Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Interesting Arafat Cartoon  
User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1527 times:

I thought this was a nice and interesting cartoon.

You need Macromedia Flash to view it:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0EE30E43-B137-417C-9FA4-E629E849E7DC.htm?idpage=1

If you don't know the history, then you won't really understand the cartoon.

Regards


"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineChrista From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1498 times:

I have to be honest I can't stand Al Jazeera..

Arafat was a terrorist who killed many.. I know that Israeli leaders have done the same and it makes them also just as bad..

However, this does not justify Arafat being made out to be some sort of hero..

Yes he did want peace, sort of.. but only under his rules. Israel did not like the way he wanted things so they never really accepted peace - fair enough!

Regards,

Christa


User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1485 times:

I have to be honest I can't stand Al Jazeera..

Because they provide a different viewpoint that counters the biased pro-Israeli western media?  Insane

Arafat was a terrorist who killed many.. I know that Israeli leaders have done the same and it makes them also just as bad..

Israeli leaders like Menachem Begin have killed more people than Arafat yet they are glorified as wonderful leaders?

However, this does not justify Arafat being made out to be some sort of hero..

Then why are people like Menachem Begin who have committed more murders and atrocities than Arafat elevated to hero status while Arafat who many times tried to pursue peace but was always ignored is continuously demonized?

Yes he did want peace, sort of.. but only under his rules. Israel did not like the way he wanted things so they never really accepted peace - fair enough!

He was asking for Israel to pull out of the Arab lands it stole in the 1967 war and the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the Gaza Strip and West Bank with East Jerusalem as its capital. How is that asking too much??



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineKalakaua From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1516 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1480 times:

Don't mind Al Jazeera... They're being the anti-World/pro-terror that they are...


Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1476 times:

"He was asking for Israel to pull out of the Arab lands it stole in the 1967 war and the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the Gaza Strip and West Bank with East Jerusalem as its capital. How is that asking too much??"

So, why were you not so p.o.'d when Jordan controlled east Jerusalem. Look, if the Arab nations had not attacked in 48, 56, & 67, you would have had your claims. But, know. The arab nations attacked (first strike) and lost.

end of story....sorry.



User currently offlineChrista From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1466 times:

BA,

I stated in my post that Israeli leaders have commited many atrocities as well as Arafat. In some cases, more than Arafat. However, this does not make Israeli leaders or Palestinian leaders including Arafat to be glorified and made into Hero's. Yes, I am more pro Israel than Palestine just as you are more pro Palestine.

About the land issue, take Wales for example..

England took over many parts of Wales and Anglo-saxonised many areas of Wales... there were many battles fought to remove the English "invaders".. see the comparison im making, but in the end Wales decided we can be a lot stronger with England and have many benefits being a part of an alliance instead of being against each other. For example; with Trade, Military, Land and so on..

Why can't Palestinians do the same and "co-operate" with Israel?

I know that many areas of land have many connections between the Palestinians and Israelis but at the end of the day the land is Israel's.. why can't Palestinians accept that and get on with life instead of causing more death and suffering?

BTW, Al Jazeera should perhaps start to show Western ideas and views after all Western news agencies (well British news agencies) seem to show an equal point of view..

Regards,

Christa


User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1459 times:

Kalakaua,

If you state an opinion, why don't you back it up?  Insane

Dtwclipper,

So, why were you not so p.o.'d when Jordan controlled east Jerusalem. Look, if the Arab nations had not attacked in 48, 56, & 67, you would have had your claims. But, know. The arab nations attacked (first strike) and lost.

Incorrect, the Arab World did not start the 1967 war and I did not support Jordan controling West Bank or Egypt controling the Gaza strip, but at least they were under Arab hands and the Palestinians were not oppressed like they are today. My mother visited Jerusalem a few times before Israel captured it in the 1967 war.

Regarding the 1967 war, take a look at this quote:

"The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war." Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Ha'aretz, 19 March 1972.

Take a look at these paragraphs from an article:

Israel has always claimed that the 1967 war was a self defense as the Arabs started the war and wanted to destroy Israel at that time.

There are several evidence that this is not necessarily true. Israel has always wanted the West Bank and Gaza Strip and especially East Jerusalem.

Noam Chomsky, a Jewish intellectual, argued against that in his book, "The Fateful Triangle".

"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

The late Prime Misniter of Israel, Yitzhaq Rabin, assassinated by a Jewish fanatic Igal Ameer in 1995 affirms that Egypt did not want to attack Israel.

