Al Jazeera Releases Gaza Video Archive Under Creative Commons License
Over at the Creative Commons blog, Fred Benenson writes:
Al Jazeera is releasing 12 broadcast quality videos today shot in Gaza under Creative Commons’ least restrictive Attribution license. Each professionally recorded video has a detailed information page and is hosted on blip.tv allowing for easy downloads of the original files and integration into Miro. The value of this footage is best described by an International Herald Tribune/New York Times article describing the release:Al Jazeera Launches Creative Commons Repository (Via Sean Bonner) and here is the Al Jazeera Creative Commons Repository.In a conflict where the Western news media have been largely prevented from reporting from Gaza because of restrictions imposed by the Israeli military, Al Jazeera has had a distinct advantage. It was already there.
More importantly, the permissive CC-BY license means that the footage can be used by anyone including, rival broadcasters, documentary makers, and bloggers, so long as Al Jazeera is credited.
the latest
latest episodes
I like this. Al Jazeera has done some good reporting. Which isn't that hard since no one in the US does that any more.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-olmert14-2009jan14,0,5295919.story
the things that looks like shimmering white leaves i assume to be pamphlets dropped by the israeli air force.
America cannot afford another Saddam Hussein.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ylbuYnd54As
white phosphorus burns on the human face, Not Suitable For Those Who Still Feel
http://www.geocities.com/daveclarkecb/NewPhotos/VictimOfWhitePhos.jpg
Cute kids, interesting footage. I'm not sure how many outlets will pick it up since it might be viewed as political. "How dare you put a human face to our enemies." Al Jazeera impressed me by their reporting of the financial collapse. They actually talked to poor non-white Americans on how it would affect them. Al Jazeera consistently tells the stories of the powerless and disenfranchised. Traditional media has been utterly prostrate before government and corporate power. They do not report, they redistribute press releases.
Traditional media has it's head so far up Bush's ass whenever he farts they think it's a fresh summer breeze. As GW's last presser demonstrated.
Takuan,
The AP reports that the International Committee of the Red Cross has affirmed that, while Israel is using white phosphorus, Israel is not doing so in any way that is "illegal or improper."
I would find the release of anything like white phosphorus not only improper, but downright nightmarish. My gods, I thought we were all trying to avoid chemical warfare.
Hr s n xcrpt frm n rtcl bt l Jzr frm nwsppr n th ntd rb mrts
http://www.thntnl./rtcl/20080802/PNN/351257069/1080/NWS&prfl=1080
"n xmpl tht dmnstrts th lck f l Jzr’s mprtlty ws vdnt rcntly whn th Lbns mltnt grp Hzbllh scrd yt nthr md cp wth th rls f Smr Kntr, th ltmt prpgnd tl. Hzbllh’s ltst trphy, hndd vr by srl ftr lmst thr dcds n prsn, s vlbl pwn.
Kntr ws cnvctd whn h ws 17 yrs ld (lbt t n n nmy crt n 1980), f mrdrng, mng thrs, nt, n nncnt fr-yr-ld srl grl h drggd frm bd t nght t th sshr nd whs frgl hd, th crt ws tld, h hd smshd wth th btt f hs rfl. Tr t ts sprt f crtng cntrvrsy, l Jzr clbrtd Kntr’s rls lk n thr tlvsn chnnl.
Th sttn nt nly rptdly ntrvwd “th hr” bt brznly thrw Kntr, lv n ntrntnl tlvsn, srprs brthdy prty t clbrt th ccsn. Th prty rgnsd by l Jzr cm cmplt wth frwrks, fll bnd nd gnt brthdy ck lng wth th pctr f th Hzbllh ldr Hssn Nssrllh.
Th chnnl’s Brt br chf, Ghssn Bn Jdd, sprtng pnk t fr th ccsn, rptdly ddrssd th trrrst s “my brthr” syng: “Y dsrv vn mr thn ths.”
Nmbr thr n l Jzr’s Cd f thcs lst: gv fll cnsdrtn t th flngs f th vctms f crm.
s Qtr, th chnnl’s bckr, flly wr f th dngr t crts by ssctng tslf wth ths srt f prgrmmng: brthdy prty fr cnvctd chld mrdrr? n fct, ll rbs shld r-xmn thr ndrstndng f wht chrctrss hr; tk lk t yr wn chld nd mgn jst hw frghtnd th fr-yr-ld nt mst hv bn.
Th nrpntnt Kntr ltr tld l Jzr hw “wndrfl” h thght th ssssntn f th frmr gyptn ldr nwr Sdt hd bn, nd hw h lkd frwrd t “smlr ssssntns”.
lthgh w my nvr knw wht psychlgcl prssrs Kntr ndrd drng hs ncrcrtn n srl’s prsns, w d knw tht h ws llwd t mrry nd grdt frm th srl pn nvrsty wth dgr n pltcl scnc, rndrng hm n dl l Jzr vwr.
