Israeli soldiers fire on Al Jazeera correspondent

[Vucjak]

Israeli soldiers have fired tear gas on Palestinians protesting against the Israeli separation barrier which cuts through their West Bank village.

The soldiers also fired tear gas at Jacky Rowland, Al Jazeera's correspondent who was covering the event live from near the village of Bilin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34jPNN0qdF8

[Universal_Soldier]

what a sly tittle!

[1911-a1]

You're sure they weren't firing at the people protesting?

[SpankyMcCollins]

''Oh f*ck'' rofl Good on the Israelis for doing that

[vinny_121_ND]

I actually like al jazeera english. Our Canadian channels don't go in depth enough of what's going on over in the middle east, afghanistan and iraq.

[Corrupt]

Yeah to me using tear gas does not quite equate to what the title led me to expect...

[GiladS]

Peaceful demonstrators my ass.

If the Border Police or IDF doesn't push them back they would sabotage the fence.


And yeah, tear gass is a bitch but still isn't fatal last time I checked.

[sheytanelkebir]

al jazeera are a terrorist mouthpiece.

they are banned from Iraq (for obvious reasons), why doesn't israel kick them out? its just too obvious!

[RIPTIDE]

al jazeera are a terrorist mouthpiece.

they are banned from Iraq (for obvious reasons), why doesn't israel kick them out? its just too obvious!
Hardly. :roll: They did a very good job embedded with Pak forces in Swat value who were against the Taliban. They are surely biased against Israel, but are no sympathizers with Taliban.

[rgjbloke]

The photographer has a gas mask. It's bad enough carrying all the gear you need for taking the pictures. Having to carry a gas mask as well is a nuisance.

[yond]

What a misleading title...

To me it doesn't seem like a peaceful demonstration, and the reporter sure tries to picture the Israeli soldiers as unhuman and cruel...

It's a pure propaganda. :bash:

[Vucjak]

lol fvck the title, its obvoius the solder throws/shots a smokegrenade at the journalist duhh..

[GiladS]

lol fvck the title, its obvoius the solder throws/shots a smokegrenade at the journalist duhh..

Cry me a river...

[Sideline]

Lol, had to chuckle when she squeeled "I'm under attack". Thought she was going to call for back up next. Propaganda. Put yourself in a position to be part of an incident, then act surprised.

[SonKev]

Hahah! this video made me lol. Good work IDF/border

[GeneralDisarray]

lol that was freaking hilarious

ps: also very balanced journalism ;)

[1911-a1]

"We're under attack!!!"
"It's not fatal, I'm still here":roll:

edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1M4fbuRM5c

[vinny_121_ND]

lol that was freaking hilarious

ps: also very balanced journalism ;)

Alright, when was the last time you saw 'balanced' journalism? Never, you read all channels and make an opinion. The situation in palestine and Israel is really a lose lose situation.

Lara Logan sums it up best.

http://uk.video.yahoo.com/watch/2933178/8393652

[b0sco]

"We're under attack!!!"
"It's not fatal, I'm still here":roll:


Youtube comment:


But we see that they are shelled with teargas projectile (sometimes they shoot it so near you that the projectile acts like a little personal bomb and kills !)

Personal bomb.

[1911-a1]

Ah, yes, the evil juice and they're personal bombs.

[coltfan111]

hahahaha,,,The producers must have LOVED that. Bet she got a bonus...

[b0sco]

Is your YouTube name bixby2000?

[Mastermind]

Hilarious...too bad it was not from twin 40 mm Bofors...

I kept wating for the lying Aljazeera bitch's head to explode....how dissappointing.

Where are the bull dozers when you need them?

[Yoni-R]

"Its not fatal, im still here"

haha classic

[3rdMillhouse]

fvcking hell, they missed

[vinny_121_ND]

No wonder the Israeli government hates her so much.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTfo53j4nbs

[LineDoggie]

Well this was a Highly misleading title.

[Elbs]

Hahaha what a dumb cvnt.

"It's not fatal!"

[lebinoz]

why is everyone getting so caught up about the title? it's not like the IDF hasn't shot reporters before it's not unheard of.

[Mastermind]

Yeah...well, they don't shoot the fkin Palistinian sympathizing ones, especially the Al "****eera" types, like this dippy dame, enough
IMHO

[GB_FXST]

She is long past the point of being an objective journalist; she is now nothing but a protestor and got what she deserved. It’s shame that they missed.