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Rabin said in an article published in Le Monde French paper on 2/28/68 as he was Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967.

Furthermore, The New York Times, May 11, 1997 said in an article that Moshe Dayan, the Minister of defense at the time admitted that Israel provoked the war on the Syrian side and occupied the Golan Heights out of greed for more land.

"Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot, and then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'"


Read the rest of the article here:
http://www.imemc.org/headlines/2004/June/week1/060504/1967-war.htm

And last but not least, this quote:

"The state.... must see the sword as the main if not the only, instrument with which to keep its morale high and to retain its moral tension. Toward this end it may -- no it MUST -- invent dangers, and to do this it must adopt the method of provocation and revenge.... And above all, let us hope for a new war with the Arab countries so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space." Diary of Moshe Sharett, Israeli's first Foreign Minister from 1948-1956, and Prime Minister from 1954-1956.



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1449 times:

Why can't Palestinians do the same and "co-operate" with Israel?

I know that many areas of land have many connections between the Palestinians and Israelis but at the end of the day the land is Israel's.. why can't Palestinians accept that and get on with life instead of causing more death and suffering?

Because Israel does not want cooperation. In the past 60 years, Israel has oppressed Palestinians and continued to deny them basic rights.

Israel took Arab land by force and we will keep trying to get it back. It is our right.

It's the Palestinians decision if they want to be part of Israel or not, is is not? Afterall, West Bank and Gaza were not with Israel until 1967. The Palestinians have every right to demand freedom from Israel just as the Welsh people had the right to self-determination if they wished.

Take a look at Scotland. Look at how many wars they fought against England to be free and they were free for quite sometime? It's their business if the Scottish later on decided to remain integrated with the United Kingdom just as it is the Palestinian's right to decide whether to remain integrated with Israel or not.

The fact remains we live in a very different world than the Middle Ages my friend.

The United Nations and the international community recognizes that West Bank and Gaza are occupied.

All the Palestinians and Arabs want is the implemention of UN resolution 242 and 194. Go on the UN website and research those two resolutions in detail if you want to know what they ask.

They are asking for nothing more than two UN resolutions which Israel refuses to comply with!

So it is not just a demand by the Palestinians, but a demand by the international community. Afterall, that is what the United Nations represents, right?

BTW, Al Jazeera should perhaps start to show Western ideas and views after all Western news agencies (well British news agencies) seem to show an equal point of view..

They do show "western ideas." They cover casualties of Americans in Iraq. They cover the suicide bombings in Israel.

And even if they didn't, they don't need to. The Arab World gets CNN International and BBC. They get the other viewpoint.

And I could make the same argument as you do.

Western media should start to show the Arab viewpoint instead of just the Israeli and western viewpoint? When will that happen?

[Edited 2004-11-15 02:38:49]


"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineChrista From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1435 times:

You say that we don't live in the middle ages?

Look at the funeral service for Arafat when he arrived in Palestine.. it looked like a sight out of the middle ages...

I don't know the whole picture of the Israel and Palestine conflict but from what i gather is that when Israel offers aid and does start to co-operate.. some idiot suicide bomber goes and blows up a school.. then obviously Israel attacks back and the cycle carries on..

You also mention about the Israelis oppressing the Palestinians..

England did the same to the Welsh and the Scottish..

Do the Welsh and Scottish act like the Palestinians?.. I think not..

I believe that even if Israel offered peace, Palestinians on a whole would not want it. I know that a BBC reporter interviewed 3 Palestinian men on this issue just after Arafat's funeral, one said "possible peace", the two others said "War forever"... Seems a little odd to me?

They do show "western ideas." They cover casualties of Americans in Iraq. They cover the suicide bombings in Israel.

And even if they didn't, they don't need to. The Arab World gets CNN International and BBC. They get the other viewpoint.


Yet Al Jazeera show the tapes of hostages (innocent people may I add who want to re-build Iraq) thus showing their alliance with terrorism and war against western society. I also know for a fact that that although Al Jazeera show western casualties in Iraq and also the suicide bombings they show them in a way that is against the West.. you know this is true.

I have two members of my family serving in the middle east, both trying to protect the people of Iraq.. but yet they get attacked and abused hurled at them.. and the middle east say they want peace? Horse Crap!

Regards,

Christa


User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1433 times:

I don't know the whole picture of the Israel and Palestine conflict but from what i gather is that when Israel offers aid and does start to co-operate.. some idiot suicide bomber goes and blows up a school.. then obviously Israel attacks back and the cycle carries on..

