# are the US media to biased toward Israel ? (video) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 15, 2006, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820 "2006-08-15T13:39:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820/161 "2006-08-21T14:28:08Z")
If I were an Arab leader I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal. We have taken their country, It is true that god promised it to us. But why should that interest them. Our god is not theirs.There is anti semitism,Hitler and Aushwitz but that was not their fault. They see only one thing. We have come and stolen their country. Why would they accept that David Ben Gurion ---
**Author:** ![Puzzler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d07c76/32.png) [@Puzzler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Puzzler)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820/162 "2006-08-21T14:40:07Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > Here are the top three definitions from a google search “middle east” definition: > > [Definition 1](http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=define:Middle+East&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title) Large region that covers parts of northern Africa, southwestern Asia, and southeastern Europe consisting of Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. > > [Definition 2](http://www.answers.com/topic/middle-east) An area comprising the countries of southwest Asia and northeast Africa. In the 20th century the region has been the continuing scene of political and economic turmoil. > > [Definition 3](http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/Middle_East) Noun 1. Middle East - the area around the eastern Mediterranean; from Turkey to northern Africa and eastward to Iran; the site of such ancient civilizations as Phoenicia and Babylon and Egypt and the birthplace of Judaism and Christianity and Islam; > > If your orientation is visual, the the third definition includes a map. I’ll use your first definition, since it contains a list of countries. I’ll devide the list to several categories. 1. In this category I’ll include: Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and United Arab Emirates I claim none of these countries is a democracy. If you disagree, let me know which country you think is one. 2. Cyprus and Turkey. From [wiki of the Middle East](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East): > [@wiki](#): > > The Caucasus region, Cyprus, and Turkey, although often grouped into Southwest Asia based upon geographic proximity and continuity, are generally considered culturally and politically European due to their various historic and recent political ties to that region. For example, Armenia and Cyprus, although both exist in close geographic proximity to the Middle East, possess two important criteria that links them more to Europe than to the Middle East: their national identity that combines an Indo-European linguistic background and majority populations that adhere to Christianity, which are both factors that do not correspond with most typically Middle Eastern countries some of whom possess one trait (Indo-European languages dominate Iran for example) or the other (Lebanon is the only country that may have a Christian majority but this remains speculative as well). Turkey possesses neither of these European traits, but has deep historic connections with Europe since it was the site of the Byzantine Empire and the Ottoman Empire that overlapped into Europe. As a prospective candidate of the European Union and a long-time member of NATO, Turkey has adopted the secular traits that dominate Europe and has severed many of its ties to the Middle East with the notable exception of the religion of Islam. Also, from [wiki on the history of the ME](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Middle_East) > [@wiki](#): > > In effect, Turkey became culturally part of Europe. Ever since, Turkey has insisted that it is a European country and not part of the Middle East. Also, [Colombia University Press Encyclopedia](http://www.answers.com/topic/middle-east) defines the ME as: > [@Encyclopedia](#): > > Middle East, term traditionally applied by western Europeans to the countries of SW Asia and NE Africa lying W of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. Thus defined it includes Cyprus, **the Asian part of Turkey** , Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, the countries of the Arabian peninsula (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait), and Egypt and Libya. Bolding mine. Note: not all of Turkey. So, these two countries are indeed democracies, but are not an _integral_ part of the ME. 1. Iraq Under Saddam? No. Now / in the future? Who knows. 2. Israel. A democracy. 