[Excalibur]

the original post and video are pretty disappointing after such a promising header, i must say. p-)

[budgie]

She is long past the point of being an objective journalist; she is now nothing but a protestor and got what she deserved. It’s shame that they missed.


Bad thread title. The reporter was in a dangerous spot so shouldn't be surprised that a teargas cannister goes off near her. But does anyone here truly wish she was hit (and possibly injured) by the cannister itself? That's pretty immature.

[Difool]

why is everyone getting so caught up about the title? it's not like the IDF hasn't shot reporters before it's not unheard of.

Yes, I've seen such video. But It's been not the case here, has it?

[lebinoz]

Yeah...well, they don't shoot the fkin Palistinian sympathizing ones, especially the Al "****eera" types, like this dippy dame, enough
IMHO

:cantbeli:
so it's only wrong if it's an israeli sympathising reporter who gets injured/killed

She is long past the point of being an objective journalist; she is now nothing but a protestor and got what she deserved. It’s shame that they missed.

no, she is a reporter and was just doing her job....had she been a CNN reporter that was showing the israeli side of it and was hit by a rock thrown by a Palestinian would you say she was nothing but an IDF member and got what she deserved? Don't think so.

[matthew.manhorn]

I actually like al jazeera english. Our Canadian channels don't go in depth enough of what's going on over in the middle east, afghanistan and iraq.

Yeah, Aljazeera's pretty objective for inviting people from both sides to debate. I find Aljazeera English enjoyable to watch.

[the_Wicked]

So much for Al-Jazeera's "objectivity".

"Non violent Palestinian protests"? You can see stones thrown on the soldiers right on camera. "Vicious attacks on passive observers?" excuse me if I'm not impressed with this "attack" which barely even made the reporter cough.

In fact I think this entire "attack" is suspicious, I've felt the effects of tear gas as part of my military training and they sure as hell not as mild as what happens to that reporter especially if the canister landed THAT close to her. Also, it is a bit convenient that a person with a gas mask is availible within seconds of the attack.

I would've said it's an outright fraud/Pallywood if the news agency were Palestinians, however it's Al-Jazeera which is a major international news network so I don't know... on the other hand major news agencies have already been known to fabricate evidence against Israel in the past, such as the famous photoshopped pictures of the destruction in 2006 Lebanon.

[gilgoul]

I lol'd
Helmet but no flak jacket
Journos are looking more and more ridiculous here

[the_Wicked]

Oh and almost forgot to mention, if this was intentional why only one canister?

[DID]

ahahah awesome video thx :-)

[DID]

I lol'd
Helmet but no flak jacket
Journos are looking more and more ridiculous here
Just to protect her brain from IDF new secret weapon, I mean mental manipulation bomb lol
or maybe it's just another Pallywood movie like someone outside the camera view threw at her a falled gas tear.

[the_Wicked]

That video makes me sick to my stomach. Yet another example of IDF thuggery.

I see, so your nation would respond to a cross-border attack... how?

[Megaman]

hilarious! its a shame the canister missed her head though,would have been epic.

[GB_FXST]

Bad thread title. The reporter was in a dangerous spot so shouldn't be surprised that a teargas cannister goes off near her. But does anyone here truly wish she was hit (and possibly injured) by the cannister itself? That's pretty immature.

Fair enough. No, I really do not wish her any personal harm.

But, I have no sympathy or respect for biased and deliberately provocative journalists in Gaza and the WB. A journalist who assumes the mantle of an activist should also accept the risks that come along with it. They were a problem 20+ years ago during Intifada I, and appear to be even more troublesome today.

[Toolhead]

Fair enough. No, I really do not wish her any personal harm.

But, I have no sympathy or respect for biased and deliberately provocative journalists in Gaza and the WB. A journalist who assumes the mantle of an activist should also accept the risks that come along with it. They were a problem 20+ years ago during Intifada I, and appear to be even more troublesome today.


as if the jewish israeli media wasn't biased.

[vinny_121_ND]

Fair enough. No, I really do not wish her any personal harm.

But, I have no sympathy or respect for biased and deliberately provocative journalists in Gaza and the WB. A journalist who assumes the mantle of an activist should also accept the risks that come along with it. They were a problem 20+ years ago during Intifada I, and appear to be even more troublesome today.

Which news station do you watch then that covers fair journalism?

[RoyB]

That video makes me sick to my stomach. Yet another example of IDF thuggery.
Really? I thought it was pretty cool and a well done operation.
Those hooligans were throwing hundreds of stones and big rocks, not to mention that they cut through the fence.