That's the western viewpoint.

I'm afraid no peace offer that Israel has come up can be called descent.

The "best" proposal in which Israel would give 98% of the occupied territories would have divided West Bank into three parts!

Israel would be allowed to set up a security zone and maintain settlements within the territories still. So of course Palestinians rejected the pathetic offer.

Do the Welsh and Scottish act like the Palestinians?.. I think not..

I disagree very much my friend. Welsh and Scottish resisted with the use of violence just as the Palestinians did today. Throughout history people have resisted occupation with violence.

I believe that even if Israel offered peace, Palestinians on a whole would not want it. I know that a BBC reporter interviewed 3 Palestinian men on this issue just after Arafat's funeral, one said "possible peace", the two others said "War forever"... Seems a little odd to me?

Arafat made his most famous quote infront of the United Nations in 1974 asking for peace and he officially recognized the state of Israel.

Today I have come bearing an olive branch and a freedom fighter's gun. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat: do not let the olive branch fall from my hand.

The olive branch represented peace, the freedom fighter's gun represented continous resistence. Obviously the olive branch fell because Arafat was ignored as Israel did not wish to comply with his requests for the pull out of the lands they took in 1967.

Yet Al Jazeera show the tapes of hostages (innocent people may I add who want to re-build Iraq) thus showing their alliance with terrorism and war against western society. I also know for a fact that that although Al Jazeera show western casualties in Iraq and also the suicide bombings they show them in a way that is against the West.. you know this is true.

How is showing the tapes of hostages showing their alliance with terrorism and war? Their a news agency! Their job is to cover EVENTS. They are doing nothing but showing the events.

By no means have they ever showed the suicide bombings in a way against the west. They show video coverage and explain the details. How is that going against the west?

I have two members of my family serving in the middle east, both trying to protect the people of Iraq.. but yet they get attacked and abused hurled at them.. and the middle east say they want peace? Horse Crap!

Well I'm afraid foreign forces are not welcome in Iraq and I am sure you have heard the anger the Iraqi people and Arab world expressing anger against the west for launching the war in Iraq. It's the Arab viewpoint and they have the right to be mad at the foreign intervention in Iraq.



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineRjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1422 times:

I'll second the "There was no such thing as Palestinians. They never existed"

User currently offlineAirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4514 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1412 times:

I think Al Jazeera in this case is trying to give the impression that Arafat was someone that he in fact wasn't...particularly towards the end.

And the cartoon of the Arab world turning their back on Arafat is just about enough to make me retch.



PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
User currently offlineKalakaua From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1516 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1410 times:

Well, BA... Just look at it. I've observed many of the media outlets out there. Most, if not all, have non-biased opinions. The media is just supposed to have the "I report, then you decide" attitude. Most try to be fair and balanced. Just looking at Al Jazeera, they promote Shuujat who keeps on doing these caricatures. His cartoons are overwhemingly and constantly biased. At least with other cartoonists, they make fun of everything, everything I say! I've seen all of his flash cartoons, and came to the point that if Al Jazeera pays this guy for this kind of work, then I have to say what I said. Cartoon must meet facts, and not to alienate a particular group. If a cartoonist wants to alienate an idea, he must alienate every group.


Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1386 times:

Are you serious? This is about the most one sided cartoon I've ever seen, editorial, whatever you want to call it. It completely ignores the fact that this man was a terrorist who often times strayed from his people so he could kill others. The fact that Al-Jazeera, the voice of the Arab world and media, put this forth just shows me what a distorted view they have of this man. It disturbs me.

And the cartoon of the Arab world turning their back on Arafat is just about enough to make me retch.

Why does that make you sick? It's the truth. The man and his factions tried to bring down both the Jordanian and Lebanese governments, not to mention he supported Sadaam Hussein in his invasion of Kuwait. Why do you think these governments didn't like him?



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11153 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1373 times:

I'll second the "There was no such thing as Palestinians. They never existed"

Of course you do, you ignore facts and believe Zionist propaganda, something Golda Meir was VERY famous for.