3. Lebanon and Yemen “Emerging democracies”. Going in the right direction, but not quite there yet. Lebanon: Key-roles are pre-stated according to ethnic groups. Election held since 2000. My conclusion: young democracy, not stable yet. Yemen: From [US Department of State report on Yemen](http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41736.htm) > [@US Department of State](#): > > Yemen is a republic with an active bicameral legislature composed of an elected 301-seat House of Representatives (Majlis Al-Nuwaab) and an appointed 111-member Consultative Council (Majlis Al-Shura). President Ali Abdullah Saleh is the leader of the ruling party, the General People’s Congress (GPC), which dominates the Government. The Constitution provides that the President be elected by popular vote from among at least two candidates endorsed by Parliament. In 1999, President Saleh was directly elected in a popular vote to another 5-year term, **amended in a 2001** referendum to a 7-year term. **A competitive candidate did not oppose the President because his sole opponent was a member of the ruling GPC** In April 2003 parliamentary elections, the GPC maintained an absolute majority. International observers judged elections to be generally free and fair, **although there were problems with underage voting, confiscation of ballot boxes, voter intimidation, and election-related violence**. **The Parliament was not an effective counterweight to executive authority** , although it increasingly demonstrated independence from the Government. The head of the leading opposition party, Islah, led the elected House of Representatives, which effectively blocked some legislation favored by the Executive. Effective political power rested with the executive branch, particularly the President. The Constitution provides for an “autonomous” judiciary and independent judges; **however, the judiciary was weak, and corruption and executive branch interference severely hampered its independence.** Bolding mine. [This report](http://www.idea.int/publications/dem_yemen/upload/Yemen_country_report_English.pdf#search=%22yemen%20democracy%22) from 2005 is titled “Building Democracy in Yemen”. One does not build what is already there. My conclusion: Yemen is on the way, not quite there yet. I would also like to link to [this map](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Freedom_House_electoral_democracies_2006.png) showing electoral democracies in he world. So, is Israel “the only democracy in the ME”? Up to a few years ago – yes. Now – not quite, but surely the most stable one. In the future – who knows? I. for one, hope the answer would be negative. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820/163 "2006-08-21T22:59:37Z")
Sevastopol, I don’t know how anyone with an honest bone in their body can call my statement “misguided”. The fact of the matter is that the PLO and Arafat never formally recognized Israel, in spite of their willingness to discuss it during negotiations. _They never followed through_, as evidenced by your own cite. Your continuous and willful distortions of the truth make your posts here worthless and are a mockery of the stated “fighting ignorance” credo of these boards. Frankly I wonder why you even bother to post, since your posts are, as far as I can tell, almost universally ridiculed as dishonest, uninformed and ignorant. This is a prime example. A halfhearted nod towards recognition of Israel that isn’t followed up ( and in fact, from your own cite, it notes that the official PLO position that the charter has never been amended ) is presented by you as a formal recognition, when it is nothing of the sort, and you go on to classify the assassination of Rabin as the work of a “Jew terrorist”(was John Wilkes Booth a terrorist? Was Hinkley? Was Lee Harvey Oswald? No, they weren’t, but Yigal Amir is suddenly a terrorist, even though his actions were condemned not endorsed by the right wing in Israel of which he was a part). You claim that because of the assassination, Israel “turned aggressive” with absolutely no evidence that they did so because of Rabin’s death and not because of a change in governments. In short, your posts are the feverish wet dreams of an Anti-Semite and not based upon anything resembling reality at all. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2006, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820/164 "2006-08-22T00:16:21Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > In short, your posts are the feverish wet dreams of an Anti-Semite and not based upon anything resembling reality at all. You had a nice polemic going up until the end. [Do not speculate on the nocturnal emissions of other posters, particularly as an insult.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4749265&postcount=3) [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2006, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820/165 "2006-08-22T02:48:43Z")
I’m sorry Tom. I wasn’t aware of that rule or I wouldn’t have used the term, and I didn’t mean that as an insult, I meant it in the sense of a personally gratifying fantasy of the subconscious run wild, not bounded by reality or fact. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2006, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820/166 "2006-08-22T08:21:11Z")