As for the reporter getting gassed..
Hard to tell what was really going on, gas 'nades aren't really precision weapons.
Also a reporter getting that close to such event should know the risks.
But I admit, I laughed.

[Ali Baba]

as if the jewish in israel media wasn't biased.

+ 1, Only Reason this is not brought up enough, or anyone who brings that up gets shunned is because its a western forum. That is to be expected. Both sides of the spectrum give massive propaganda, End of story.

[Connaught Ranger]

That video makes me sick to my stomach. Yet another example of IDF thuggery.

Boo Hoo, cry me a river kid. :roll:

[NimDod]

I wonder why they stopped using stink bombs and 'The Skunk'.
they seemed to be more effective that tear gas canisters and less lethal than rubber bullets which have an erratic trajectory.

[GB_FXST]

as if the jewish israeli media wasn't biased.

Your brush stroke is much too broad.

Some Israeli media, like Ha-Aretz, is very left leaning and very critical of the government.

The criticism hurled by Ha-Aretz would not be tolerated in any other Middle Eastern country, or any country without a strong and established principle of freedom of the press and freedom of speech.



Which news station do you watch then that covers fair journalism?

Personally, I watch Fox and CNN. A short reading list includes JPost and WSJ.

It is a given that no media source is truly objective. On some level, a human cannot help but add their own bias or spin or perspective. It is human nature. So a good journalist seeking objectivity can only attempt, or strive, to reach a paradigm – or goal – of non-bias. A simple strategy is a dispassionate discussion of multiple perspectives of a given issue.

Considering the limitations of reporters and journalists – the fact that they are unable to meet the true goal of objectivity - media consumers should always exhibit a healthy dose of skepticism. An appreciation for ulterior motives and other narratives is a healthy trait.

However, the woman in question in this video clip does not even make a pretense of attaining objectivity. Her demeanor, her non verbal communication, her prattling on about “stolen land,” her over-blown and overly dramatic reaction to the tear gas, move her, IMHO, from the realm of journalism to activism.

[RoyB]

I wonder why they stopped using stink bombs and 'The Skunk'.
they seemed to be more effective that tear gas canisters and less lethal than rubber bullets which have an erratic trajectory.
What makes you think they stopped using it?

I guess it depends on the situation.
There are videos where you can see IDF/MAGAV forces using the "Scream"(Ze'aka).. it's pretty effective.

[Connaught Ranger]

I wonder why they stopped using stink bombs and 'The Skunk'.
they seemed to be more effective that tear gas canisters and less lethal than rubber bullets which have an erratic trajectory.

As far as I know the Skunk is not available for mass deployment at all locations.

[Crystal_sword]

Think it's unnecessary. She wasn't doing anything except reporting a protest.

[Mastermind]

Your brush stroke is much too broad.

Some Israeli media, like Ha-Aretz, is very left leaning and very critical of the government.

The criticism hurled by Ha-Aretz would not be tolerated in any other Middle Eastern country, or any country without a strong and established principle of freedom of the press and freedom of speech.




Personally, I watch Fox and CNN. A short reading list includes JPost and WSJ.

It is a given that no media source is truly objective. On some level, a human cannot help but add their own bias or spin or perspective. It is human nature. So a good journalist seeking objectivity can only attempt, or strive, to reach a paradigm – or goal – of non-bias. A simple strategy is a dispassionate discussion of multiple perspectives of a given issue.

Considering the limitations of reporters and journalists – the fact that they are unable to meet the true goal of objectivity - media consumers should always exhibit a healthy dose of skepticism. An appreciation for ulterior motives and other narratives is a healthy trait.

However, the woman in question in this video clip does not even make a pretense of attaining objectivity. Her demeanor, her non verbal communication, her prattling on about “stolen land,” her over-blown and overly dramatic reaction to the tear gas, move her, IMHO, from the realm of journalism to activism.

Very well said...I fully agree!

[vinny_121_ND]

Personally, I watch Fox and CNN. A short reading list includes JPost and WSJ.

It is a given that no media source is truly objective. On some level, a human cannot help but add their own bias or spin or perspective. It is human nature. So a good journalist seeking objectivity can only attempt, or strive, to reach a paradigm – or goal – of non-bias. A simple strategy is a dispassionate discussion of multiple perspectives of a given issue.