Hfz l-Mrz, th sttn’s frmr Wshngtn br chf, nc cmprd l Jzr t th BBC n Brtn, clmng tht t rcvs gvrnmnt fndng bt mntns ntrl stnc. Nthng cld b frthr frm th trth. Hw wld w vw th BBC f t rgnsd, sy, brthdy prty fr th frmr Bsnn Srb ldr Rdvn Krdzc? Lst yr l-Mrz qt th chnnl ccsng ts nw mngmnt f trnng t nt Hms Tlvsn.
Th prvlgd trtmnt tht Kntr rcvd crtsy f l Jzr ws th cp d grc t thr clms f ntrlty. rnclly, f ll th wrld’s nws chnnls, t s l Jzr nd Fx Nws wh rptdly mphss thr mprtlty. Whch brngs t mnd frnd f mn’s dpttn f th fms Jsph Gbbls’ dctm tht chrctrsd s mch f Nz Grmny’s prpgnd: “Whn y wnt t gt wy wth l,” h sd, “y mst rpt t mny tms vr nd blv t t b th trth. nly thn wll thrs blv y”."
If that link has anything to do with this discussion GREGLONDON, then you must think we have the time to figure it out. You should be banned for posting it in my opinion.
Yea, so what Two Gun, they are biased. Tell us something we didn't know. There is no such thing as unbiased news. Every reporter and every person behind the camera has an agenda. The fact is that what they are pointing a camera at is news and more news that Western Media is able to report. Are you suggesting that the whole thing is being made up and no one is dying in Gaza?
Cohen: once and for all: one atrocity is bad. Two atrocities are twice as bad - not canceled out. Why can't you grasp this?
@#10 POSTED BY TWO GUN COHEN:
Look, nobody looks good in this mess. But the same prejudiced treatment can be levied at FOX and even CNN at times.
As far as this footage goes, it seems to be just non-contextual raw footage with no specific placement in any event or time. I was expecting to see scenes the IDF won't let us see. Like the wreckage of war or even life in the midst of battle. None of that here.
So to me, it's really an empty gesture.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=LKb9XQ39-zc&feature=related
Hr s th lnk t th brthdy prty l Jzr thrw fr th gy tht, rmmbr, smshd bby's hd n wth hs br hnds nd s prd f t t. thnk th mbddng f pht mntg f hs lf nt th cng f th brthdy ck thy brght n fr hm ws nc tch.
http://www.ytb.cm/wtch?v=SkrQGz5ts
t s n ntrstng sttn t wtch, spclly whn thy lt rbc spkng srl gvrnmnt nd mltry rps n. Th l Jzr ntrvwrs scrm nd yll rdly t th srls whn thy hv thm n, s fr s hv wtnssd, bt thy d vntlly llw th srls t gt thr pnts crss, .. tht srl s nly ntrstd n lvng n pc nd qt wth th rbs, t th ntr rb wrld, smthng whch thrws n rb wld vr gt xpsd t vr.
Bt dn't thnk fr scnd t s bcs l Jzr s tryng t b mprtl n ny wy tht thy lt srls cm n th shw. Thy d t nly n qd pr q bss whr srl hs md dl wth thm t llw l Jzr crspndnts t wrk nd brdcst frm jst bt nywhr thy wnt t n srl nd th Wst Bnk nd Gz, nd n rtrn srl spksmn gt chnc t ccsnlly ddrss th rb wrld vr wht s by fr th mst pplr TV sttn n tht prt f th wrld.
Bt th cvrg f Gz ths pst fw wks, jdgng frm th dzns f hrs f lv cvrg hv prsnlly wtchd, thr wn Wshngtn Br chf qt lst yr ccsng thm f bng nthng mr thn th ffcl prpgnd rm f Hms, nd fr gd rsn t.
t s jst spr slck phny blny pr Hms/Hzbllh l fctry, ll b t wth tp ntch prdctn vls.
So, you're saying that Israel only allows journalists to practice freely in return for propaganda favors? What a fascinating insight. Do go on.
What I find utterly fascinating/disturbing about claims of news being used as "propaganda" for one side or the other is it's being said with a straight face while the U.S. is still in Iraq.
If there's any war in my lifetime that that changed my personal perspective of national news outlets it's the 2nd Iraq war.
To hear Israelis jump in and say "Wait, Al Jezeera is full of propaganda..." is just shockingly naive. IT ALL IS!
But I'd rather see two sides of propaganda than one side of it.
Whatever.
Gaza is now officially Israel's Iraq in my mind.
I thought we were all trying to avoid chemical warfare
We are. Despite its chemical name, white phosphorous isn't a chemical weapon. Think napalm, not ricin.
Hms r trrrst thgs. Thy mrdr thr pltcl ppnnts. Thy ht Jws nd wll NVR ccpt mr thn tmprry csfr. Thr ffcl gl s th dth f th stt f srl, nd thr ftn sttd gl s th dth r frcd rmvl f ll Jws frm th Mddl st. Thy r dth clt, nt nly wllng t scrfc bbs nd cvlns, bt dng t jyflly snc thy wll b mrtyrs. Thy kll hmsxls. Thy wnt t nstll shr thrght th wrld. Thy l cnstntly, nd dt prgrssvs fll fr t (thr s sch thng s smrt prgrssv, lk myslf). Thy cmmt wr crms dly by trgtng srl cvlns nd sng Plstnn cvlns s shlds. Ths gys r scm f th rth. nly fl r mnstr flld wth htrd wld spprt thm. Whch r y?
themiddleroad,
If you want to discuss Hamas, it belongs in this thread, but you're going to have to come up with a much more nuanced and reasoned comment than that.