**Puzzler** we are agreed that Turkey is part of the Middle East, according to the standard definitions. If you wish to argue the standard definitions are wrong, fine by me. I for one am all for excluding countries with a strong showing in the Eurovision Song Contest and a stretch of Mediterranean coast. > [@Weirddave](#): > > …All they have to do is say the word…but that word is recognizing that Israel is a sovereign nation with every right to exist… What more need be said? I note that **Tomndebb** has moderated Weirddave’s posting and accurately called it polemical. I’ve no wish to provoke him to further loss of composure and I have supplied adequate evidence for interested people to look further and make up their own minds. On a final note, in my committment to evenhandedness, I did include the ‘controversy’ over the Palestinian Charter the Wiki article alludes to. However it is the weakest part of the article. Where the evidence of acceptance of Israel is documented, dated and quoted, the claim there is a ‘controversy’ is born from: > [@](#): > > …A June 1999 report by the Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Information on the status of the Charter made no mention of the 1998 events and leading Palestinians continue to state that the Charter has not yet been amended… “So what?” has to be the response. What do 1999 Ministry of Information reports have to do with anything? What evidence is there of these ‘leading Palestinians’ making any such statements. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2006, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820/167 "2006-08-22T09:14:19Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > accurately called it polemical. [Ooooh, burn!](http://merriamwebster.com/dictionary/polemic) > [@Sevastopol](#): > > I’ve no wish to provoke him to further loss of composure There might be a word of two for that type of behavior as well. > [@Sevastopol](#): > > and I have supplied adequate evidence for interested people to look further and make up their own minds. Yes, your own cites show you’re lying. Now people can make up their mind as to why. > [@Sevastopol](#): > > On a final note, in my committment to evenhandedness, So that’s what if feels like to laugh until you cry. > [@Sevastopol](#): > > I did include the ‘controversy’ over the Palestinian Charter the Wiki article alludes to. You mean the ‘fact’ that it was never actually ‘changed’? Or perhaps that Arafat’s ‘actions’ in turning to deliberate terrorism as a political tool suggest something about the ‘veracity’ of your claims? But I’m sure that if Israel created a law to commit them to a program of genocide upon the Palestinians, and then they said they’d change it, or said in various documents that they had changed it, but never actually changed it and continued initiating violence, you’d congratulate them on their peaceful ways. Yeah… > [@Sevastopol](#): > > “So what?” has to be the response. Well, that and the fact that the document was never actually changed. Don’t let facts get in the way of lying. > [@Sevastopol](#): > > What do 1999 Ministry of Information reports have to do with anything? Nothing. The Palestinian Ministry of Information has nothing to do with Palestinian Information. Likewise, the fact that Arafat’s resume, in Arabic, deliberately left out Wye but the English resume kept it… that means nothing. Don’t trouble yourself. I’m sure we could all write some smarmy lies ourselves and pretend you posted them. Though I am glad we have you to show us the truth. Tell us more about how [Arafat was eager to live in peace](http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200411120827.asp). Hrm… Wye River was in 1998… in 1998 Arafat mentioned how his strategy was to use a strategic truce to plan for war. Coincidence? But of course. ---
**Author:** ![Puzzler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d07c76/32.png) [@Puzzler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Puzzler)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2006, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820/168 "2006-08-22T12:30:55Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > **Puzzler** we are agreed that Turkey is part of the Middle East, according to the standard definitions. > > If you wish to argue the standard definitions are wrong, fine by me. I for one am all for excluding countries with a strong showing in the Eurovision Song Contest and a stretch of Mediterranean coast. So……. It was Turkey you were referring to all along. You know, you could have just say so, rather than pointing vaguely to a general direction saying “it is there, go look for it”. Okay. Turkey being a democracy in the ME. I have already pointed that Turkey in not _fully_ in the ME. I’m sure even you will agree that a country who borders (among others) Bulgaria, Greece, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan to be **in** the ME. As I also stated, Turkey itself is reluctant to be identified with the ME. From [Turkey’s MFA official site](http://www.mfa.gov.tr/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Synopsis/SYNOPSIS.htm) > [@Turkey](#): > > Turkey is an intrinsic part of the European system of democratic values and can make a major contribution to the dialogue and harmony of civilizations within the EU and beyond. The pioneering project of European integration would be incomplete without Turkey’s membership to the EU. Now, Turkey is generally a democracy. However, as [the NewYorker](http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/021118fa_fact) pointed out, not everyone agrees it’s a _full_ democracy: > [@New Yorker](#): > > Bernard Lewis, a distinguished scholar