benjoshua wrote:
I went to Israel about five years ago and my views shifted considerably against Israel.  I think there are some wonderful people in Israel, and I have nothing against Jews or Judaism, but the government shocked me with their policies with regard to Palestinians.  I do not consider myself an expert by any means, and I was only there for about ten days, but what I saw in that short amount of time was depressing.  

I don't see the Palestinians as faultless.  It doesn't help to assess blame or degrees of blame.  My dad always said, whenever there's a fight, both sides are wrong.

If you are bored at work and have nothing to do for an hour and want to read my blow by blow, it's here:


It's nothing earth shattering, but it was quite an experience.   The main thing which blew me away was the irony of the persecuted Jews executing the Palestinian persecution so soon after WWII.  The two brands of persecution are certainly different in flavor, but they are both highly distasteful.  Sad.  

BJ: without getting into a highly partisan discussion of the Middle East, I do agree the Israelites treatment of the refugees at times borders on shameful, all the more because their entire nation was founded because of that kind of persecution. However, I cannot believe the situation would be any better if the roles were reversed. Imagine if Israel had lost the Six Days or Yom Kippur Wars, and imagine the "benevolent" rule the conquered Israelites would have under their new masters.  I truly believe it would make the Palestinian refugee camps look like a fun time carnival....for the handful that might have lived.

That being said, Israel is the best of a bunch of bad, badder, and just damn horrible choices in that region.  Literally they are surrounded by a bunch of nations that hate them, hate America, would love to see their nation and our nation destroyed, and are not afraid to say so on any occasion (and have attacked without provocation many times).  If you ask me to pick Israel over Syria, Iran, Egypt, Saudia Arabia I would do so without hesitation 100 times out of 100.  

Your travelogue looks interesting. My wife's church has a christian rabbi that goes back every year to Israel to try to convert people, it's never a easy task, and he often meets with a lot of hostility. My wife just got back from two weeks in the Israeli desert, with some interesting tales to tell herself.

Mike B.

Badmike wrote:
BJ: without getting into a highly partisan discussion of the Middle East, I do agree the Israelites treatment of the refugees at times borders on shameful, all the more because their entire nation was founded because of that kind of persecution. However, I cannot believe the situation would be any better if the roles were reversed. Imagine if Israel had lost the Six Days or Yom Kippur Wars, and imagine the "benevolent" rule the conquered Israelites would have under their new masters.  I truly believe it would make the Palestinian refugee camps look like a fun time carnival....for the handful that might have lived.

That being said, Israel is the best of a bunch of bad, badder, and just damn horrible choices in that region.  Literally they are surrounded by a bunch of nations that hate them, hate America, would love to see their nation and our nation destroyed, and are not afraid to say so on any occasion (and have attacked without provocation many times).  If you ask me to pick Israel over Syria, Iran, Egypt, Saudia Arabia I would do so without hesitation 100 times out of 100.  

Your travelogue looks interesting. My wife's church has a christian rabbi that goes back every year to Israel to try to convert people, it's never a easy task, and he often meets with a lot of hostility. My wife just got back from two weeks in the Israeli desert, with some interesting tales to tell herself.

Mike B.

The British are to blame! One of the causes of the Palestinian dsiplacement can be linked to the arab revolt of 1936-39 and the destruction of Palestinian leadership and infrastructure. Before the declaration of the Jewish state on May 14th 1948 the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) about 5,000 strong, organized and trained in Syria and composed of Arabs from Iraq, Syria and Lebanon (but few Palestinians) infiltrated the area and began steady attacks on Jewish settlements and maintained a stranglehold on roads and lines of communications. By March 1948 Jerusalem was mostly in the hands of the ALA.

The soviets stepped in and began providing arms to the Hagannah (Undergorund Jewish defense organization) and by the end of April 1948 they had captured Haifa, and by the beginning of May they had taken Jaffa and Eastern Galilee.

Both the ALA and the Hagannah were terroist organizations and both began committing a series of terroist attacks of escalating atrocity.

On May 14th 1948 at 4PM the British withdrew and the state of Israel was declared. On May 15th Israel was attacked by the combined forces of the Arab Legion, the Egyptians, the Lebannese, The Iraqis and the Syrians. A combined force of about 40,000. The combined Israeli defense force was about 10,000 men and women, and 25,000 more in their 'home guard'. The British had set about a program of disarming  Israeli settlers before they withdrew so the homeguard was not equiped with military weapons. The israeli defense force did not possess artillery, armored vehicles or planes.

The Arab Legion was trained by British officers and equipped with British military equipment. It had 75 armored cars and 40 artillary pieces.

The Iraqis had 1 armored battalion.

The Eqyptions had an armored battalion of British Mk VIs and Matildas, 2 artillery battalions and a heavy weapons battalion and about 50 fighters and bombers.

The syrians had 1 armored battalion and a small airforce.