The area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River--called Palestine since the days of Herodotus--has hosted a mix of peoples for much of its history. The Jews of the Torah had largely dispersed by the time of the Arab conquest in the seventh century; by 1887 all but 5 percent of the population was Arab. Beginning with British rule in 1920, a wave of Zionist immigration helped increase the Jewish population sevenfold by 1947. That year, seeking a geographically unified homeland, the Arabs rejected a U.N. partition plan and launched a war that left the newly created Israel with most of the land. By 1949 more than 700,000 Arabs had been driven from their homes, their holdings declared "absentee property" and confiscated by Israel, which refused to readmit them. The remaining lands--the West Dank and Gaza Strip--eluded Israeli control until they came under occupation during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Despite U.N. peace terms calling for Israeli withdrawal from the territories in exchange for Arab recognition of Israel's right to exist, Israel built 16,800 Jewish settlement units there over the next two decades, a step the U.N. condemned as a breach of the Geneva Conventions. In 1988 the P.L.O. publicly endorsed the U.N. peace terms and called for an independent Arab state; five years later, under the Oslo Accords, both sides officially agreed to talks. During the next seven years, as Israel carried out negotiated withdrawals from parts of the territories, it continued building settlements there, along with a network of connecting roads. In 2000, Israel made its first detailed proposal for a Palestinian state--a diminished West Bank split into three sections separated by Israeli territory, and the Gaza Strip--a plan the P.L.O. rejected. Two months later, a new Palestinian intifada began. Seth Ackerman

Palestinians existed whether you like it or not Reese. The people of this land have been called Palestinians since the days before the prophet because this region of land was called Palestine. Naturally the people of the land are named after the name of the region, no? Lebanese are called Lebanese because the region is called Lebanon. Syrians are called Syrians because their region is called Syria. Egyptians are called Egyptians because their region is called Egypt.

I won't get any further with arguing with you Rjpieces because you have shown repeatedly in the past that you believe what you want to believe.

Kalakaua and Tbar220,

Have you EVER thought that Al-Jazeera and this cartoonist are trying to make a balance and specifically focusing on the Arab side and focusing on the GOOD side of Arafat while the western media specifically focuses on Israel and the BAD side of Arafat?

Haven't you noticed this trend already?

Western media is broadcasted in the Arab world in addition to Arab media. They get both viewpoints by watching western media and Arab media.

From what I can think of, CNN, BBC, and MSNBC are broadcasted in basic cable TV packages in the Arab world.

I'm afraid I can't say that about the west who are exposed to only one side and one perspective.

The point is this cartoon was intentionally made to be one-sided and focus specifically on the side that the other side doesn't show. Tell me, why is that wrong?

Is it wrong to try to create a balance and focus on a specific viewpoint when you see the otherside focusing on their specific viewpoint?

If we lived in an ideal world, everyone would show both sides and there would be no need for the other side trying to make a balance by making a biased cartoon.

If only Associated Press and Reuters had TV channels that were on the same league as CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc.

Why does that make you sick? It's the truth. The man and his factions tried to bring down both the Jordanian and Lebanese governments, not to mention he supported Sadaam Hussein in his invasion of Kuwait. Why do you think these governments didn't like him?

Arafat screwed up in Lebanon, Jordan, and with Iraq. Nobody isn't acknowledging that.

However to say that Jordanian and Lebanese don't like Arafat is wrong. They have moved on, especially Jordan which has been very supportive of Arafat over the years.

As I have mentioned many times, I am very critical about Arafat and he made many mistakes. But I am fed up with how the west constantly focuses on the bad.

Al-Jazeera is trying to counter what the west focuses on and that is what this cartoon does. If you noticed, the cartoon is very simple. It is FAR from being a complete history of Arafat...



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineKalakaua From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1516 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1343 times:

BA, I do not believe that Western media, at least the ones I have seen, depicts Arafat as a bad man and Isreal as the victim... I've always thought that Palestine was a victim because I've seen the countless documentaries of both sides. I sympathize with Palestine more than for Israel, but I don't side with Arafat's policies of attaining so-called "peace".

I still see the hold on to the images of Arafat shaking hands with Rabin in front of Clinton, I still see those images of Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize, the images of an old grey man struggling for peace for his peopl... But the facts are still facts. Arafat was a ruthless man until then. But ever since, I haven't seen Arafat depicted as some demon, as you assumed we all did.

That's why I don't like the media. As a sociologist, I try to get my information some other way, but sadly, that's where most of the information comes from. However, I do hesitently trust the media overall, and western media is one of the least biased institutions out there.

The point is this cartoon was intentionally made to be one-sided and focus specifically on the side that the other side doesn't show. Tell me, why is that wrong?

It's this same attitude that may lead to future terrorists, the same folks who constantly see these cartoons as facts, only seeing one side to the picture. What if I showed a Palestinian child the "true" side of G. W. Bush?! I'm pretty sure some people will change their attitudes towards the president. Yeah... I'm no psychologist, but if that's how you see it, that's how you believe it, I can see why you have this offensive attitude towards people of the western world.

