# pro-Palestinian thread, part 2 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 11, 2009, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-palestinian-thread-part-2/517232 "2009-11-11T21:27:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-palestinian-thread-part-2/517232/481 "2009-12-21T07:49:55Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Happy to oblige.So after it’s repeatedly demonstrated to you that stories like that _have_ in fact been readily available in major American news media, that your claims of “embargo” are ludicrous, and that even the particular language in the BBC story that you claimed was missing from American news stories _did_ in fact appear in the [abcnews.com](http://abcnews.com) account, you now pretend we were talking about something else entirely.I can see the latter statement must have been painful for you. Apparently it was not enough to warrant a clear admission that the lack of a U.S. news embargo is not only a _reasonable_ position, it is the _correct_ one. On the contrary, your criticism is petty. And you have again misconstrued the argument. Earlier you argued I was shifting ground in summarising: \*\*" US media is commercial and can be leant on commerically. It has been and now commonly makes editorial choices that - embargo stories critical of Israel and - promote favourable ones. "\*\* _as_ \*\*“US media commonly favor Israel” \*\* Now, without acknowledging that earlier error, you gallop headlong into the same: > [@Jackmannii](#): > > And as I expected, you’ve painted yourself into a corner where the only shred left to cling to is that no one has demonstrated a U.S. media account of the affair that recapitulates _word for word_ the BBC story, and that therefore one must conclude that unseen puppet hands are controlling American news sources to prevent criticism of Israel… At the outset I quoted 2 passages that are key to the Orthodox terrorist story. Omitting the substance of those passages makes for a different story - and the US publications do just that. Who said word-for-word? No-one. Now your argument differs as to whether emigration for the purpose of terrorism is key to the substance. I believe so. You disagree. That is probably as far as we can take it. Now as to today’s Guardian story, it is always an eccentric publication. The story is of marginal interest. Yet after all that, it is taken for granted the story will not appear in the US media. There is no major US publication with anything like the disposition of the gRauniad, which is commonplace ex-US. We could start afresh and watch in the US I suppose. It could be a good idea, but dissappointment will follow. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-palestinian-thread-part-2/517232/482 "2009-12-21T07:52:28Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > This misses the context. A discussion between \*\* D D\*\* and I on the curious fact that the US polity alone is far more tolerant of Israeli atrocities that anywhere else. Are you boldly stating that as an absolute, because I have counter-examples in mind of far worse atrocities that got far less attention from the U.S. government (and the U.S. media, incidentally). If I present one, will you modify your above statement, softening the clauses “far more” and “anywhere else”? > [@](#): > > Similarly, you are misconstruing the argument. It has nothing to do with who is doing the heavying. The US media is leant upon, or ‘chilled’ in terms of discussing the merits and demerits of policy re : Israel. This is an uncontroversial statement, is it not? Well, let’s assume that this is actually happening, but Israel itself is not doing the “heavying” (since it doesn’t seem to matter to you who is doing the heavying, this should make no difference). American media outlets are indeed choosing which stories to run and how much attention each story gets, and perhaps they have indeed decided that stories that unsympathetic to Israel and sympathetic to the Palestinians aren’t as interesting to viewers, leading to lower ratings and ad revenue. I can certainly picture that - stories about how suicide bombing is a necessary tool to fight evil aren’t going to play well in a nation still somewhat traumatized by the September 11 attacks. How is it Israel’s fault, though? > [@](#): > > Secondly, ‘control’ while happily reminiscent of anti-semitic myths that warm many a heart and spleen, is at the extreme end of a spectrum, where the argument places the level of influence towards the other extreme. Do US publications receive their orders in dictatation on an hourly basis regarding the Superbowl coverage? No. Are they experiencing a ‘chillling effect’ where stories inquiring the conduct of Israel’s policy arise. Yes they are. So it’s not control, but mere “chilling”. How wonderfully vague. I trust you know of some memoirs written by retired journalists and editors who describe this effect with specific examples. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-palestinian-thread-part-2/517232/483 "2009-12-21T07:52:29Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > No, it is yourself that poses land as a special and distinct class of property. Conduct that in every other respect is plain looting becomes something else where the property is immobile. There is no reason in principle to accept any such difference exists. > > [del]Mobile property of land[/del]; it is all looting. Mobile property **or** land; … ---
**Author:** ![PrettyVacant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/49beb7/32.png) [@PrettyVacant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PrettyVacant)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-palestinian-thread-part-2/517232/484 "2009-12-21T07:54:16Z")
I guess you won’t see this very prominently in the US press and thought I’d just add it here: > [@](#): > > Israel has admitted that pathologists harvested organs from dead Palestinians, and others without the consent of their families – a practice that it said ended in the 1990s, it emerged at the weekend. > > The admission, by the former head of the country’s forensic institute, followed a furious row prompted by a Swedish newspaper reporting that Israel was killing Palestinians in order to use their organs – a charge that Israel denied and called “antisemitic” [The Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/20/israel-admits-harvesting-palestinian-organs) I’m not sure “Israel” - as in the State - has “admitted” anything but it is pretty strong confirmation. You got to love that “antisemetic” claim; they’re stealing the body organs of dead Palestinians and the mere suggestion of such is antisemetic. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-palestinian-thread-part-2/517232/485 "2009-12-21T07:59:31Z")