@Takuan:
Cheap shot. I'm not defending the use of WP here, but the awful appearance of people who have been badly wounded by it is not a valid point against it, at least to the question of "what weapons should be allowed?" Any weapon can leave its victims horribly disfigured. I could go over to rotten.com and find even more disturbing pictures of someone whose head was bashed in with a cinderblock, but they would hardly stand as an argument to forbid blunt instruments under the Geneva Conventions.
It's war that's horrible. Focusing on the horror of the specific weapons used to wage it is a distraction. Do you think that guy cares whether his face was burnt off by white phosphorous, powdered magnesium, thermite, gasoline, or gunpowder?
Antinous / Moderator
Actually, since you specifically asked me to go on, the Foreign Press Association of Israel lists 450 members, all these in order to cover little Israel, which together with the West Bank and Gaza, has a total population of 7.5 million Israelis and 3.5 million Palestinians, a tiny land area of about equal to the State of Hawaii, and a relatively small-scale armed conflict in which only about 6000 Palestinians and 2000 Jews in total, really just a drop in the bucket as wars tend to go these days, have been killed over the last 30 years.
The, gigantic is the only word for it, foreign press core permanently based in Israel is the second largest on earth, with only Washington D.C. having a larger contingent. There are more foreign correspondents based in Israel than in such insignificant backwaters as Beijing, New Delhi, London or Moscow.
I mention just in order to contrast, and not to get off topic, that as far as I can determine, the Democratic Republic of Congo, with a population of 65 million, and the world’s deadliest war in which over 5 million people have perished in the last 10 years has, as far as I can tell, only a dozen or less permanently based foreign correspondents.
Here is a link to an interesting article by two-time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Paul Salopek analyzing why the world tends to ignore the worst conflicts on earth like Congo while obsessing about other much smaller but better marketed conflicts like Israel/Palestine wildly all out of proportion to the actual human suffering involved.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2007/dec/17/health/chi-congo_salopekdec17
so if a crime is undiscovered, it is not a crime?
Mr. Cohen, tireless apologist for Israel, a quick question for you: How many civilians does Israel get to kill before you will judge criticism of Israel's war in Gaza to be illegitimate?
Hamas attacks killed 26 Israelis in the entire year of 2008. How many civilians in Gaza will you allow Israel to kill before people can criticize Israel's war against an entire people without having to listen to your propaganda defending it to the end?
a thousand dead civlians in Gaza? two thousand? Three? How many?
@18 amd 21; WP can be convincing argued as a chemical weapon. It's use in Gaza is both unnecessary and deliberate. As was Fallujah.
@11; what's wrong with Greg's link?
In 2006, Israel's use of cluster bombs in southern lebanon probably constituted a war crime, given that the bombs are indiscriminant, cover a wide area, and many do not explode acting more like air-deployed minefields. Israel launched thousands of cluster bombs into Lebanon just before the ceasefire was to go into effect, creating a minefield of millions of unexploded munitions in populated areas that took the UN a year to clear.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/31/lebanon.clusterbombs/index.html
It's not the weapon that determines whether a war crime occurred. It's how you use them. Artillery shells are legal weapons.
On 18 April 1996, Israel bombarded a UN compound in Lebanon where civilians had fled for shelter from Israels invasion of Lebanon. Israel’s bombardment of the compound killed 106 civilians and wounded 116. The event became known as the Qana Massacre. A United Nations investigation into the incident found that the shelling was likely deliberate. Amnesty International investigated and concluded that the Israeli attack on civilians had been intentional. Human Rights Watch investigated and concluded that Israel violated international law. When the UN tried to pass a resolution requiring that Israel pay for the reconstruction of the UN facility, only two countries would vote against the resolution, Israel, and the US, preventing its passage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_shelling_of_Qana
cohen: better marketed conflicts like Israel/Palestine wildly all out of proportion to the actual human suffering involved.
Aaawwww. Is the actual human suffering out of proportion, Cohen? Really? Is that your chief complaint here? Is that why you keep bringing the threads off topic about the congo and other red herrings?
26 Israelis were killed by Hamas during the entire year of 2008. Most of those occurred before July 2008, when Israel and Hamas entered into a ceasefire. A working ceasefire that lasted for 4 months before Israel finally violated it by invading Gaza and killing several members of Hamas in November. Hamas resumes rockets for November and December, killing about 6 Israelis. In response to these 6 deaths, Israel launches a full scale bombardment and invasion of Gaza, killing about 1000 palestinians, probably half of which were unarmed, uninvolved civilians.
6 Israelis in exchange for 500 or 1000 palestinians?
Is that your sense of proportionality?
