(The cons are always whining about the liberal MSM, but when it comes to Israel...the media is strangely silent) 'NYT,' Most Others in U.S. Media, Silent as Israel Invades By Greg Mitchell Published: January 04, 2009 12:20 AM ET NEW YORK (Commentary) Israel launched its much-anticipated invasion of Gaza on Saturday. For over a week, U.S. media had provided largely one-sided coverage of the conflict, with little editorializing or commentary arguing against broader Israeli actions. Most notably, after more than eight days of Israeli bombing and Hamas rocket launching in Gaza, The New York Times had produced exactly one editorial, not a single commentary by any of its columnists, and only two op-eds (one already published elsewhere). The editorial, several days ago, did argue against the wisdom of a ground invasion - - but even though that invasion had become ever more likely all week the paper did not return to this subject. Amazingly, the paper has kept that silence going in Sunday's paper, with no editorial or columnist comment on the Israeli invasion. The invasion, to no one's surprise, did begin on Saturday -- so any further criticism will now come too late. As in the past, U.S. media coverage and commentary has overwhelmingly backed the Israeli actions (as it did in the Lebanon war in 2006, which turned into a fiasco). On Friday, Amnesty International condemned the U.S. response to the "disproportionate" Israeli bombing of Gaza -- with largely U.S. weapons. Some of it amounts to U.S.-backed "human rights abuses," it charged. The group recalled that the U.S. supplied most of the millions of cluster bombs dropped by Israel in the Lebanon war in 2006. "Amnesty International USA is particularly dismayed at the lopsided response by the U.S. government to the recent violence and its lackadaisical efforts to ameliorate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza," the group told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the letter, which was released to the media. Ethan Bronner, in a news report at The The New York times, observed, "The scope of the assault, and the days of buildup at the border, hint at an unstated but profound question: can the rockets really be stopped for any length of time while Hamas remains in power in Gaza? And if the answer is determined to be no, then is the real aim of the operation to remove Hamas entirely, no matter the cost?" Meanwhile, a columnist for the Spectator in London argued for the arrest of Western journalists who have criticized Israel's actions. Israel starting adding artillery fire to the bombing, even before the invasion. One nighttime airstrike hit the offices of the Hamas weekly newspaper Al Resala in Gaza City, wounding 16 civilians who live nearby, Hamas and residents said. And Amir Oren, in a column at Haaretz, concluded with a call to get done with Gaza: "[T]he IDF must move quickly to disengage, in order to free its attention for the paramount task of preparing a military blow to Iran, if diplomacy and deterrence fail. As long as the great threat of Iranian power is hovering, the smaller threats of Hezbollah and Hamas that derive from it will not be dispelled." Israel, meanwhile, maintained its ban on foreign journalists entering the Gaza Strip Friday despite a recent Supreme Court order to allow a limited number of reporters to enter the territory. The Jerusalem daily Haaretz put up an editorial critical of Israel's actions -- and the boosterism of President Bush. Excerpt: "The need to present an achievement has compelled the civilian leadership to add a ground campaign to the aerial onslaught.... Those who back the operation are already imagining Hamas collapsing, its leadership fleeing or killed, and house-to-house searches for weapons to be destroyed. After the operation, Gaza would be returned to Palestinian Authority control, purged of terrorism -- the Lebanon dream realized in Gaza. This is what these people believe. "It would be best to cut this dream short before it turns into a dragged-out nightmare, and to limit the ground operation to more modest goals. And Gideon Levy writes in a column at Haaretz: "Everything is permitted, legitimate and just. The moral voice of restraint, if it ever existed, has been left behind....Nobody is coming to the rescue -- of Gaza or even of the remnants of humanity and Israeli democracy. The statesmen, the jurists, the poets, the authors, academe, and the news media -- pitch black over the abyss."
The reason everyone is silent is that no one has the courage to state the obvious; namely, that the Palestinians have brought this action on themselves. You can't poke a tiger with a stick over and over and not expect to get mauled.
Innocent? Take it up with God. I have no idea who is innocent. Tigers do what they need to do in order to survive. No more...no less. Humans are less predictable; the most dangerous species of all.
The reason is that some governments are not sovereign. The people feel and expressed their outrage against the genocide, but their leaders are muzzled.
Yes, humans are unpredictable. Sometimes they can even overcome their animal instincts to show compassion and reason...sometimes they can also overcome their own blood lust and revenge thinking. Sometimes they can even turn the other cheek...act humanely rather than use their intellect to rationalize away the killing of innocent children... Do you have any idea if the children being killed are innocent? You need to take that up with God to get an answer?
I hold this view as well. I don't know what some of these people are thinking aside from the fact that their raison d'être appears to rely on conflict.
That question cuts both ways. Unprovoked rocket launches into civilian Israeli territory and suicide bombers doing their thing in heavily populated civilian areas don't suggest innocent purity.
Yes, humans are unpredictable. Sometimes they can even overcome their animal instincts to show compassion and reason...sometimes they can also overcome their own blood lust and revenge thinking. Isreal should show compassion towards people whose stated goal is Isreal's destruction? and then who launch unproked attacks on Isreal? why?
Because it is the humane thing to do... That's what a civilization means, acting beyond primitive instincts for survival, revenge, blood lust, etc.