AS far as YOU may THINK, I've studied the media, and I can tell you that Al Jazeera is one of the worst of the worst media outlets.

Is it wrong to try to create a balance and focus on a specific viewpoint when you see the otherside focusing on their specific viewpoint?

As what I said earlier, as long as you can do a counter attack... There are caricatures and there is propaganda... You'll just loose credibility. Keep an open mind. If all you're getting is the one side of the picture, then I ain't listening to your rhetoric. So, please don't try to put words into my mouth...



Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1338 times:

BA,

However to say that Jordanian and Lebanese don't like Arafat is wrong. They have moved on, especially Jordan which has been very supportive of Arafat over the years.

Let me ask your opinion on this, why do you think they should support Arafat? I personally think his deeds in Jordan and Lebanon, causing the death's of thousands of Palestinians, Jordanians, and Lebanese should give him enough of a black mark that the governments of these countries should no longer deal with him. I've heard that upwards of 30,000 people died in fighting in Jordan during Black September. We all know the mess that happened in Lebanon. Why should these respective governments support this man who in the past tried to bring down their countries?

This is the same thing I believe with Israel. After he started the recent intefadah after rejecting a landmark peacedeal with Barak, they were completely right in rejecting him as a partner for peace. They gave him a chance with Rabin in 1993, and an even bigger chance in 2000, and in my view he failed the Israelis and his own people in acquiring peace and a Palestinian state, instead opting for violence. Considering his past terrorist actions against Israel, the government said enough and refused to deal with him.

So then why should have Jordan and Lebanon supported him as the leader of the Palestinian people? If anything that could have been done to be more productive, it would have been to show unified support for a different leader, a moderate who would have shied away from Hamas and Fatah and focused instead on making step by step gains for the Palestinians, who have gained nothing over the last four years of violence.

This is why Arafat ultimately failed his people in my eyes.

Time for me to sleep, let's discuss this further.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineChrista From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days ago) and read 1325 times:

BA,

Your wrong, just like most people from the middle east are on the issues with terrorism etc..

I might get banned for saying that, so if I do.. I won't be coming back as I don't believe this is a fair site no longer!

Thanks!

Christa


User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5739 posts, RR: 19
Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1301 times:

Speaking of cartoons about Arafat, I find this one much closer to reality than the one by Al-Jazeera: http://www.honestreporting.com/m/legacy.asp

User currently offlineRussophile From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1263 times:

AS far as YOU may THINK, I've studied the media, and I can tell you that Al Jazeera is one of the worst of the worst media outlets.

A question for you. Are you a natural Arabic speaker or did you learn Arabic as a child/teenager/adult? Also, on which channel in Hawai'i do you receive Al Jazeera broadcasts? How often do you actually watch Al Jazeera in Hawai'i.

Frankly, you might have (or not) studied media, but unless you watch Al Jazeera on a regular basis AND speak Arabic, how on god's green earth would you know anything about Al Jazeera, let alone have the necessary credentials to be able to declare Al Jazeera as the "worst of the worst".

Listen, Al Jazeera has it's history firmly planted in the ashes of the failed BBC Arabic Television project. The BBC project failed (shut down) because the station would not guarantee that they would not report on issues which would show the Saudi royal family in a bad light (the station itself was a j/v been the BBC and a Saudi business conglomerate). It was later reinvented as the Al Jazeera which we know today, and still has the ethos of the BBC as it's own ethos -- the BBC of course being the world's most respected news service.

Last night I was watching an episode of Law & Order. In it, the defence submitted a motion to exclude crucial evidence in the prosecution's case. Both the prosecution and the defence put forward great argument for and against the inclusion of said evidence. The judge made the decision to include the evidence at trial, but the scope for that inclusion was limited. After giving his judgement to the two lawyers, he commented something along the lines of "If neither the prosecution or the defence are happy with my decision, then it means that I am doing my job properly.".

What does this have to do with Al Jazeera?

If a news station can raise the ire of Arabic governments and 'western' governments (mainly US), then it shows that they have a winning formula, and would be more "fair and balanced" than most other news outlets (including the one which likes to claim as such).

Some quarters claim that A-J is too pro-western. Some quarters claim that A-J is too pro-Arabic. Some quarters claim that A-J is too pro-Israel. Some quarters claim that A-J is too pro-Palestinian. Some quarters claim that A-J is too pro-terrorist. Some quarters claim that A-J is too pro-invading forces.