of both Turkey and the Arab world, acknowledges the drawbacks of Turkey’s semi-democracy—the outsized role of the military in politics, instances of censorship, the persistence of torture in the precinct houses and prisons—and yet he has written that, in the context of the Islamic world and its history, Turkey is a country of possibility. > Democracy in Turkey is not easily mistaken for the European or American version. Four times—in 1960, 1971, 1980, and 1997—the Army has forced governments from office. Some more about these so-called “interventions” (pre-1997) may be found [here](http://www.allaboutturkey.com/darbe.htm) So, Turkey is _semi_-democracy that is _partially_ in the ME. Agreed? * * * > [@Sevastopol](#): > > What more need be said? > > I note that **Tomndebb** has moderated Weirddave’s posting and accurately called it polemical. I’ve no wish to provoke him to further loss of composure and I have supplied adequate evidence for interested people to look further and make up their own minds. > > On a final note, in my committment to evenhandedness, I did include the ‘controversy’ over the Palestinian Charter the Wiki article alludes to. However it is the weakest part of the article. Where the evidence of acceptance of Israel is documented, dated and quoted, the claim there is a ‘controversy’ is born from: “So what?” has to be the response. What do 1999 Ministry of Information reports have to do with anything? What evidence is there of these ‘leading Palestinians’ making any such statements. Now, regarding the PLO charter. The “weakest part” of _your_ site seems to point that both Israel and the Palestinians don’t agree that the charter was changed: > [@Sevatopol's wiki cite](#): > > Israeli views > Many Israelis and others criticize the 1968 Charter as follows: Articles 15, 19, 20, 22, and 23 of the Covenant explicitly deny Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Articles 1-6, 8, 11-14, 16-18, 21, 24-26, 28 and 29 implicitly deny Israel’s right to exist, insisting that Palestinian Arabs have the sole right to all of the land. Articles 7, 9 and 10 call all Arabs to support an armed struggle against Israel. Articles 27 and 30 indirectly call for violence. In all, a total of 30 of the 33 articles in the Covenant effectively deny Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. > Many Israelis feel that although the PNC met in Gaza on 24 April 1996, it did not revoke or change the covenant, but only issued a statement saying that it had become aged, and that an undefined part of it would be rewritten at an undetermined date in the future. While the English language press release stated that the PLO Covenant was “hereby amended”, the Arabic version of Yassir Arafat’s letter on this declaration stated: > It has been decided upon: 1. Changing the Palestine National Charter by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the PLO and the Government of Israel, on 9 September and 10, 1993. 2. The PNC will appoint a legal committee with the task of redrafting the National Charter. The Charter will be presented to the first meeting of the Central Council. > Peace Watch, a left-wing Israeli peace group that promotes the creation of a Palestinian state, issued this statement, which represents the way many Israelis felt: > The decision fails to meet the obligations laid out in the Oslo accords in two respects. First, the actual amendment of the Covenant has been left for a future date. As of now, the old Covenant, in its original form, remains the governing document of the PLO, and will continue in this status until the amendments are actually approved… There is a sharp difference between calling for something to change and actually implementing the changes. Second, the decision does not specify which clauses will be amended. > [edit] > Palestinian views > Reportedly, an internal PLO document from the Research and Thought Department of Fatah stated that changing the Covenant would have been “suicide for the PLO” and continued: > The text of the Palestinian National Covenant remains as it was and no changes whatsoever were made to it. This has caused it to be frozen, not annulled. The drafting of the new National Covenant will take into account the extent of Israeli fulfillment of its previous and coming obligations… evil and corrupt acts are expected from the Israeli side… The fact that the PNC did not hold a special session to make changes and amendments in the text of the National Covenant at this stage… was done to defend the new Covenant from being influenced by the current Israeli dictatorship. > In January 1998, before the second Gaza meeting, Faisal Hamdi Husseini, head of the legal committee appointed by the PNC, stated “There has been a decision to change the Covenant. The change has not yet been carried out”. But since you know better, I’m sure you can easily point me to an _official_ cite of the amended charter. That is, unlike [Pateh’s official site](http://www.fateh.net/e_public/constitution.htm) (Fateh is PLO major party) that quotes the unchanged constitution. > [@Fateh](#): > > The Movement’s Essential Principles > \ > Article (6) UN projects, accords and reso, or those of any individual cowhich undermine the Palestinian people’s right in their homeland are illegal