9% support Israel, while 44% support the palestinians

Great Debates
41

No. Building upon what KIMSTU and TOM said, the lack of “ties” between the American government and the American press is also supported by the fact that the American government has far less ability to censor the American press than most European countries have to censor their own press.

As for the rest of it, it seems to me that if the whole world expects the U.S. to step in and fix the situation (or at least try to) – and look at the storm of criticism Bush took during the week he refused to do so – then the world must reasonably expect that the U.S. will fix it (or try to fix it) by such means and in such a manner as it deems best.

42

Jodi: Kimstu, does this mean that you do not fully endorse Pipes’s POV?

Gosh, is that how it came across? :wink: Nah, I just don’t want to have to explain to my Canadian and British friends how it is that they don’t qualify as having any “moral and humanitarian quality to their foreign policy.” But we all know what irresponsible selfish thugs those Canucks and Limeys are, don’t we? :slight_smile:

43

[slight hijack] Where does this OG SMASH! I see around the boards come from? Anyone have a link? Thanks! [/slight hijack]

44

Whoa there! My previous post attributed a quote from december to Jodi…sorry about that, everyone. Here’s a real quote from Jodi:

As for the rest of it, it seems to me that if the whole world expects the U.S. to step in and fix the situation (or at least try to) […] then the world must reasonably expect that the U.S. will fix it (or try to fix it) by such means and in such a manner as it deems best.

This I don’t quite understand, Jodi. Are you suggesting that if the rest of the world considers “what we deem best” to be wrong or misguided, they should refrain from criticizing us?

45

KIMSTU –

Of course not. But neither should they act surprised that we do not do whatever it is they think we should do. If you don’t like how I’d fix your sink, fix your sink yourself.

46

Jodi replied to me: *“Are you suggesting that if the rest of the world considers “what we deem best” to be wrong or misguided, they should refrain from criticizing us?”

Of course not.*

Criticism okay; check.

But neither should they act surprised that we do not do whatever it is they think we should do.

Criticism okay, acting surprised not okay. Hmmm. Check followed by question mark.

If you don’t like how I’d fix your sink, fix your sink yourself.

But what should I do if I don’t like the way you’re trying to fix a sink that’s common to all of us whose functioning affects us all, but which only you have the necessary money and tools to repair? Surely in that case, my only recourse is to keep banging away at you with criticism and advice in hopes that you will come to understand why my sink-fixing strategy is (IMHO) better.

47

Let’s torment this metaphor! :wink:

Nope, your only strategy that will prevent me from introducing the monkeywrench to your teeth is for you to shaddup, get a gawddamned job, buy your own damned wrench and fix it in a way that suits you. As long as it’s my tools, my money, my skinned knuckles and my sweat, I don’t want, nor do you have any business, yapping at me. Backseat drivers who don’t own cars or pay for gas are never appreciated.

(Emphatically NOT!!! directed at you, Kimstu, but at the ‘character’ in the scenario.)

Fenris

48

Power Station, you have been asked three times to respond to december’s list of things he suspected your media were not reporting. They are simple yes/no questions regarding stories that have been reported (if not necessarily verified) in US media. Why are you ducking them.

If you continue to duck them, it makes me think that the answers are likely no. And that tells us a lot about fair media.

And don’t even think about going into the Arafat “but the Israelis…” routine. Nobody disputes the Israelis have done some rotten stuff. The question is whether you will acknowledge the rotten stuff on both sides.

Yes or no. Six questions. Think you can handle that?

49

KIMSTU – Basically, what FENRIS said.

That may in fact be your only recourse. But neither should you be surprised if I continue to fix it my way if you fail to convince me that your way is better. And in international politics, as in sink fixing, non-constructive criticism from the non-contributing peanut gallery is of very limited value. (Advice is obviously more valuable. )

In this case, I’m not convinced they want the sink fixed. Either of 'em.

50

Israel has offered peace plan after peace plan. The Palestinians have rejected them. The Palestinians don’t want peace if it means having to recognize Israel’s right to exist.

I’m not going to get involved too much in this discussion because it appears to me that the OP has an agenda that precludes an open debate.

51

piffle!

We are not talking about the latest invasion from Alpha Centauri, here. We’re talking about two groups of people with a combined population smaller than any single nation in Europe (leaving aside Monaco, Lichtenstein, etc.), with limited abilities to sustain themselves without importing food and limited export markets to purchase food.

If Europe had the will to “do something” they are quite as capable, collectively, as the U.S. For that matter, a serious collection of states in Asia and either/both Africa or the Americas should be able to put together the military/economic/political muscle to intervene to halt the fighting in the region. The argument sounds rather like the one used throughout the entire self-destruction of Yugoslavia: I constantly saw the European press and political leadership demand that the U.S. “do something” while immediately criticizing anything the U.S. did–all the while refusing to gather themselves in a consensus to do the “right” thing.

I make no claim that the U.S. decisions have been correct in either situation, but the idea that everyone calls on the U.S. to be the world cop and then screams “police brutality” the moment the U.S. takes any action has long since ratcheted up my personal cynicism regarding the good moral beliefs of other countries.

52

here’s the poll in English
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=305371

53

>> I’m not going to get involved too much in this discussion because it appears to me that the OP has an agenda that precludes an open debate.

Nah, don’t blame bad faith that which can be easily explained by ignorance. The OP is just not ready for prime time in GD

>> Let’s say that this opinion comes from my impressions.

POWER_stationThis is not the place for opinions or impressions. This is a places for facts and you have precious little to offer by way of facts

>> Haven’t US mainstream newspaper closer ties to their government than European newspapers ?