How many civilians, women, and children in Gaza does Israel get to kill before the world can finally complain about gross disproportionality to Israel's response without hearing your mindless defense of Israel trying to wave that criticism away?
proportionality my ass.
Cohen: they do eventually allow the Israelis to get their points across, i.e. that Israel is only interested in living in peace and quiet with the Arabs
Oh god. Enough of this horseshit.
http://www.newint.org/issue359/essay.htm/
“Palestinians are like cancer. There are all sorts of solutions to cancerous manifestations. For the time being, I am applying chemotherapy.”
Moshe Y’alon, Israeli Chief-of-Staff
“Eventually we will have to thin out the number of Palestinians living in the territories.”
Eitan Ben Eliahu, Israeli Air Force Commander
“I believe in liquidationists.” (Assassination brigades targeting Palestinian activists)
General Meir Dagan, Head of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=13780
Israel’s Minister of Public Security, Avi Dichter, believes punishment should be inflicted “irrespective of the cost to the Palestinians”;
Meir Sheetrit has urged that Israel should “decide on a neighborhood in Gaza and level it”
Deputy defense minister Matan Vilnai talks about bring about a palestinian holocaust in Gaza.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1226404716066&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
“it would be pointless for Israel to topple Hamas because the population [of Gaza] is Hamas.”
People love war. Especially in the United States, especially when the actual fighting is far away, preferably so far away that it's mostly brown people getting killed. This is a fact, easily verifiable by the way that Americans vote in greater numbers for politicians who give them far away wars that kill mostly brown people. People love war. Kudos to al-Jazeera for bringing the grotesque face of modern warfare home.
As for "war is bad no matter what the weapons" - that's completely insane. Honorable conflict by volunteers using weapons that do not pollute or leave the hand would be a fine thing. We have the population for it, and death is not worse than dishonor. Young men need to fight, let them fight in an honorable way that brings no harm to noncombatants.
People only hate war when it's in their faces.
all opinions aside, I'll tell a little story (I do not take sides here and naively hope for peaceful resolution) - in 1996 I was living in .cz - then, as now, I was/am sick of hearing about the "mideast crisis" as no solution seems possible/feasible (you might as well say there is a "gravity crisis" in that we cannot fly, so perpetual has this problem been in my lifetime)... so a friend invited me over to meet his Israeli friend (an Israeli soldier, about 25) who was passing through. Very nice guy, quite serious and intense, not stupid. At some point in the conversation (we skirted about the issue for a while) I made the near-fatal error of saying something to the effect that it 'takes two to tango' - hoping to gain deeper insight from someone who has lived the problem (as all I knew was what the West tells me). It is the only time in my life when I was certain i was about to get hurt (and I previously had opened a Bar in Moscow, so I know about serious bad guys first hand) - the intensity of HATRED toward me in his eyes and in his energy was instantaneous and overwhelming and I immediately left the apartment as it was clear there would be no discussion. The mutual Hatred is unfathomable to most outsiders, opinions be damned. Don't expect a solution, ever.
More proof that Israel only wants peace with Palestinians.
In summer of 2007, Israeli Deputy defense minister Matan Vilnai began preparing a plan on behalf of his boss, the Defence Minister Ehud Barak, to declare all of Gaza a “hostile entity” and dramatically reduce the essential services supplied by Israel -- as long-time occupier -- to its inhabitants, including electricity and fuel. The cuts were finally implemented late last year after the Israeli courts gave their blessing.
October 2007, Vilnai said of Gaza: "Because this is an entity that is hostile to us, there is no reason for us to supply them with electricity beyond the minimum required to prevent a crisis.”
January of 2008, Vilnai said that Israel should cut off “all responsibility” for Gaza, though, in line with the advice of Israel’s attorney general, he has been careful not to suggest that this would punish ordinary Gazans excessively.
Around this time, Vilnai also said “We want to stop supplying electricity to (Gaza), stop supplying them with water and medicine”
July 2008, Vilnai said that Gaza "will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves". The media translated "shoah" to mean Holocaust. Israeli apologists played it down, saying that "shoah" should be translated to mean "disaster". However, no one in Israel was fooled. “Shoah” -- which literally means “burnt offering” -- was long ago reserved for the Holocaust.
August 2008, Barak revealed that his officials were working on a way to make it lawful for the army to direct artillery fire and air strikes at civilian neighbourhoods of Gaza in response to rocket fire. They are already doing this covertly, of course, but now they want their hands freed by making it official policy, sanctioned by the international community.
At the same time Vilnai proposed a related idea, of declaring areas of Gaza “combat zones” in which the army would have free rein and from which residents would have little choice but to flee. In practice, this would allow Israel to expel civilians from wide areas of the Strip, herding them into ever smaller spaces, as has been happening in the West Bank for some time.
Vilnai and Barak's ultimate goal appears to be related to Vilnai’s “shoah” comment: Gaza’s depopulation, with the Strip squeezed on three sides until the pressure forces Palestinians to break out again into Egypt. This time, it may be assumed, there will be no chance of return.