and rejected. > Article (7) The Zionist Movement is racial, colonial and aggressive in ideology, goals, organisation and method. > Article (8) The Israeli existence in Palestine is a Zionist invasion with a colonial expansive base, and it is a natural ally to colonialism and international imperialism. > Article (9) Liberating Palestine and protecting its holy places is an Arab, religious and human obligation. > Goals > Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence. > \ > Method > Article (17) Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine. > \ > Article (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People’s armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated. > \ > Article (22) Opposing any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine, as well as any project intended to liquidate the Palestinian case or impose any international mandate on its people. And unlike [PLO un site](http://www.palestine-un.org/plo/) that lists the chrter from 1964, then the charter (amended) from 1968, the mentions the decision to change the charter (that was votes for 3 or 4 times), but no amended charter. The unfulfilled decision states: > [@PLO's decision](#): > > 1. The PNC met in a special session on 26 April 1996 to consider the issue of amending the Palestine National Charter and adopted the following decision: > A. To abrogate the provisions of the Palestine National Charter that contradict the letters exchanged between Chairman Yasser Arafat and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of September 9 & 10 1993. > B. To mandate the legal committee of the PLO to present a new text of the Palestine National Charter. Note: since 1993, the charter was **not** actually changed. (well, maybe 13 years is not long enough to actually erase a few articles, and actually vote on a new, amended charter…) Your turn. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2006, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820/169 "2006-08-23T02:47:20Z")
Earlier in this thread I mentioned that blaming bad PR for failure to sell one’s ideas on the Middle East was self-defeating, and indicated that Israel’s enemies had numerous organizations and vast resources to get their message across. To which **Sevastopol** in his inimitable way replied: > [@Sevastopol](#): > > Organizations? Vast resources? There was an illustration of these resources in today’s (8/22) New York Times. A full-page ad in the front section addressed to “His Excellency George Bush”, containing photos of Lebanese casualties, made the argument that Israel should be regarded as fascist (as opposed to Islamic fascists). The ad was sponsored by something called the Al-Kharafi Group. If you Google “Al-Kharafi Group”, you discover that it is [a large multinational contracting firm](http://www.unitedworld-usa.com/reports/kuwait/alkharafi.asp) based in Kuwait, run by Nasser Al-Kharafi, who is listed as one of the fiftiest [richest people in the world](http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/2002/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2002&passListType=Person&uniqueId=U38U&datatype=Person) (net worth is reportedly something like 5.7 billion dollars). This represents just one of the many lobbying efforts against Israel being heard from in recent days. And yes, I’d say the Al-Kharafi family’s power and money constitute “vast resources”. So the people who mutter darkly about Agencies and Israel Lobbies should take a good look at who’s organizing and bankrolling efforts on their side. Or maybe it’s an even better idea to drop the conspiratorial nonsense and concentrate on facts and ideas. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2006, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820/170 "2006-08-23T03:26:09Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Or maybe it’s an even better idea to drop the conspiratorial nonsense and concentrate on facts and ideas. Awh, you just hold that view because your mind is warped according to a pattern that is likely to have an external cause. 😉 Non-warped minds don’t let no steenkin facts get in the way of agreeing with sev. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2006, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820/171 "2006-08-23T04:33:40Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > If I were an Arab leader I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal. We have taken their country, It is true that god promised it to us. But why should that interest them. Our god is not theirs.There is anti semitism,Hitler and Aushwitz but that was not their fault. They see only one thing. We have come and stolen their country. Why would they accept that > David Ben Gurion Cite? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2006, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820/172 "2006-08-23T05:33:14Z")