Considering the limitations of reporters and journalists – the fact that they are unable to meet the true goal of objectivity - media consumers should always exhibit a healthy dose of skepticism. An appreciation for ulterior motives and other narratives is a healthy trait.

However, the woman in question in this video clip does not even make a pretense of attaining objectivity. Her demeanor, her non verbal communication, her prattling on about “stolen land,” her over-blown and overly dramatic reaction to the tear gas, move her, IMHO, from the realm of journalism to activism.

Noted. I don't have complete context of what has happened that led her to say 'stolen land'. Did the Israelis kick out Palestinians from their homes and then fence off the area? This is what angers a lot of people (from the CBC message boards) when palestinians are forced from their homes, and then Israelis move in.

I'm empathetic towards this journalist. She's on live TV, doesn't know if she's going to get a bullet in her head, emotions are high, and she let all the anger come out.

[TheSteve]

Personally, I watch Fox and CNN. A short reading list includes JPost and WSJ.

It is a given that no media source is truly objective. On some level, a human cannot help but add their own bias or spin or perspective. It is human nature. So a good journalist seeking objectivity can only attempt, or strive, to reach a paradigm – or goal – of non-bias. A simple strategy is a dispassionate discussion of multiple perspectives of a given issue.

Considering the limitations of reporters and journalists – the fact that they are unable to meet the true goal of objectivity - media consumers should always exhibit a healthy dose of skepticism. An appreciation for ulterior motives and other narratives is a healthy trait.
I agree with what you say about an "appreciation for ulterior motives and other narratives", but with that said, how can you watch FOX and CNN at all? These outlets are corporate entities that strive to make profits, doesn't that interfere with unbiased news reporting?


However, the woman in question in this video clip does not even make a pretense of attaining objectivity. Her demeanor, her non verbal communication, her prattling on about “stolen land,” her over-blown and overly dramatic reaction to the tear gas, move her, IMHO, from the realm of journalism to activism.

Well, what would be the objective description for the land that Israel invaded and then occupied after the 1967 war?

Over-blown reaction to tear gas being shot at her? What should she have done, caught the rounds and throw them back at the soldiers? Come on. Shes a reporter, its not every day they get tear gas thrown at them. I would probably say "oh ****" as well. She defiantly should have sucked it up and not cried when gassed.

The title of this thread is incredibly misleading though, especially after the incidents in the 2006 Israeli/Hezbollah conflict.

[Mastermind]

cmon steve...where the hell ya gonna get news now days?

My sole source of News that I can count on is via the internet...Japan, Mexico, Russia, India, Fox, Drudge and luciann...I read the head lines, then go directly to the reader comments. Usually I can find one or two readers who have excellent confirmation sources or insight on why the story is there in the first place...then If the story seems to check out., I go to the body of the story.

My next best place is in here. Like the missing lumber ship story, we had at least five different sources on that right in these forums from people who are really in the know....some with rather privy information due to their military and LEO connections.

As for the usual news outlets, ABC, BBC, NYT, CNN and the rest of the pitiful propaganda outlets...you are gonna get "News pablum"...baby food. Just enough to make you stupid about what is really going on.

[TheSteve]

You depend on user comments and militaryphotos.net for news? Jesus . . .

[Atlantic Friend]

A big story about a non-story, I suppose.

If they singled out the journalist, it's pretty bad form (from the soldiers themselves or whoever ordered them to do so), but little more.

If they fired a volley at the protesters, and the journalist was hit/affected as a consequence, it's pretty much what is called in French "les risques du métier". Journalists die every year, covering conflicts, and in this respect the AJ team was lucky they weren't covering Afghanistan or Somalia or Sudan.

[Atlantic Friend]

You depend on user comments and militaryphotos.net for news? Jesus . . .

Hey, I can understand that. The international flavor of the site means we get lots of articles from many sources that wouldn't be quoted in most "official" news websites, either because they rely on 2-3 wire services, or because the news wouldn't fit the political agenda of the infotainment corp.

And honestly, having cruised a few news websites, I can tell you the comments here are bound to be much more objective, and much more intriguing, probably because none of us thinks he's into a crusade to crush other people's point of view (or because they're enough different POVs expressed here to keep everyone honest).

[GB_FXST]

I agree with what you say about an "appreciation for ulterior motives and other narratives", but with that said, how can you watch FOX and CNN at all? These outlets are corporate entities that strive to make profits, doesn't that interfere with unbiased news reporting?

... snip ...