By Feb 1949 Egypt withdrew in disarray and signed an armistace, then the other countries followed.

At that point around 725,000 Palestinians had been displaced and Israel claimed territory increasing its size by 20%, 80% of which had been Palastinian. This new area was the boundry till the 1967 six-day war.

My belief is that the British started this mess. The Israelis have been stuck with it. They have an implacable enemy with the Palestinians, one that they have been left to oversee. But as far as right and wrong, I will side with the ones who target terroists and unfortunately hit civilians they are hiding behind, rather than the side that targets women and children then has a back-up attack on the ambulence and reacue personel.

My Dad fought in WWII. The USA right, the Nazis and Japanese wrong. My uncle died in Korea. The USA right, the Russians, North Koreans and  Chinese wrong. My uncles and cousins fought in the '56 uprisng. The Magyars right, the communists and soviets wrong, My cousins fought in Vietnam, the USA right even if the war was fought by a bunch of idiots, and the Chinese and Vietnamese Communists, wrong.

So when two people fight, there are plenty of times when one guy is right and the other guy is just plain wrong.

FormCritic wrote:A friend of mine...a really intelligent gamer type...once told me (echoing  American news reports) that the Israelis ought to "withdraw from the Palestinian borders."  A glance at the map and any real knowledge will reveal that there is no place to withdraw to.  Our journalists should know that.  Funny that they often don't.

Boomeranging back to an earlier point, are they not teaching anything in journalism schools except how to apply mascara and hairspray, or is God just making them dumber and dumber?  My wife have caught several huge boo-boos lately on the local newscasts of geography, history, place and names, it is getting to be a running joke. (one recently was talking about a story happening in Kuwait, "right next to Israel".  Err, well, they are on the same land mass.....? Did someone forget the map that day at the station? WTF?)

Due to the events in the middle east the last few years, it's amazing to me that a basic knowledge of where everything is there hasn't filtered down by osmosis alone to several clueless news anchors.

However, my favorite was several months ago, when a commentator had a rant about why a killer in a trial in Texas hadn't been given the death penalty by a "soft" jury....when earlier in the newscast they had announced that due to a plea bargain the killer could ONLY be convicted of life in prison; the death penalty wasn't even on the table. The dumb ass DIDN'T EVEN WATCH HIS OWN NEWS STATION REPORT before going off on a rant. LOL.

Mike B.

It must be hard to tell the difference between good news reporting and bad news reporting when all you have access to is American news reporting.

As regards the Israelis treatment of the Palastinians, it is almost like watching the Germans in WWII. The pictures of internment camps and ghettos are the same. Maybe the Israelis have something to prove.

benjoshua wrote:The real tragedy for me in news is the amount of time and energy given to matters of miniscule significance.  Entertainment, sports, gossip and trivia are WAY too important.  Brittany Spears, Michael Jackson, Brett Favre, TO, and especially Paris Hilton are given stupid amounts of attention.  But the reason they are given this attention is because of our nation's fascination with gossip/trivia.

That again is a heavily american thing. Whilst the UK news does contain trivia, the general perception outside of the US of the US citizens and their desre for 'news' and what they believe to be 'news worthy' is pretty much summed up above. It paints a picture of a generally uneducated society, star obsessed, and unable to grasp, or hold their attention long enough to listen to news that is not dumbed down and spoon fed to them in a way that explains to them how they're meant to think and feel about what's being told to them.

Until you take away the impression that people need to have their news explained to them, and need to be told how to react and feel about it, american education and culture will remain a joke to the rest of the educated world.

Clearly there are those who manage to fight the system and who are educated enough to transend the bullshit, but they are very few and far between. The majority of your fellow citizens consider you geeks because you choose to exercise your brain in leau of allowing the television to do it for you. That must be one advantage to having grown up writing adventures instead of watching 90210.

mbassoc2003 wrote:That again is a heavily american thing. Whilst the UK news does contain trivia, the general perception outside of the US of the US citizens and their desre for 'news' and what they believe to be 'news worthy' is pretty much summed up above. It paints a picture of a generally uneducated society, star obsessed, and unable to grasp, or hold their attention long enough to listen to news that is not dumbed down and spoon fed to them in a way that explains to them how they're meant to think and feel about what's being told to them.

Until you take away the impression that people need to have their news explained to them, and need to be told how to react and feel about it, american education and culture will remain a joke to the rest of the educated world.

Clearly there are those who manage to fight the system and who are educated enough to transend the bullshit, but they are very few and far between. The majority of your fellow citizens consider you geeks because you choose to exercise your brain in leau of allowing the television to do it for you. That must be one advantage to having grown up writing adventures instead of watching 90210.