It seems to be from Nahum Goldmann’s _Le Paradoxe Juif_, but it’s in french, and out of print. I can only find a french PDF and I’m not fluent, at all. I also wonder if the original quote was in Hebrew, English, or French, and how many translations its gone through. If, for instance, it was in Hebrew and translated into French and then into English I don’t think we can assume that the final version has much in common with the original. I also don’t know the date of Ben Gurion’s quote. Was he talking about the gains made in 1967, or 1948? Was he in power at the time of the quote, or armchair quarterbacking? What was the context? Even if it’s 100% precise in its translation and refered to 1948, I’d ask, “So what”? If Bush cast a situation in a certain light, would people necessarily accept it as true? Why, then, accept Ben Gurion’s view as gospel? Could this acceptance be agenda driven? Let’s look at the meat of the quote assuming 100% precision in translation: The claim is made that Irsrael took a “country” that would’ve been owned by, presumably “the Arabs” if any Arab leader would have had a claim to it. But there was never such a country, even Palestine wasn’t going to be pan-Arab in ownership. Would, for instance, Saudi Arabia have had “their” country “stolen” in 1948? No… then why would he be talking about any Arab leader not negotiating because “their” country was “stolen”? It makes no sense. The quote is nonsensical on its face, even ignoring that it lacks the context, timeframe, or impact of that quote. I can’t seem to find any context for it online, either, only repeated endlessly on various anti-Israel and/or anti-semitic webpages. But then again, it was presented by gonzo. Are you really surprised that it was a driveby post with no context, elaboration, logic, debate, or effort? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Puzzler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d07c76/32.png) [@Puzzler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Puzzler)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2006, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820/173 "2006-08-23T10:59:53Z")
I got a Hebrew translation of the book (from French). It is not a direct quote from Ben-Gurion. Nahum Goldman reflects back on a conversation he had with BG in 1956. This quote (or even the sentiment) does not appear in any formal BG quotation (I have check with the BG legacy center here in Israel, from which I got the copy). The context, according to Goldman, was an argument they had (in Hebew). Goldman held that peace should be aimed at, while BG held it impossible, thinking a strong army is required. After the alleged quote, according to Goldman, BG continued: “Maybe it will change in a generation or two, but for now there is no chance of that. So, it is simple: we must remain strong, hold a strong army. That is all there is to it. Otherwise, the Arabs will destroy us” I think I must add that Goldman and BG were political enemies. Reading the relevant pages of the book convey a distinct feeling that Goldman wanted to portray BG in a bad light, while posing himself as the real power / understanding. To prove that notion I get, let me quote some more (I snipped a lot, but note I have no dog in the argument between Goldman and BG): > [@Goldman](#): > > For years BG pushed me to settle in Israel and start a coalition against him. > … > In my to-many-to-count argument with BG I told him our analyses are different mainly because I think time works against Israel. Since then, the oil crisis showed I was right. > … > \ > I wasn’t convinced, and told him: “look, when I was in Heidelberg I studied philosophy, until I quite, convinced it’s useless. I am sure I was right, and you can trust my judgment” > … > Haim Wiseman, who hated BG at the end of his days until he became BG’s enemy, would say about him “BG will establish the state of Israel, and then will ruin it with his policy” > … > I cannot explain it, except by his character. Indeed, it often I hold that character overcomes wisdom in statesman. Some of them understand by mind what must be done, but their character stops them from doing that. This behavior is typical of BG; I will bring an example. > \ > Here’s BG for you: he told me that to show me that in his opinion Israel cannot exist without peace with the Arabs. But his stubborn, aggressive, unable to consent character stopped him from following his wisdom. \*\*The best prove of that is that after being away from ruling, the wisdom got back to him. He even became a “Goldmanist”. \*\* > … > It wasn’t the lack of degrees that bothered him, as it was the lack of knowledge that caused him a complex. As with everything else, he was extreme at that too: I have never met a statesman with so little understanding in arts, music, and even literature. Pictures did not interest him at all, and music bored him to death. > … > But that was BG’s disaster: he had ambition to be a philosopher and a prophet, but he was neither. His writing was quite bad, and his works were protocol-iar. He was a terrible speaker and his speeches boring. > … > \ Bolding mine. Sounds to me like a small man trying to show to the world how he was right, and other were mistaken. Also, the book was written in 1976. I find it hard to believe Goldman remembered every word for 20 years, not mixing it with his own feeling. Not to mention the argument was in Hebrew, the book / discussions in French, and the non-quote in English… Oh, and one more question to **Gonzomax** : how is this non-quote relevant to the current debate? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2006, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820/174 "2006-08-23T14:14:17Z")