So what is it?

A single news outlet can not be all of these things.

So what are they?

Furthermore, the reason Al-Jazeera has the 'reputation' it has with certain gung-ho war-types, is the simple fact that Al-Jazeera does not receive the same amount of access that other news networks do. When the US sent their troops into Iraq, there was only a single Al-Jazeera reporter allowed to travel with them. Other than this, they were basically left out of the loop as far as the American military was concerned, or worse, they were forced to stop reporting (i.e. missile attacks on Al-Jazeera offices in Kabul and Baghdad). The Iraqi military on the other hand, allowed Al-Jazeera basic free reign in terms of access to leaders, military people, cities, etc, etc.

So what does one expect A-J to do when their access to information is of the bare minimum variety.

Furthermore, it shows the maturity of the network to televise a press conference by Rumsfeld -- the conference was called to enable Rumsfeld to lamblast A-J for their reporting. Most news networks would certainly not televise such a press conference.

Here is an article from pressgazette.co.uk from April 2003, which gives a bit more insight into A-J and the way it operates:

The terrified and cowed faces of prisoners of war as they are interviewed
by a television reporter, the mangled bodies of adults and children killed
by missiles while they were shopping in a busy market, the bloodied
corpses of British soldiers killed in action. These have become some of
the abiding images in a conflict where the level of media coverage has
been unprecedented.

The contribution of Arabic satellite television news channel Al-Jazeera's
to the continuous churn of war images has confirmed what many predicted -
that it would be one of the most significant media stories of the war.

The decision of the Qatar-based channel, which is part-financed by that
country's Government, to broadcast those images has earned it the
opprobrium of the West where it has been maligned as little more than a
propaganda channel for Saddam Hussein's regime.

It is a charge that is strenuously denied by Al-Jazeera, whose journalists
have been asked not to talk to the media without consulting the central
press office operating out of Doha, such has been the media interest in
the channel.

"Our critics seem only to look at our coverage with one eye," says
recently appointed spokesman Jihad Ballout. "When the Pentagon said that
the media should refrain from using the pictures to allow time for the
families to be informed, we happily obliged. We carried Donald Rumsfeld's
press conference when we were singled out and subsequent criticism of us.
And we went further than that and carried an interview with one of the
mothers of the US prisoners of war."

The main problem Al-Jazeera faces in its coverage of the war is access,
adds Ballout. Only one of its journalists was given permission to be
"embedded" with the US troops.

Two events last week characterise how difficult it is to easily
compartmentalise the channel, which was created by BBC-trained staff who
had worked on the corporation's Arabic Television channel. In the early
hours of Wednesday morning the Basra Sherataon hotel, where Al-Jazeera's
crew was based, came under heavy shelling, leading the channel to write to
the Pentagon calling on it to ensure its teams' safety.

Less than 24 hours later, Al-Jazeera announced it was indefinitely
suspending broadcasts from Baghdad after one of its reporters, Tayseer
Allouni, was expelled and another banned from working by the Iraqi
authorities.

This week cameraman Tareq Ayoub died after the company's office in Baghdad
was hit by a missile. The station is convinced that this was a US strike
and called Ayoub a "martyr of duty".

Sami Haddad, Al-Jazeera's former chief editor and now main anchor, says
that the channel, which is banned in Jordan and Kuwait, has been accused
of being Zionist, as well as being the mouthpiece of Osama bin Laden
during the Afghan war.

"We set out to reflect the story accurately, but there will always be
someone who says you are supporting the views of the opposition."

But while debate about the role Al-Jazeera has played in this conflict
looks set to continue, it is clear that because it is broadcast to around
50 million people and is received in around 87 per cent of the 100,000
Arab households in the UK, the channel has become increasingly important
to the US and British Governments as they battle to win over the Iraqi
people.

Alastair Campbell, the prime minister's director of communications, in an
interview he gave to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, said the
Government had had to adapt its media strategy to deal with the Arabic
media. A dedicated Islamic media unit has been set up within the Foreign
Office and ministers have been asked to set aside an hour in their diaries
"to do Arabic media" because "it is important, it matters that they hear
what we are genuinely saying, as opposed to what is being mediated to
them", Campbell added.

The challenges thrown up by a commercial news channel broadcasting to the
Arab world, without the regulatory constraints imposed on Western media,
will increase when two new English-language services are launched by
Al-Jazeera. One, which will be a simultaneous translation service, is due
to launch this year, and a new, entirely English service is under
discussion - although it would take a year to set up.