WOW....

mbassoc2003 wrote:That again is a heavily american thing. Whilst the UK news does contain trivia, the general perception outside of the US of the US citizens and their desre for 'news' and what they believe to be 'news worthy' is pretty much summed up above. It paints a picture of a generally uneducated society, star obsessed, and unable to grasp, or hold their attention long enough to listen to news that is not dumbed down and spoon fed to them in a way that explains to them how they're meant to think and feel about what's being told to them.

Until you take away the impression that people need to have their news explained to them, and need to be told how to react and feel about it, american education and culture will remain a joke to the rest of the educated world..

This is not an exclusively American thing and to paint it such is to have blinders on.  The majority of ANY nations population are probably as boorish, racist, ignorant and thickheaded as stated above. Heck, Rupert Mudoch was an Aussie who came to the UK, bought up a lot of papers and turned them all into tabloids.  Through his influence, his papers supported Margaret Thatcher, then when his buddy Tony Blair became PM his papers were suddenly very supportive of him and Labor party.  Thats highly partisan journalism, right there in the UK....basically whoever Rupert Murdoch wants as PM will get tons of media support and a push from his print and TV media, and probably win the election. Murdoch practically invented tabloid journalism and he did it right there in the UK.

Believe me Americans feel the same about other countries as you do about our population. For example the general picture in the US of the French is a nation of smarmy, snotty, egotistical, racist boobs who are clinging vainly to a national glory that has been dropping steadily since the 18th century.  True or not, the impressions are there and I'm sure people would say they are just as valid as whatever the French think about us, etc.

Mike B.

bbarsh wrote:The single largest problem in the U.S. media, and most likely world-wide, is that journalism transformed from reporting to manufacturing. News agencies in their eternal bid for higher ratings and sales (to promote more advertising dollars) have stopped reporting and started making stories "relevant."
I can say this without equivocation. I actually hold a BA in Journalism.  I worked in the field for several years before bailing out. Try being a conservative in that field - back in the early 90s. Every thing was slanted to either become over-the-top newsworthy or fit a politcal slant. Objectivity is blasted right out of the first year journalism student. Every single professor I had - except the marketing/advertising guys - preached so far to the left, it was sickening. They honestly believe that journalists will save the world for all the rest of us dumb ass people who can't figure anything out for ourselves.

My theory is that journalism was ruined by two main events of the 70s: The Vietnam War and the Nixon conspiracy.   The Vietnam war, while a noble effort, was bungled and mismanaged and ran with the efficiency of ten cavemen trying to build a nuclear reactor.  The news started out dutifully reporting on the war as any other news event, then as time went on was able to actually influence the way the public felt on the war as it was dragging on with no concrete conclusion.  Television media's decision to start filming bodies of servicemen and putting it on the evening news was a huge part of why the public stopped supporting the effort.  The effect of both print and TV media in the outcome of the Vietnam war cannot be overestimated.

A crooked president brought down by two enterprising reporters became the gold standard for every starry eyed student of journalism since Watergate. Suddenly, journalism schools in the late 70s were filled with students who were going to either "bring down a president" or "save the world from an unjust war".  It became less about reporting the news than being a SAVIOUR of all the dumb clucks out there (you and I) as we were too stupid to put all the pieces together without their guidance.

The arrogance of the average journalist has only grown in the intervening years....those starry eyed students of the 70s became the professors of the 90s and beyond, and still believe they need to save the world from the "bad guys". This is why people like Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass thought making up something interesting was preferrable than finding something perhaps less interesting, but actually true, to report on.

You think the journalism department is bad you should check out the history department. HOLY MOLY     My youngest brother got his masters in history and the tales he would tell had me accusing him of making stuff up, they were so over the top.  The problem is there is no middle or right to balance out the equation.  I would have no problem with a teacher who had a class about how JFK was the greatest American president (as my brother had to sit through from a particularly strung out hippy professor) if they would counter the next week with a class about how Nixon wasn't actually Satan in disguise, or Ronald Reagan wasnt the face of true evil.  When the balance is lost it sucks for the student, because one side isn't the entire story.  As Jason said, sometimes there is often a right and wrong side, but it doesn't hurt to examine both anyway.

Mike B.

TheMilford wrote:
I'm not so sure this is true... even in a general sense. In all of my travels to Canada, Mexico and abroad I have found mbassoc's views to generally be true.

And Aussies are 2nd in line after Americans for their boorishness... hardly a good comparison.... They've supported all of our recent misguided attempts at imperialism when everybody else thought we were crazy.

I don't understand....that stuff about the French WASN"T true????  

And the comment about Mexico....dude, it's a 3rd world country. When I want their opinion of how to bribe a police officer I'll ask them, otherwise any opinion of theirs is silly. They can't even run their own banana republic much less take time to comment on boorish Americans.  If it weren't for  U.S. money (both aid given them and billions of dollars mailed back by illegals here) Mexico would be pretty close to Somalia right now. They've had more police officers killed there this year than I've had hot lunches (and I'm big, I eat a lot...)

Mike B.