> [@LavenderBlue](#): > > Cite? That is a quote from David Ben Gurion the first leader, organizer of the country of Israel and esteemede international leader. [http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/bengurion.html](http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/bengurion.html) There are hundreds of stories about this esteemed politician and intellectual. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2006, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820/175 "2006-08-23T14:16:36Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > It seems to be from Nahum Goldmann’s _Le Paradoxe Juif_, but it’s in french, and out of print. I can only find a french PDF and I’m not fluent, at all. I also wonder if the original quote was in Hebrew, English, or French, and how many translations its gone through. If, for instance, it was in Hebrew and translated into French and then into English I don’t think we can assume that the final version has much in common with the original. I also don’t know the date of Ben Gurion’s quote. Was he talking about the gains made in 1967, or 1948? Was he in power at the time of the quote, or armchair quarterbacking? What was the context? > > Even if it’s 100% precise in its translation and refered to 1948, I’d ask, “So what”? > If Bush cast a situation in a certain light, would people necessarily accept it as true? Why, then, accept Ben Gurion’s view as gospel? Could this acceptance be agenda driven? > > Let’s look at the meat of the quote assuming 100% precision in translation: > > The claim is made that Irsrael took a “country” that would’ve been owned by, presumably “the Arabs” if any Arab leader would have had a claim to it. But there was never such a country, even Palestine wasn’t going to be pan-Arab in ownership. > > Would, for instance, Saudi Arabia have had “their” country “stolen” in 1948? No… then why would he be talking about any Arab leader not negotiating because “their” country was “stolen”? It makes no sense. > > The quote is nonsensical on its face, even ignoring that it lacks the context, timeframe, or impact of that quote. > > I can’t seem to find any context for it online, either, only repeated endlessly on various anti-Israel and/or anti-semitic webpages. > > But then again, it was presented by gonzo. Are you really surprised that it was a driveby post with no context, elaboration, logic, debate, or effort? 😉 Ccertainly Finn I just made it up. You are always right. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2006, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820/176 "2006-08-23T14:24:33Z")
Quit nit picling. Did you ever go out for a drive in the country, What nation was it. country just refers to land. It was occupied by apparently people with no rights to it. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2006, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820/177 "2006-08-23T14:35:59Z")
Dont ever mention me without driveby. It is such an honorable debate technique. I would hate to lose my identity. I do drop off an occasional article . Then give time for some to think about it. Others to try to pick holes and scramble for a way around . I also know any debate with some of you will be accompanied with insults and slurs. I am not always in the mood for it. Quit debating yourself. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2006, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820/178 "2006-08-23T14:48:44Z")
> [@Puzzler](#): > > t is not a direct quote from Ben-Gurion. Nahum Goldman reflects back on a conversation he had with BG in 1956. This quote (or even the sentiment) does not appear in any formal BG quotation (I have check with the BG legacy center here in Israel, from which I got the copy). > > The context, according to Goldman, was an argument they had (in Hebew). Goldman held that peace should be aimed at, while BG held it impossible, thinking a strong army is required. After the alleged quote, according to Goldman, BG continued: “Maybe it will change in a generation or two, but for now there is no chance of that. So, it is simple: we must remain strong, hold a strong army. That is all there is to it. Otherwise, the Arabs will destroy us” Would you mind giving the full quote and, say, two or three lines on either side of it? > [@gonzomax](#): > > Ccertainly Finn I just made it up. You are always right. Naw, you’re just lying. I never said you made it up, merely that you posted yet another driveby. You’ve even had a mod tell you that your posting often consists of driveby posts. Willful ignorance is bad, ya know. Speaking of which, I notice no retraction of your Hebrew -\> French -\> English “quote”. I shouldn’t be surprised. > [@gonzomax](#): > > Quit nit picling. Did you ever go out for a drive in the country, What nation was it. country just refers to land. Damn… I’d laugh, but you seem to actually think that’s not absurd. Yeah, Ben Gurion was talking about the countryside… that any Arab leader would’ve had a claim to. Yeaaaaaaaaaaah… > [@gonzomax](#): > > It was occupied by apparently people with no rights to it. By apparently people, eh? And no rights to it? According to… you? ~yawn~ The countryside, that evidently belonged to all Arab leaders, was taken by appartently people. Good show. