recent days.

That's not really a strong argument. It actually does attempt to justify sympathy on the basis of death toll. If that 'missile campaign' had killed 60 or 100, would the 'just' sentence have been omitted. The missiles weren't fired to kill 'only 20'. A journalist student would be rapped for poor reporting. Again, Fisk's overall point in the article is clear and in my view correct but in this instance he isn't being altogether impartial. That's all, and veering off the purpose of this thread I suppose.

[Hardy]

This missile campaign did not produce any injuries, never mind one death.

Be carefull, if you support the missle campaign Hardy will claim you support the murder of innocent Israelis.

Zap - why would you fire rockets at civilians if not to kill them? You yourself have admitted (how could you believe otherwise) that firing rockets at people results in their death. How, therefore, can you support the rocket attacks without supporting the murder they bring? It doesn't make sense.

Five pages now and nobody here has typed a single word on my condemnation of Israel's murder of innocent civilians yet my condemnation of Hamas's murder of innocent civilians provokes reams of dismissal, justification and analysis. Yet I'm the one accused of bias because I dislike a journalist. I don't undertstand that huge imbalance.

Many here continue either to refuse to condemn the murder of innocent civilians if they belong to the wrong side or to attempt to justify it. Others exhibit more outrage at my dislike for a particular journalist than at the deaths of innocents (on one side), expend lines of textual analysis to justify Fisk's dismissal of Israeli deaths as insignificant in comparison to those of Palestinians and analyse my motives in doing nothing more than insisting that one murder is as bad as another.

I have neither attacked a community with fighter jets nor fired rockets at civilians, so try to have a sense of proportion in your criticism of my antipathy to Fisk. It may be irrational, it may even be wrong and it certainly colours my interpretation of what he writes. So shoot me; but I surely can't be the only one here whose prejudices influence their analysis. I'm thinking particularly of those who justify the murder of civilians when it's in a cause they support.

I have a very simple problem with Fisk - when I want news, he gives me one-sided propaganda. I know what I will get before I read the article. Where's the value in that sort of journalism? He's also pompous, self-aggrandising and, like a global version of Charlie Bird, seeks to make the story about Robert Fisk. My apologies to everyone who is upset that I should have the temerity to dislike a pseudo-liberal icon, but my petty little prejudice won't cause a single death in Palestine or Israel.

[stephenite]

Israel has a right to defend itself, not that their blockade had any sort of justification in the first place.

It appears to me that the indiscriminate firing of rockets into southern Israel is, regardless of fatalities, more haphazard and designed to murder civilian life than the attempted targeting of Hamas personnel and infrastructure that the Israelis are undertaking. That Hamas choose to hide amongst their own people is despicable in itself in my view, but they'd hardly last anywhere else. All fatalaties are disgusting before anyone labels me a pro-Israeli.


I'd imagine that this is a concerted attempt to remove Hamas from the equation ahead of a new American president taking office, a sort of pre-negotiation bloodbath. Distasteful as it is, there will be never be peace while the likes of Hamas are still pllayers in the whole thing, Isreal and the US won't be bothered talking to those whose raison d'etre is to wipe out the other side.