Israeli thought police

[Bonam]

Cynicism? The usual MO of propaganda does not include only facts, nor does it include being truthful about the propagandizers agenda. In this instance, I was using "fraudulent" more with it in mind that these government posters are will likely not advertise themselves as such and probably outright deny it, not as to actual content.

Is there some rule requiring posters on news and discussion sites to reveal their affiliation?

[Remiel]

Is there some rule requiring posters on news and discussion sites to reveal their affiliation?

If one were to go through life with only an understanding of the rules that are written down, ones journey would be fraught with many perils that otherwise could have been avoided.

In other words, while there is no rule to reveal your affiliation, most people would agree that if you try to portray yourself as a construction foreman from Sudbury and you are in fact an information analyst paid for by the Israeli government to pretend you are in order to influence discussions in your favour, you are violating some basic standards of human decency in your treatment of the other people in that discussion.

In the case of governments, that kind of contempt for others is dangerous, and potentially deadly.

Edited July 15, 2009 by Remiel

[dub]

it's like when sony used a fake critic to praise its movies.

when you are condoning a government paying money in order to manufacture consent, you're in good company like the supporters of china, iran and north korea.

[Bonam]

when you are condoning a government paying money in order to manufacture consent

There is no reason to believe anything is going to be "manufactured". The Israeli point of view can be easily defended using only the true facts.

[dub]

There is no reason to believe anything is going to be "manufactured". The Israeli point of view can be easily defended using only the true facts.

i disagree. facts have been presented by human rights organizations and israel wants no part of it. if israel could prove that they have not committed war crimes, they would have cooperated with all of these organizations during the investigations instead of making any excuse possible not to.

[M.Dancer]

i disagree. facts have been presented by human rights organizations and israel wants no part of it. if israel could prove that they have not committed war crimes, they would have cooperated with all of these organizations during the investigations instead of making any excuse possible not to.

Why would they cooperate with organzations that are biased against Israel

Some have criticized AI for its allegedly unbalanced and excessive criticism of Israel. The American Jewish Congress asserts that AI's criticism of Israel distorts the law of war by "read[ing] the law of war as if it was a law banning war", and misinterprets the Geneva Conventions with regard to the issue of proportionality in war. [39] Yael Beck and Merav Fima of NGO Monitor claim the AI has an "obsession with Israel" and "persistently condemns Israel while ignoring suffering elsewhere". [40]. Dan Kosky of NGO Monitor claims that AI's recent call for an international arms embargo against Israel is "tantamount to placing Israel on trial in a kangaroo court" by accusing Israel of war crimes without a serious investigation to determine whether its actions were legal or not. [41] Alan Dershowitz, professor of law at Harvard University, in his book The Case for Israel, is very critical of AI and their comparison of Israel to nations such as Sudan and other offenders of human rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_...#Selection_bias

UN report accusing Israel of intentionally attacking UN buildings in Gaza strongly reflects the biases and lack of credibility of the NGO network during the Gaza fighting. As demonstrated in NGO Monitor’s comprehensive study, The NGO Front in the Gaza War: The Durban Strategy Continues, NGO reports exhibited double standards, focused overwhelmingly on condemning Israel, and erased Israeli human rights and casualties.

Not surprisingly, the “investigation” was lead by Ian Martin, former secretary-general of Amnesty International. During and following the war, this organization was a leader of efforts to boycott Israel and initiate criminal proceedings against Israeli officials (“lawfare”). These aspects of the “Durban Strategy” of isolating Israel internationally have long been the focus of Amnesty lobbying and activism. Furthermore, Amnesty consistently dismisses IDF claims without considering the substance of the evidence.

http://blog.ngo-monitor.org/other-ngos/amn...gaza-un-report/

[dub]

Why would they cooperate with organzations that are biased against Israel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_...#Selection_bias

http://blog.ngo-monitor.org/other-ngos/amn...gaza-un-report/

you're posting the same thing krusty already did. opinions from the pro-israeli fanboys.

alan dershowitz is a person that is not taken seriously by anyone who is interested in facts.

also, those are comments about the lebanon war. there have been investigations done by 3 major human rights organizations and the proof is on the table. proof that you rather not talk about.

[M.Dancer]

alan dershowitz is a person that is not taken seriously by anyone who is interested in facts.

Why, is that your real name?

also, those are comments about the lebanon war. there have been investigations done by 3 major human rights organizations and the proof is on the table. proof that you rather not talk about.

You mean 3 discredited and systemically biased organizations?