Ian Richardson, a former World Service editor who was charged with setting
up the BBC Arabic Television channel, believes "things will be changed
forever" by the ascendancy of Al-Jazeera and channels such as Abu Dhabi
TV.

"The networks have been covering war head to head, as it were, and
suddenly we have an Arab TV service which is extremely competent. We're
now being confronted with things that were never really given genuine
thought before."

Richard Sambrook, BBC director of news, agrees: "The West is having to
adapt to a strong pan-national Arab media. They are not going to go away -
indeed, there will be more 'Al-Jazeeras' in future," he says.

Although it was not clear that the shelling was directed at the hotel in
Basra, where Al-Jazeera was the only TV outfit present, it echoes the
strike on the channel's offices in Afghanistan by US forces, which some
saw as a deliberate attempt to disable the broadcaster before the fighting
moved into Kabul.

"Many TV news organisations, even before talk of war in Iraq, have been
concerned that the US military, despite firm denials, might at some stage
in the war want to shut down uncomfortable media communications from
inside the war zone," says Nik Gowing, a BBC World presenter who spent
several months investigating the 2001 strike that also damaged the BBC's
offices. Gowing does, however, warn against making hasty conclusions about
whether the hotel was deliberately targeted.

But whatever emerges about the shelling incident, Ballout is in no doubt
that the "propaganda war" is being fought as hard as the military
campaign.

"From the outset, this war has not only been fought on the battleground,
but also on the airwaves and in the newspapers," he says.

Attacks on the channel because of its decision to show pictures of what
were believed to be dead British soldiers are "hypocritical", Richardson
believes.

"For all these years the global networks have been putting stuff out and
not giving a thought to showing some fairly graphic pictures from
Jerusalem, the Middle East and certainly when they showed pictures of
Iraqi prisoners of war they did not block out their faces," he argues.
"For years nobody gave a thought to fact that the images were being seen
by people where the event was taking place, and now that the situation is
reversed, everyone is saying it's shocking."

Haddad insists that the channel is experiencing the same kind of treatment
as colleagues working for British and US newspapers and broadcasters when
their Governments consider they are not helping their war aims.

"I feel sorry for the likes of Andrew Marr and Peter Arnett, who have been
criticised, and I hope that people feel sorry for us," says Haddad, who
adds that editorial policy still adheres to producer guidelines laid down
by the BBC.

"We don't show footage just for the hell of it. Any decision we make has
to conform to three basic principles: newsworthiness; relevance to the
wider context and whether there are verified sources," says Ballout. "If
those three things are satisfied then we go ahead." But Al-Jazeera, as
Sambrook points out, is "producing TV news for an Arab audience which
reflects Arab values, both in content, style and tone".

Factors unique to the Arab world also shape the channel's decision-making,
explains Ballout, who says that when the channel was created one of the
main premises was that it would not "succumb" to censorship. "For decades
the censors played havoc and everything was doctored, censored or tamed,"
he claims. "Our commitment was to give as complete coverage as we possibly
could."

Ballout rejects claims that showing pictures of prisoners of war
contravened the Geneva Convention. "We have it on good authority that the
Convention applies to states at war, not to news organisations." He
emphasises that the footage was carried with a warning that viewers might
find it distressing.

But he concedes that "people have said, with good reason, that the Arab
world has a higher threshold of tolerance because for five or six decades
now they have been living with death, carnage and destruction".

Operating in a fiercely competitive market, the channel is setting out to
attract more Arab viewers and, unconstrained by the broadcast regulations
encountered by the British media, it can adopt an approach that has
popular appeal.

While channels such as BBC World and CNN tread a difficult line when it
comes to covering the Middle East, Al-Jazeera chooses to refer to
Palestinians who are killed as "martyrs".

And while the roots of Al-Jazeera's journalism are firmly in the BBC World
Service, former journalists reserve some criticism for what was perceived
as an Anglo-centric operation. "When I joined the corporation in the
Seventies we were told we were broadcasting news as seen from London,"
says one source. "We are trying to cover the news as seen from the
battlefield."

Ballout rejects any suggestions that, by showing in graphic detail the
realities of war, the channel has set out to turn the tide of public
opinion against the conflict. "That's not what we are here to do. Our job
is to have a professional attitude towards news." Richardson believes that
the channel has made some "misjudgements and mistakes", largely as a
result of inexperience but "the occasional error of judgement should not
obscure the fact that they are doing their best to be a truly independent
news service".