And then Israel can take over the land.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9387.shtml
Hello Cohen.
Are you stupid?
I ask because of how you view Al Jazeera:
"It is just a super slick phony baloney pro Hamas/Hezbollah lie factory, all be it with top notch production values. "
You must be kidding me, you didn't really write that right? You compare it to FOX news, and that's a fair comparison, not good but fair...
Now saying it's pro Hamas/Hezbollah would be like saying that FOX encourages the KKK. They don't. I hate FOX, and I think their views and ways of doing things are very bad and dangerous. But they don't support any violent extremist group...
an interesting tale, Gtron. The lad either had someone close killed or was brainwashed from birth, perhaps both.
Failix; "stupid"? come now.
vryn frgts tht wstrn jrnlsts hv bn systmtclly hndd t f Gz by Hms. Hr's n nstnc:
http://nws.bbc.c.k/2/h/mddl_st/6267928.stm
that's what I'm saying - brainwashed on both sides - how do you un-brainwash all those people?- now i just heard the Osama Bin there, done that is calling a Jihad on Israel... great. Hillary to the rescue?
Insert:
"The international Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest the incendiary agent is being used improperly or illegally."
"However, Herby said evidence is still limited because of the difficulties of gaining access to Gaza..""
"Human Rights Watch has accused Israel of firing phosphorous shells and warned of the possibilities of extreme fire and civilian injuries. The chemical is suspected in the cases of 10 burn victims who had skin peeling off their faces and bodies."
AP, today.
they don't need to use white phosphorus. I can only conclude it is deliberately intended as a terror weapon to break morale.
I also note there are reports of Israeli use of illegal bullets and possibly DIME warheads.
Israel faces the prospect of intervention by international courts amid growing calls that its actions in Gaza are a violation of world humanitarian and criminal law. The UN general assembly, which is meeting this week to discuss the issue, will consider requesting an advisory opinion from the international court of justice
"There is a well-grounded view that both the initial attacks on Gaza and the tactics being used by Israel are serious violations of the UN charter, the Geneva conventions, international law and international humanitarian law," said Richard Falk, the UN's special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories and professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University.
"There is a consensus among independent legal experts that Israel is an occupying power and is therefore bound by the duties set out in the fourth Geneva convention," Falk added. "The arguments that Israel's blockade is a form of prohibited collective punishment, and that it is in breach of its duty to ensure the population has sufficient food and healthcare as the occupying power, are very strong."
article
Everyone forgets that western journalists have been systematically hounded out of Gaza by Hamas.
And the fact remains: Israel's military continues to ban foreign journalists from Gaza, violating a ruling by its own Supreme Court..
ntns - r y rlly mdrtr fr ths st? f s, yr cmmnts r rthr n-sdd. n fct, ths st hs d-vwld nmbr f pr-srl psts n th pst. dn't thnk y cn frly d tht whl stll cmplnng bt n-sdd jrnlsm.\
sggst ppl rd tdy's p-d pc n th Nw Yrk Tms.
take it to the Moderation thread, Sleepy.
pstd t hr bcs t s drctly rlvnt t ths pst. Th pst s bt n-sdd jrnlsm. Prhps bngbng cld ls pst stry n th syngg n Frnc tht ws jst frbmbd th thr dy.
if you think you have a relevant point, link it. If you have a Moderation inquiry, take it to the appropriate place.
Tkn - 'm nt sr w'r cnnctng. Ths pst s bt n-sdd jrnlsm. W cn gr n tht? My pnt hr s tht whl Bngbng s prvt st nd hs vry rght t cnsr cmmnts s thy pls, t s rthr hypcrtcl t rptdly cnsr pr-srl cmmnts whl pstng strs bt n-sdd jrnlsm. Tht s my pnt, nd t s drctly rltd t ths pst bt n-sdd jrnlsm n th mddl st. 'v pstd nmbr f pr-srl cmmnts bfr tht wr drctly rlvnt t th dscssn nd ltr fnd thm t b dsmvwld. t s dshnst fr Bngbng t d s whl cmplnng f thr vwpnt cnsrshp brd.
you need a thorough discussion of what censorship is. On the Moderation thread. It will not be discussed here for the obvious reason that every single discussion could then be derailed by precedent. Proceed here on topic and wait for Antinous or other to reply to your moderation questions in the venue provided. You are quite capable of doing both simultaneously.
Takuan; What? Yes, "stupid" as opposed to intelligent. He's making very bold statements without any good arguments. I'm not saying that I'm intelligent, superior to him, or that I never make bold statements.
But I justified my question. He should justify his claims, and when he doesn't, he should at least assume that sooner or later somebody questions his intelligence.
ntns,
spps y tk nncd vw f th Khmr Rg? Hw bt Jnstwn? Hw bt 2+2=4? Smtms nnc jst dsn't pply. l Jzr hs n nnc. Thy r mthpc f htrd nd xtrmsm, nt jst plgzng fr trrrsm; thy ctlly glrfy t. Hms hs n nnc. Thy r ll htrs f Jws, bnt n xtrmntn. My pst ws mr n-tpc thn mst BB psts nd ls cmpltly fctlly ccrt. Prv thrws, pls.