[dub]

Why, is that your real name?

why not abandon the lame "i know you are, but what am i" zingers for the pre-school kids.

You mean 3 discredited and systemically biased organizations?

you are a dishonest person.

the red cross, amnesty and HRW are not discredited.

no one likes a war crimes apologist.

[bush_cheney2004]

....no one likes a war crimes apologist.

Lot's of people do.....just ask former PM Chretien!

[JB Globe]

2. The apparent perception on the part of some people that this kind of activity is not already being undertaken by a variety of governments, lobby groups, corporations, and other organizations. This has been going on for years, ever since news/discussion sites became a significant form of media.

But as far as I know this is the first time a democratic state that has a free media has been doing it. I know China has been using it's Communist Youth Party to do similar things for a while now.

[JB Globe]

You suggest that Israel should let its reputation be destroyed by Arab propaganda, let its people be defamed and dehumanized, let the history of the conflict be twisted and rewritten to favor Palestinian ends, without fighting back? Not gonna happen. A nation's right to defend itself extends not only to the use of physical force, but also to the war of words. The anti-Israeli lobby's assault on history, language, and thought has been relentless and Israel is doing what it can to fight back.

I'm not going to bite on your strawman: Israel can defend itself.

The question is - what is the best way? Do you want Israel to lower itself and start adopting unethical methods in the PR campaign? Or do you want Israel to take the high road?

Personally, I think that the country that constantly lauds itself as "the only working democracy in the Middle East" probably should take the high road. It's not only the more ethical thing to do, it's probably the more effective thing to do.

[dub]

But as far as I know this is the first time a democratic state that has a free media has been doing it. I know China has been using it's Communist Youth Party to do similar things for a while now.

israel does not have a free media. they put regular gag orders on reporting on wars.

most recently, they banned both israeli and international reporters from entering gaza.

[M.Dancer]

israel does not have a free media. they put regular gag orders on reporting on wars.

most recently, they banned both israeli and international reporters from entering gaza.

That's just stupid. No one allows non combattant to cross battle lines.

No one.

[JB Globe]

israel does not have a free media. they put regular gag orders on reporting on wars.

most recently, they banned both israeli and international reporters from entering gaza.

True, but I was referring to mainly the freedom to express opinions in the media.

In that sense, I'd argue that Israel has a more open environment when it comes to discussing the I-P conflict than Canada or the US. Op-Eds that get called antisemitic here are commonplace there, the reason being that right-wing Israeli lobby groups here can get away with calling something antisemitic even if it's not at all, because non-Jews would never have the nerve to question those accusations, lest they be labeled an antisemite.

You can't do that in Israel, because Israelis wouldn't buy it, they can see it's a cheap tactic to try and silence someone so you can avoid having to deal with their argument.

Edited July 15, 2009 by JB Globe

[dub]

israel got what it wanted. they wanted to make this war as impersonal as possible. they didn't want the israeli people to relate to hundreds of civilians who were being killed and thousands who were forced to live under such conditions.

here is an article by International Federation of Journalists:

Media Ban in Gaza a Recipe for Censorship, Ignorance and Fear, Says IFJ

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) says the Israeli ban on foreign journalists from entering Gaza to cover the conflict is a dangerous violation of press freedom that adds to "ignorance, uncertainty and fear" in the region.

The IFJ says that the presence of independent reporters on the ground is needed to ensure that there are no flagrant abuses of human rights by combatants.

The IFJ's protest comes as the global humanitarian agency Human Rights Watch (HRW) called for rights monitors as well as journalists to be allowed into Gaza, a move that could help save lives.

"The Israeli ban on foreign news media from Gaza since December 27 raises concerns that there is a systematic attempt to prevent scrutiny of actions by the Israeli military," said Aidan White, IFJ General Secretary. "The eyes of the world are on Gaza, but Israel is trying to censor the news by keeping the media at bay."

The IFJ says that Israeli claims the ban was imposed because it cannot guarantee the safety of journalists is untenable.

"Few news people take this seriously given that Israel has already shown its contempt for international law by its targeted military strike on an unarmed television station at the outset of the conflict," said White.

[dub]

True, but I was referring to mainly the freedom to express opinions in the media.

i agree. compared to the surrounding states, israel's media is much more open, however, when it comes to war conflicts, there is much censorship.

[KrustyKidd]

i agree. compared to the surrounding states, israel's media is much more open, however, when it comes to war conflicts, there is much censorship.

If this is the case, would you provide the Palestinian accounts of the numbers of rockets fired and Israeli casualties. The targets they were firing at would be helpful as well.

Crickets.