That might be a question for GQ and the answer is probably not what you think. You are way out of your depth here and not doing any good in defending or debating your position. I think you better do your homework before you attempt a Great Debate.

54

furt, I can’t answer for what Power Station has or has not seen, but the European media sources I cited above do contain answers to some of these questions about what is being reported. Please check them out.

*[li]Are you aware that Arafat’s headquarters were found to have a large abount of counterfeit Israeli money and also equipment for counterfeiting American money? *[/li]
This was mentioned in one of the Spiegel articles I linked to and is also on germany.indymedia. By the way, all major media stories from all countries that I have seen on this subject say not that “the headquarters were found to have” these things, but that “the IDF reported” or “the IDF published a document supporting” these claims.

[li]Are you aware that at least one Red Crescent ambulance was found to be transporting explosives?[/li]
In one of the Le Monde articles on 29 March.

[li]Does your media point out that Arafat agreed to protect Israel in Oslo, but that he done the opposite? [/li]

This is an issue not of news reportage but of editorial opinion. The Friedman article in Le Monde that I mentioned espouses that opinion.

*[li]Are you aware that Israel is being bombed regularly from the North? *[/li]
The Hezbollah bombing in the north is mentioned in one of the Le Monde articles of 2 April.

*[li]Are you aware that a Palestinian gunman shot and killed a UN observer a week or so ago? *[/li]
Could you please provide some more detailed reference to this? I cannot figure out the identity of this incident even in a search of US media.

*[li]How many of the murdered Israeli civilians have been featured on TV or in newspapers and magazines, so one could sympathize and identify with them? *[/li]
The Der Spiegel articles I cited include a photo spread on different victims of the tragedy, including the burial of two Israeli victims and a grieving survivor.

As I said before, I just don’t think there’s evidence to support your (or december’s) suspicions that the European media are somehow “not reporting” these things. The European media are, as I noted, much more strongly critical of Israel than the US media tend to be, but that doesn’t mean that they’re censoring news unfavorable to the Palestinians. Don’t take my word for it; go read Le Monde or Der Spiegel. (There are also the English-language British papers, of course, but I haven’t bothered looking at them because I figure you wouldn’t consider them “European” enough.)

tomndebb: If Europe had the will to “do something” they are quite as capable, collectively, as the U.S. For that matter, a serious collection of states in Asia and either/both Africa or the Americas should be able to put together the military/economic/political muscle to intervene to halt the fighting in the region.

This is interesting. How do you think the US would react if such a collection of states intervened and, say, ordered Israel out of the occupied territories in accordance with the UN resolutions? I’m not claiming that other nations are any more moral or altruistic than we are, but I seriously doubt that we would look kindly upon other nations’ taking the initiative in this way.

gobear: *Israel has offered peace plan after peace plan. The Palestinians have rejected them. The Palestinians don’t want peace if it means having to recognize Israel’s right to exist. *

Cite? I have seen this sort of assertion thrown around a lot, and I tend to file it right next to the assertions that “the Palestinians are desperately fighting for their freedom and the Israelis are gratuitously oppressing them.” As far as I can tell, there’s a lot of sincerity but also a lot of mendacity on both sides. Most Palestinians and most Israelis seem to want peace and to be willing to accept a two-state solution. Many Palestinians would rather continue the violence than abandon their hopes of reclaiming Israel’s territory. Many Israelis would rather continue the violence than abandon their hopes of establishing “Greater Israel”, pull out of the settlements in the occupied territories, and/or risk the possibility of a non-Jewish citizen majority in the Israeli state.

55

I have heard/read about all these cases you mention here in the media where I live.

56

Kimstu:

Only a year ago Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians the best possible deal they could get: a Palestinian homeland, control of East Jerusalem, and peace with Israel. Arafat quibbled over the right of return for Palestinian refugees and threw away any chance for peace.

And sign their own death warrants while they’re at it?

57

Well, the OP is about how Europeans and Americans have different views and perceptions of the conflict, not about the conflict itself, which is being discussed in other threads.

Both in Europe as in the US as anywhere else there is a circle difficult to break: The media reinforces public opinion with its simplifications and stereotypes and public opinion in turn demands more of the same. This is a circle very difficult to break.

Clearly Arab media have a very different view than western media. The media feed the people what the people want to be fed which in turn is shaped by the media. where do you break this circle?

Maybe we would be better off if Israelis could only read Arab media, the Chinese media were controlled by America, American media by Europe, etc… At least we would get the other side’s point of view.

But for the OP to assume European media is “right” and American media wrong is just plain ignorant and preposterous.

58

…whew…

Be nice to the rookie, sailor. He’s used to the rest of the internet.

But you’re right. There’s a reason I rarely post to historical/political threads.

It is because there are way too many people here who know their shit.

59

I think that it would depend on how it was done and what steps the collection of states took to guarantee that the PA actually stopped supporting the death of Israel. (It might depend on what month it was, as well. 13 months ago, the Bush administration had taken as many steps away from the whole region as it could without falling on its butt into the Pacific. Subsequent to 9/11, Bush and company have taken a radically different approach to the issue.)

60

Just slightly. Claiming a unique “moral and humanitarian quality to our foreign policy”? More so than the rest of the world? It’d be funny if it wasn’t so insulting to everybody else (as most jingoistic bleatings about “American exceptionalism” usually are). Foreign aid numbers alone…

Ah well, it’s a Fox opinion show, it’s not like that sort of thing is unexpected.

Anyway, <hijack> who is this Hoy character anyway? His articles about Paul Krugman have the distinct ring of the insignificant snapping at the heels of their betters. Also the distinct “whirring” sound of spin doctoring; at least, unlike this apologist, Krugman will criticize both sides if necessary. </hijack>