Failix, you are here to talk, right? And listen? Will you do either with someone who just called you "stupid"? Are you here to "win"? Or to go forward together?
Insulting each other is fun, but please, do it with respect.
My cmmnts r drctly n tpc hr, rltng t rstrctns f prss nd spch. Thr r mny cmmnts bv tht d nt ddrss ths ss t ll, cllng thr cmmnts "hrssht" nd "stpd" mng thr thngs. ntrstngly, th nly dsmvwld cmmnt n ths thrd s pr-srl. Tht s drctly rlvnt t dscssn bt n-sdd cmmntry n th Gz cnflct. 'm nvtng srs, ntllgnt dscssn bt ths ss. Tkn - w'v hd gd dscssns n th pst nd 'd lk t hr sbstntv rspns frm y r thrs. Hwvr, smn wll lkly flg my psts nd thy wll b dsmvwld s bfr.
"This post is about one-sided journalism. We can agree on that?"
No, this post is about Al Jazeera releasing CC licensed footage. The rest of the bullshit is just icing. I'm glad that Al Jazeera did this and I wish more media would do the same. I'm also glad that Al Jazeera exists, despite their faults, because they make for a counter balancing force against the more ubiquitous received narrative.
Middle: nuance always applies in understanding. Moral choice of action, maybe not so much.
Al Jazeera is patently not a "mouthpiece piece of hatred". Not any more then most major media outlets.To prove this, all one has to do is read it for a few days. I am sure you will find a conspicuous lack of blatant calls for death to Israel and America.
As to Hamas, Hamas has its own internal divisions and is not Al Jazeera in any case.
Do not request proof of the obvious, it shows bad faith. It also does not constitute argument.
Al Jazeera has no nuance. They are a mouthpiece of hatred and extremism ... My post was more on-topic than most BB posts and also completely factually accurate. Prove otherwise, please.
Is there anything in the above Al Jazerra videos that are factually inaccurate? I watched a few of them, they simply show that the Palestinians suffering in Gaza right now are human beings. That the war is killing actual flesh-and-blood people. Writing them off as nothing more than "a mouthpiece of hatred" is an attempt to render these people into non-humans again.
If the above videos are factually accurate, then what is your point of shifting the topic to condemnation of Al Jazeera as a whole other than to attempt to move the spotlight away from something factually accurate that you don't want the world to see and try to put the spotlight on something irrelevant? If the videos are factually accurate, does it matter who recorded them?
@Sleepy, come on, the comments Antinous disemvoweled weren't "pro-israel" comments. They just make no sense and it wouldn't be fair to link them to pro-israel ideas. That'd be like suggesting that pro-israel = dumb, and that's not always true I have to say.
@Themiddleroad:
-Yes terrorism is bad.
-No Al Jazeera isn't a mouthpiece of hatred and extremism. And they certainly don't glorify terrorism...
You're just so wrong about everything you said. And that's not "pro-israel", it's just wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if your post was disemvoweled soon. That wouldn't be censoring, it would just be saving people from going crazy because they unintentionally read these false statements. There's a difference between "different opinions", and what's true and what's not.
I concur with Noen, this post is about what it says it is about. Normal meta discussion would be allowable, but this overlaps too much and too often with perceived moderation issues. Too much emotion, too little clear eyed thought.
Might I offer a bit of useful advice: if you want to say something and find it repeatedly disemvowelled, truly ask yourself; why? Is it the wrong place, time, format, tone? Do you REALLY believe there is a conspiracy to silence you? Or is the likelier answer that you could do it another way?
If your message is so important, do you not owe it to that message to find the words that succeed in getting it out? Do you not owe it to the rest of us to phrase it so we hear and understand it?
l Jzr hs dffrnt cntnt n dffrnt lnggs. Shwng wr prn f n-sdd sffrng ncts htrd, nd thy'r dng t ntntnlly. Rlsng t ndr CC s jst mr f th sm, bt wth clvr twst. Brdcstng htfl mssgs n nr cnstnt bss cnsttts bng mthpc f htrd.
Fx s glty f dng th sm fr rght-wngrs n mrc, bt t fr lssr xtnt. Thr bs s clr nd strng, bt y dn't s thm prdng th crpss f S sldrs r 9/11 n dly bss whl scrmng, "Dth t slm!"
Thr s n nnc wth l Jzr. t's cmpltly n-sdd. f y wnt nnc n pnn, chck t th NYTms.
Showing war porn of one-sided suffering incites hatred, and they're doing it intentionally.
War porn? Don't talk to me about War Porn. I've been writing about war porn for years. This aint it.
Broadcasting hateful messages
OK. It's clear you haven't watched the actual videos in question and have no intention of doing so. The video at the top of this thread shows shelling, tanks moving, civilians cooking food in an alley, children playing, and a news conference of sorts when Israeli troops killed a journalist in Gaza. There is no "hateful message" in the video, there isn't even any voiceovers. It's mostly silent video with background noises, or people being interviewed.