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2006, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820/179 "2006-08-23T14:54:15Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Dont ever mention me without driveby. It is such an honorable debate technique. I would hate to lose my identity. I do drop off an occasional article . Then give time for some to think about it. Others to try to pick holes and scramble for a way around . I also know any debate with some of you will be accompanied with insults and slurs. I am not always in the mood for it. Quit debating yourself. It does seem to be all you are capable of. Lets see from this latest exchange… > [@gonzomax](#): > > If I were an Arab leader I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal. We have taken their country, It is true that god promised it to us. But why should that interest them. Our god is not theirs.There is anti semitism,Hitler and Aushwitz but that was not their fault. They see only one thing. We have come and stolen their country. Why would they accept that > David Ben Gurion Quote with no cite for context, and also zero from you as far as what this means to you. Ignored by all as yet another drive by from you, but Finn responded: > [@FinnAgain](#): > > It seems to be from Nahum Goldmann’s Le Paradoxe Juif, but it’s in french, and out of print. I can only find a french PDF and I’m not fluent, at all. I also wonder if the original quote was in Hebrew, English, or French, and how many translations its gone through. If, for instance, it was in Hebrew and translated into French and then into English I don’t think we can assume that the final version has much in common with the original. I also don’t know the date of Ben Gurion’s quote. Was he talking about the gains made in 1967, or 1948? Was he in power at the time of the quote, or armchair quarterbacking? What was the context? > > Even if it’s 100% precise in its translation and refered to 1948, I’d ask, “So what”? > If Bush cast a situation in a certain light, would people necessarily accept it as true? Why, then, accept Ben Gurion’s view as gospel? Could this acceptance be agenda driven? > > Let’s look at the meat of the quote assuming 100% precision in translation: > > The claim is made that Irsrael took a “country” that would’ve been owned by, presumably “the Arabs” if any Arab leader would have had a claim to it. But there was never such a country, even Palestine wasn’t going to be pan-Arab in ownership. > > Would, for instance, Saudi Arabia have had “their” country “stolen” in 1948? No… then why would he be talking about any Arab leader not negotiating because “their” country was “stolen”? It makes no sense. > > The quote is nonsensical on its face, even ignoring that it lacks the context, timeframe, or impact of that quote. > > I can’t seem to find any context for it online, either, only repeated endlessly on various anti-Israel and/or anti-semitic webpages. > > But then again, it was presented by gonzo. Are you really surprised that it was a driveby post with no context, elaboration, logic, debate, or effort? He actually did the work of hunting down YOUR cite, and giving some comment on it. Something you (again) didn’t bother to do. To which your ever helpful replies were: > [@gonzomax](#): > > Ccertainly Finn I just made it up. You are always right. and… > [@gonzomax](#): > > Quit nit picling. Did you ever go out for a drive in the country, What nation was it. country just refers to land. It was occupied by apparently people with no rights to it. Classic. In any case, its NOT a nitpick gonzo. Context is kind of important. In addition, when translating from one language to another (or as Finn hypothesized into 2) things DO get messed up in the translation. Thats why it would have been good of you to do some work and put in a cite for the quote (it also would have been nice if you could have been bothered to put the quote in a quote box…I didn’t even realize it WAS a quote from Ben Gurion…thought it was more of your code). In addition, just because Ben Gurion said it (IF in fact he did…context and all that), why do you think this is the definitive statement? IOW, why should we care what he said, or take it as gospel? Why do you think this statement is important? You don’t say…hell, you NEVER say anything. You just driveby, toss in a link with no commentary or quotes from it, the drive out. You toss in a cryptic quote supposedly from Ben Gurion without bottering to cite or attribute it, without commentary from yourself, then drive out. THen you get offended when called a drive by poster. It would be amusing if it wasn’t so sad. -XT ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2006, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820/180 "2006-08-23T14:54:47Z")
Everybody sees a difficulty in the question of relationships between Arabs And Jews. Not everybody sees there is no solution to this question. No solution. A gulf and nobody can bridge it. We want the country to be ours.They want the country to be theirs. Times interview. \Note the use of country. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-us-media-to-biased-toward-israel-video/368820.md?page=10)