> [@PrettyVacant](#): > > You got to love that “antisemetic” claim; they’re stealing the body organs of dead Palestinians and the mere suggestion of such is antisemetic. I daresay stealing organs from a corpse is somewhat different from killing someone so you can steal organs from their corpse, regardless of the ethnicities involved. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-palestinian-thread-part-2/517232/486 "2009-12-21T08:03:10Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Are you boldly stating that as an absolute, because I have counter-examples in mind of far worse atrocities that got far less attention from the U.S. government (and the U.S. media, incidentally). If I present one, will you modify your above statement, softening the clauses “far more” and “anywhere else”? In candour I cannot reliably understand what you are asking here. Perhaps you could rephrase? > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, let’s assume that this is actually happening, but Israel itself is not doing the “heavying” (since it doesn’t seem to matter to you who is doing the heavying, this should make no difference). American media outlets are indeed choosing which stories to run and how much attention each story gets, and perhaps they have indeed decided that stories that unsympathetic to Israel and sympathetic to the Palestinians aren’t as interesting to viewers, leading to lower ratings and ad revenue. I can certainly picture that - stories about how suicide bombing is a necessary tool to fight evil aren’t going to play well in a nation still somewhat traumatized by the September 11 attacks. How is it Israel’s fault, though? Who ever said it was? Israel’s fault that is. As to the stories, I don’t believe it is ‘interest to reader’ that plays out. Rather, as commercial entities, the threats seem to be in the way of nuisance and vulnerable advertising revenue. Secondly there are rogue proprietor-editors such as Mr Murdoch, who ruthlessly enforce an editorial line . > [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So it’s not control, but mere “chilling”. How wonderfully vague. I trust you know of some memoirs written by retired journalists and editors who describe this effect with specific examples. In fact the ‘chilling effect’ is brought up earlier in the thread than me and stands as a term with an honorable pedigree. Sure, I’d be happy to look for some documentation. In passing - compare the major publication’s opinion columnists who reliably support Israel, compare with those who don’t. A thought exercise. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-palestinian-thread-part-2/517232/487 "2009-12-21T08:17:29Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > In candour I cannot reliably understand what you are asking here. Perhaps you could rephrase? My reading of your earlier statement is that you claim the U.S. government (the formers of “polity”, I assume) is “far more tolerant of Israeli atrocities [than] anywhere else.” I’m prepared to cite at least one atrocity that took place elsewhere that was far worse in terms of body count, that got far less attention from the U.S. government, who has a record of numerous statements about Israel and peace-seeking interventions going back decades. If I do, will you recognize the error in your statement? If I have misconstrued your statement, I request a clarification. > [@](#): > > Who ever said it was? Israel’s fault that is. Well, you’re presenting this “chilling effect” as a problem, so I assume that _someone_ is at fault. Is Israel off the hook? > [@](#): > > As to the stories, I don’t believe it is ‘interest to reader’ that plays out. Rather, as commercial entities, the threats seem to be in the way of nuisance and vulnerable advertising revenue. Secondly there are rogue proprietor-editors such as Mr Murdoch, who ruthlessly enforce an editorial line . In fact the ‘chilling effect’ is brought up earlier in the thread than me and stands as a term with an honorable pedigree. Sure, I’d be happy to look for some documentation. And I’d be happy to read it. I’m not sure how much advertising-revenue influence Israel has (or how much of a nuisance it is to American media), so I assume the Pro-Israel advertising-revenue influence (and nuisance) is coming from people who are sympathetic to Israel in some way. Can you name any such person or company? > [@](#): > > In passing - compare the major publication’s opinion columnists who reliably support Israel, compare with those who don’t. A thought exercise. Sure, but you’ll have to account for another potential element - the editorial influence isn’t so much about promoting Israel, but about hating Muslims. I can certainly imagine Murdoch’s Fox News stirring up fears about Islam, regardless of who’s on the other side of the particular issue, because doing so is profitable and resonates with their particular audience. Will you take this into account? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2009, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-palestinian-thread-part-2/517232/488 "2009-12-21T16:32:42Z")
> [@PrettyVacant](#): > > I guess you won’t see this very prominently in the US press and thought I’d just add it here: > [The Guardian](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/20/israel-admits-harvesting-palestinian-organs) > > I’m not sure “Israel” - as in the State - has “admitted” anything but it is pretty strong confirmation. > > You got to love that “antisemetic” claim; they’re stealing the body organs of dead Palestinians and the mere suggestion of such is antisemetic. Heh, I’d say there is a _teeny tiny_ difference between harvesting organs from those already dead (and note it was alleged to be from everyone - Israelis and Palestinians alike) without informed consent, and killing folks for their organs. Sort of surprised that you, or indeed anyone, thinks that these are equivalent claims. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pro-palestinian-thread-part-2/517232.md?page=24)