If Al Jazeera is so goddamn biased, and if that is somehow relevant to this thread, rather than being some offtopic rant meant to derail the conversation, then watch the videos and let us know specifically where in a video there is something factually untrue being reported that would prove Al Jazeera's bias.
Point to one of the videos, give a timestamp, and explain what is factually inaccurate in the video that proves Al Jazeera's bias. Or stop trying to derail this thread with irrelevant accusations.
I believe this is one of the few times Al Jazeera's bias towards Arab/Muslim matters is a good thing. The world needs to see images of how much suffering and damage Israels attacks into Gaza is doing.
"Showing war porn of one-sided suffering incites hatred." In this case Al Jazeera has no other option But be one sided. Since Israel initiated their reoccupation of Gaza, their outrageously disproportionate ratio of losses to inflicted casualties leaves media no other choice but to be one sided. The video above is about as middle of the road as I can imagine. At least Al Jazeera decided to show what's going on as some people attempt to live as normal a life as possible amidst all of the chaos. I'm sure that if they wanted, they could have easily shown more destruction and devastation.
Unfortunately, simply the connection to Al-Jazeera means that many people (the people most in need of knowing that Palestinians are human beings and not robotic terrorist monsters) will not pay it any serious attention, and instead consider it mere propaganda.
Sleepy,
Take it to the Moderation thread.
I have this miraculous interface that lets me know where comments originate. So far, comments originating in Israel have been far more considered and nuanced than comments originating in North America. Although we generally don't permit links to partisan blogs, I allowed links to several pro-Israel blogs in Gaza threads because they were there, on the ground and reporting the conflict in real time. I felt that they deserved a voice in these discussions as long as they played by the same basic rules as everyone else. Oddly, the people who are confronting the situation at close range didn't seem to have much problem keeping a civil and meaningful discourse. Those experiencing vicarious outrage haven't done so well.
SOME ANNOUNCEMENTS:
1. Two Gun Cohen, Middle Road, Sleepy, and all others of that ilk:
I will not countenance your attempts to take over this and related threads, and to shout down and bully into silence everyone whose opinion differs from your own. You're welcome to stay as long as you behave, but you are not going to seize control of this forum and use it as a loudspeaker for one narrow set of views.
Please understand that this is not a fight you're going to win. If I have to, I will automatically unpublish every new comment in this thread on the half-hour, and vet them all before republishing. People are going to be allowed to civilly discuss these topics, whether or not you disagree with them.
Second: "all Palestinians" =/= "Hamas" =/= "Al Jazeera" =/= "Baby-killing ultimate evil," so put a cork in it. Al Jazeera is approximately as respectable as Fox or CNN. It has its own slant, but so does every other news service in the world.
You're making the same old mistake: refusing to acknowledge legitimate voices and legitimate organizations because you don't like what they're saying. It's incredibly short-sighted of you. You should be grateful that the Islamic world has a news agency that earns its credibility with its audience by reporting the news, because the alternative would be news sources whose credibility derives from their extreme views and their intransigence.
Third, and this one goes out to a wider audience: a comment thread is a conversation. I know it's hard to keep that in mind when some of the other participants get out the megaphones as soon as they arrive. But please: talk to each other. Whenever possible, write new sentences.
Fourth, and this one's for everybody: when you're in trouble or in doubt, when you see the conversation starting to go off the rails or someone starting to flounder, when you're hearing the same speech that you've heard six times before, and especially when you feel something is worthy of praise, click on the eyeball icon. Tell us what you think is happening. You can even put your name and email address on the message, in case we want to ask you for clarification, or say thanks. We may disagree with your judgement, but we always appreciate your participation.
===
Now: I'm going to turn comments back on. When I do, I want you all to act like this is a separate thread with its own subject, not just a new instantiation of the same old arguments. Anyone who wants to make the same old arguments knows where to take them.
I apologize if my comments were too extreme. I will try to tone them down.
Re: Al Jezeera,
Hafez Al Mirazi, for 6 years the Chief of the Al Jezeera Washington Bureau, who hosted his own daily show on Al Jezeera for 5 years, a person who appeared hundreds of times on American TV giving the Arab point of view, resigned last year because he said Al Jezeera had been taken over by "Islamic radical movements" (direct quote) and was being used to spread the message of Hamas thereby "negating all the professional standards" (direct quote).
