|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 10:47 pm Post subject: WHAT AL-JAZEERA COMMENTATORS ARE SAYING ABOUT GAZA |
 |
|
Much to the big chick's surprise, I'm sure, I actually take time out of my day to listen to an occasional program on Al-Jazeera, along with the BBC, CNN International, and FoxNews.
Occasionally the discussions get almost as heated as those on FoxNews because the host doesn't make an effort to moderate. Usually you'll see one moderate Arab commentator (i.e. who actually acknowledges that terrorist groups exist in the Muslim world), one borderline Muslim fanatic who wears a suit, and the moderator, who is invariably sympathetic to the station's views on the Middle East. Against this triumverate is the lone, and often token opposing view, represented by an Israeli official, often one with a bone to pick with whichever party is in power.
Today on the program INSIDE IRAQ, the discussion turned once again to Gaza (the hosts attempt causal links regardless of show topic, unless it's how to make a good batch of hummus).
Anyhow, Zalman Shoval, the former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. was in the hotseat. Other guests were Rami Khouri, editor of a major Lebanese newspaper, and Saad Nagi Jawad, a "professor" of political science at Baghdad University (hence the Iraqi connection to the program focus).
The host, a forgettable and irritating fellow, began the program with this lead-in:
| Quote: |
The war on Gaza has rekindled memories of the US campaign of shock-and-awe on Iraq. Arab nationalists claim there is no difference between the American and Israeli occupation. Mute your TV set, they claim, and you will be hard pressed to determine whether the images of death and destruction are coming from Baghdad or Gaza. Ironically, Iraq had led Arab opposition to Israel in the past, but now Gaza is burning and Baghdad is silent. There have been protests across Iraq against the ongoing Israeli military attacks on Gaza, but when it comes to forcing a ceasefire or a strong response to Israel Iraq's government steps back.
Has Iraq abandoned the Palestinians or is it temporarily bogged down in its own quagmire? |
Now, getting past the false dilemma which the question posed represents, can you guess where this tidy little talk went?
First off, the Israeli guest listened patiently to the other guests, never once interrupting until near the end of the segment when it became painfully obvious that the moderator wasn't going to step in on his behalf. The professor continually blurted out accusations and generally rambled on after even the moderator had cued him to stop, his eyes rolling like cherries on a slot machine in Vegas. He insisted that the reason the wars were waged in Lebanon, Iraq, and Gaza were because Paul Wolfowitz and other "loyal Jews" had gotten the ear of Bush and Cheney and pushed them into that direction. He was dead serious, not merely provocative.
Even the Lebanese editor had a hard time swallowing that line of talk.
Then there was a semantic exchange over whether to call it the "war in Gaza" or the "war on Gaza," as if the connotation of the phrasing would be lost on informed Western viewers.
Once settled to the moderator's satisfaction, the Lebanese editor proceeded to ask rhetorically why the Israeli government felt the need to always be looking for an Arab neighbor to invade. He began by chronicling the wars from 1956.
Of course, the Israeli ambassador tried to set him straight on the history of these conflicts and the source of the provocation but to no avail. Mr. Khouri was content to mouth the party line.
When any concessions were made, they came only from the Israeli ambassador. He even announced that Israel was willing to open their state to more Arab settlement by returning Palestinian refugees if a peac accord were firmly in place. That gesture was also brushed off.
But then the charge was made that Israel had not negotiated in good faith even with Abbas and Fatah, that it was supposedly looking for a pretext to clamp down on the West Bank. The Lebanese editor insisted that Israel has not even sent envoys to neighboring Arab states to renegotiate a ceasefire. But then the Israeli amabassador, not the moderator, pointed out that as they spoke envoys were in Cairo and Dasmascus and had been in the former for some time. Momentary silence. Regroup.
The next unsubstantiated charge was that Likud was not amenable to creating a Palestinian State, a notion quickly denied by the ambassador as untrue. It is, by the way, a false claim.
Not one of the several points of concern raised by the Israeli ambassador was taken up by the moderator or anyone else, such as why rockets have been fired for eight years now.
The Lebanese editor then explained that the reason Egypt has abided by its accords with Israel is because it was treated as an "equal state" in the negotiations, implying that Hamas has not been. He suggested that if Israel negotiated with Hamas in good faith it might eventually renounce its public pledge to destroy the Zionist state.
The Israeli ambassador then pointed to the elephant taking a huge dump on the other side of the negotiating table, namely, that in the meantime Hamas was free to act according to its own dictates, committing acts of terrorism and smuggling in weapons from Iran, among other things.
Never mind that it would also be appeasement to go down that road to nowhere.
So what do you make of this exchange on Al-Jazeera? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 11, 2009 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
The IDF is really caught between a rock and hard place. If it consents to journalists going in, it has to assume some responsiblity for their well-being. But in their campaign in Lebanon against Hezbollah this restricted the mobility of the army and proved a major distraction.
However, by not doing so they allow Hamas to filter the news in their favor, to gain an advantage, and give only part of the picture.
Perhaps having former government officials appear on the media is not enough to compensate for the propoganda blitz. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:21 pm Post subject: Re: WHAT AL-JAZEERA COMMENTATORS ARE SAYING ABOUT GAZA |
|
|
| ManintheMiddle wrote: |
[b]The Lebanese editor then explained that the reason Egypt has abided by its accords with Israel is because it was treated as an "equal state" in the negotiations, implying that Hamas has not been. He suggested that if Israel negotiated with Hamas in good faith it might eventually renounce its public pledge to destroy the Zionist state.
] |
This was the part that really caught my eye. Egypt is a sovereign nation and recognized as such. Gaza is not. Nor is Hamas. Why would they expect the Israelis to treat them as such?
And the editor's suggestion about talking with Hamas is also dead wrong. So Israel is supposed to negotiate in good faith (translation: make concessions?) while Hamas may or may not renounce its pledge to destroy it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