He adds: "No broadcaster working in a situation like this has got entirely
clean hands. If we are going to talk about biased broadcasting then go no
further than Fox TV in the US, which makes no attempt to see the war from
any other perspective. It's pretty rich that the US can accuse Al-Jazeera
of bias and lacking in judgement and taste when there is a channel with
reporters saying they will use guns against the likes of Osama bin Laden."


The funniest thing is, is that those who claim that A-J is this-or-that, are those who shout loudest about democracy/freedom/liberty/all-those-other-bullshit-terms-used-to-justify-a-war, yet they are totally against a network which exists because of one of those most simple 'freedoms' -- freedom of the press -- and which uses that freedom to report the news, whereas most other western news networks (especially American network) use that freedom not to report the news, but rather the propaganda.


User currently offlineAa61hvy From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 13977 posts, RR: 57
Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1248 times:

The people who run Al-Jezeera are a bunch of crack pots. They are the ones who show the beheadings and killings of people in Iraq, and then they show this Arafat rubbish. I had to laugh when they showed the Arab world turning their backs on Arafat.


Go big or go home
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1234 times:

The cartoon is grossly inaccurate, ignoring and leaving out crucial facts to portray a biased picture.

Yasser is missing the angel ring over his head, but worse yet, the Israeli leaders are missing their devil horns and tails.

For shame Al-Jazeera, you filthy American-ass-kissers.


LY744.




Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineJamesag96 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2095 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1214 times:

Nice cartoon...where does it mention Arafat stealing money from "his" people.

Interesting too that he is depicted as a peace-nik without mention of his activites leading up the 6-day war, killing of Isaeli athletes...could go on and on.

Sad commentary on the Arab world, and really the world at large when someone like this becomes an Icon.



Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.
User currently offlineKalakaua From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1516 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1201 times:

That's sad about people I meet... Always making assumptions. How very thoughtful of you...

I'm not in Hawaii Russophile... I'm in Abu Dhabi deary, studying engineering abroad, because I'm a student always wanting to learn. Still, I'm a sociologist... Blah blah blah... You get the picture?! I'm in Abu Dhabi!!!

Russophile, you're the worst of the worst. Is that how you do it? Check out other folk's profiles and just make assumptions already?!

And if I was in Hawaii, wouldn't there be satelite television?! Hmm... Well at least in Hawaii, there is much diversity, which means no biased opinions. We're more isolated than you think.

 Insane

Read my signature... You may learn something.
But then again, with your attitude, I may never get to you.




Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
User currently offlineRussophile From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1189 times:

Hawai'i. Abu Dhabi. What's the difference. Question is: Do you speak Arabic? Are you able to understand Al-Jazeera?

P.S. On your profile. It does say you are in the US (including in HNL), and it also says you are 76-85 years old studing engineering in Abu Dhabi (doubtful). You can only go by what you write.

But enough of that. Attack the information I provided. Don't see anything on that in your post, only an attack on myself.  Insane


25 Kalakaua : Can you attack me without basing your remarks on what is said in my profile?! You keep on making assumptions, which is sad, really sad. Enough about w
26 Kalakaua : Well, I'm leaving this bigotted conversation... There's no use, because our opinions will still stand as is. And I've made my decision... So please, a
27 Russophile : Typically responses from someone who can't answer the question with a simple yes or no. BTW, I know many people who live and work/study in Dubai, Jedd
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Interesting Cartoon, What Do You Think? posted Tue Nov 12 2002 12:11:48 by Goodbye
Interesting Article On Israeli Humanitarian Aid posted Tue Oct 24 2006 17:33:09 by Windshear
Help To Find Back Airbus-Cartoon posted Sun Oct 22 2006 13:56:27 by TheSunseeker
An Interesting Soldier's Story posted Tue Oct 10 2006 02:01:15 by N1120A
Interesting Figures posted Mon Oct 9 2006 23:57:21 by Okees
Gore Offers Interesting Idea posted Tue Sep 19 2006 01:50:02 by Pope
Interesting Video On Apple And Their Ipod posted Sat Sep 16 2006 13:05:50 by Tmatt95
What Do Think Of This Cartoon? posted Mon Aug 21 2006 04:11:19 by TACAA320
Interesting YouTube Video posted Sat Aug 19 2006 17:23:47 by AA61Hvy
Politicians As Cartoon Characters posted Sat Aug 12 2006 03:00:48 by AsstChiefMark