I, Two Gun, am not the one who says this. Hafez Al Mirazi, formerly Al Jezeera's most respected and senior journalist said this. Here is the original interview where he said this, direct from the web site of Dar Al-Hayat, the well known, respected Arab language newspaper.
http://www.daralhayat.com/culture/tv/06-2007/Item-20070608-0c4901ca-c0a8-10ed-01b1-699669ad1142/story.html
Here is the exact same page run through google arabic-english translate so you can read it for yourself and see if I am exaggerating in any way.
http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.daralhayat.com%2Fculture%2Ftv%2F06-2007%2FItem-20070608-0c4901ca-c0a8-10ed-01b1-699669ad1142%2Fstory.html&sl=ar&tl=en&history_state0=
I must smoke on this.
i hope you brought enough for everybody, takuan.
the last paragraph
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2006/805/profile.htm
Two Gun Cohen @64:
Egyptian-born, naturalized American citizen residing in Washington, D.C. Holds a Masters Degree in World Politics from the Catholic University of America. Prior to joining Al-Jazeera, was the BBC's Washington correspondent for the Arabic/World service. Before that, worked with the Arab Network of America in Washington, and before that held positions as a writer, editor, and broadcaster with Voice of America. Note: covered US presidential campaigns from 1984 to 2004.No. "From Washington", his talk show for Al-Jazeera, was weekly. So were the two talk shows (radio and television) he hosted for five years for the Arab Network of America.No mystery about that; he was a talk show guy living in D.C., and for fifteen years or so was always the Washington bureau chief for one or another Arab news agency. When they needed a talking head with Arab media credentials, he was one of the obvious choices.As though there were only one of them.Right.1. When did you become a fan of Hafez al-Mirazi? I've seen you quote sources that dismiss him. I also don't get the impression that you think al-Jazeera was just peachy prior to 2007, and yet al-Mirazi didn't have a problem with them during those years. Have you temporarily promoted him to good guy because on this one occasion he criticized al-Jazeera? If so, isn't that awfully cynical of you?
2. As a basic internet maneuver, I went looking for other sources who were also saying that al-Jazeera had been taken over by Hamas. It's eaten a lot of my time. So far, I've only found one: Mohammed Dahlan. Care to comment on that?
3. The translated article accessed by your link is hard to decode, to put it mildly. After further web research, my understanding is that al-Mirazi, who for obvious reasons has fairly strong associations with the U.S., lost out in some internal struggle at al-Jazeera. He left the company and joined an Egyptian startup news service that looks to me like it could develop into a competitor of al-Jazeera.
I'm not accusing him of anything. I'm just pointing out that his opinion of al-Jazeera changed sharply around the time he went to work for another news service.
I'm sorry, I haven't been able to confirm that description. All I can confirm is that he was head of their Washington bureau. And I'll repeat what I said earlier: even if he were all you say, since when is that enough to make you a fan of his?But let's ignore all of those objections, just for the moment. What do you have then? You have one guy, an ex-employee, saying one thing about al-Jazeera. I've said a lot worse than that about (for instance) Judith Miller, but I don't think that automatically discredits everything that gets published in the New York Times. In fact, I've said a lot worse that that about most of the Washington Press Corps, but that still doesn't discredit everything reported by the national news media.
You missed a major reason why I objected to your earlier comments: that quote from Hafez Al Mirazi has nothing (or next to nothing) to do with the videos in question. It certainly doesn't invalidate them. It doesn't engage with them at all. Lurking at the bottom of your argument is the same old assumption that saying "Hamas is evil!" explains everything.
Evil?
Well, I would never say that some random guy who grew up Palestinian and fights for Hamas is “Evil”, especially since I would probably have joined Hamas myself if I had been born Palestinian. Most of who we are and what we believe is just an accident of birth, isn’t it?
On the subject of the thread, Al Jazeera, and the clips they posted, I have spent dozens of hours watching this station since this terrible war began last month, and I can report to you that the clips they posted are nothing like the channel itself.
Here is a snip about Al Jazeera from “The Nation” weekly, a reputable progressive source.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071126/gillespie/single
“Al Jazeera's programming breaks down into roughly four categories: newscasts, which tend to be fairly balanced; talk shows and related programs, to which viewers call in; documentaries; and reports from correspondents in the field. The last category is where the reporting has frequently turned away from international standards of journalism and toward a sensationalistic and Islamist bias. The field reports are overwhelmingly negative, with violent footage played over and over, highlighting Arab defeat and humiliation. And there's a clear underlying message: that the way out of this spiral is political Islam.”
Anyways, Teresa, sorry for the crappy results Google Translate. Google Translate has opened a whole world of Arabic Web pages for me but it sure takes some getting used to.
Peace, Shalom, Salam.
"I would probably have joined Hamas myself if I had been born Palestinian"
The extreme's war on the middle.
Interesting how none of the footage shows
a) Hamas fighters engaged in firefights with the israelis
b) Rockets being launched from Gaza
c) Hamas installations or fighting positions in civilian areas.
We know from press reports and palestinian sources that all these things were present. The al jazzera video would have viewers believe the Gaza strip is populated with nothing but innocent women and children who are being heartlessly bombed, shelled, and gunned down by the IDF.
It is valid argument to question whether it is moral to engage with an enemy who shields themselves by fighting from civilian population centers, but Al Jazzera, and the Arab press do themselves no favors by positioning the conflict as unprovoked genocide.
The videos, as horrible and heart rending as they are, reinforce the western perception of the Arabs as failing to acknowledge responsibility and consequences of their own actions. As long as the Arabs continue to support a Palestinian government which advocates violent conflict and uses the palestinian civilians as human shields, your sympathy from the west is going to be limited. Western apathy at the civilian deaths in Gaza is best characterized by "A plague on both your houses!".
(I smell socks)