So what? Alternatives like NPR and BBC are also biased despite the fact that they receive public funding. They support a political perspective/agenda not unlike FOX or WSJ or anyone else. For the record, I used to listen to NPR, and the reason I stopped listening to them had nothing to with Israel. (I made that choice because I reject the notion that person responsibility can be absolved because of societal pressures … but that is of course OT.)




Well, what would be the objective description for the land that Israel invaded and then occupied after the 1967 war?

... snip ...



The land is, at best, legally disputed; it is not occupied. There never was a historical entity known as Palestine, so there is no Palestinian land to “occupy” or steal.

Now, individual Palestinians may claim (and may even have reason to claim) that their land was stolen or misappropriated. But she does not make that distinction, and I will not give her the benefit of the doubt of that distinction. (At any rate, individual Palestinians have the benefit of a judicial process to redress claims of land seizure.)

[RoyB]

Just a little fact concerning the occupation of the West Bank by Israel in 67' - Jordan occupied it first, and Israel took it from them.
Also, the people living in the West Bank were considered citizens of Jordan.

[Atlantic Friend]

Just a little fact concerning the occupation of the West Bank by Israel in 67' - Jordan occupied it first, and Israel took it from them.
Also, the people living in the West Bank were considered citizens of Jordan.

You mean they were granted full Jordanian citizenship after the Jordanian occupation, or that they kept it after the Israeli occupation?

[GB_FXST]

Just a little fact concerning the occupation of the West Bank by Israel in 67' - Jordan occupied it first, and Israel took it from them.
Also, the people living in the West Bank were considered citizens of Jordan.

To be a bit more precise, Jordan actually annexed the West bank after the 1948 War, and maintained its claim to the West Bank for a period of time after 1967 War. Jordanian annexation was recognized by the UK and Pakistan.

[Atlantic Friend]

Jordanian annexation was recognized by the UK and Pakistan.

Just these two nations? Interesting.

[GB_FXST]

You mean they were granted full Jordanian citizenship after the Jordanian occupation, or that they kept it after the Israeli occupation?


In regards to passports, I believe both are correct. West Bank inhabitants traveled under Jordanian passport after 1948. I think that the practice continued after 1967.

[RoyB]

You mean they were granted full Jordanian citizenship after the Jordanian occupation, or that they kept it after the Israeli occupation?
They were granted Jordanian citizenship in 1950, after the Jordanian occupation.
I can't answer to your 2nd statement, but I suppose the ones who had it kept on to it.

[Atlantic Friend]

That's interesting, thanks.

[Yoni-R]

Noted. I don't have complete context of what has happened that led her to say 'stolen land'. Did the Israelis kick out Palestinians from their homes and then fence off the area? This is what angers a lot of people (from the CBC message boards) when palestinians are forced from their homes, and then Israelis move in.

I'm empathetic towards this journalist. She's on live TV, doesn't know if she's going to get a bullet in her head, emotions are high, and she let all the anger come out.

you think because she was wearing a helmet she thought she could have got a bullet in her head? the helmet was for show, a costume. if anything the helmet was more to protect again palestinian stones than bullets.

[marlowwe]

The land is, at best, legally disputed; it is not occupied. There never was a historical entity known as Palestine, so there is no Palestinian land to “occupy” or steal.


It's interesting that you brought up "legality" here since in an earlier thread you despised the UN and its decrees. When the Israeli government occupies and expropriates land from the Palestinians, the land is "legally disputed". However when the UN and the rest of the world tell Israel to end the occupation they have a "biased agenda against Israel" and therefore international law does not apply. Quite the double standard.

[RoyB]

It's interesting that you brought up "legality" here since in an earlier thread you despised the UN and its decrees. When the Israeli government occupies and expropriates land from the Palestinians, the land is "legally disputed". However when the UN and the rest of the world tell Israel to end the occupation they have a "biased agenda against Israel" and therefore international law does not apply. Quite the double standard.
What that has to do with the things he said in his post?
He claimed that this can't be defined as an occupation, and you answered by telling him that he has double standards? how does he has a double standard?
Try to refute his claim, not avoid it.

[GB_FXST]

It's interesting that you brought up "legality" here since in an earlier thread you despised the UN and its decrees. When the Israeli government occupies and expropriates land from the Palestinians, the land is "legally disputed". However when the UN and the rest of the world tell Israel to end the occupation they have a "biased agenda against Israel" and therefore international law does not apply. Quite the double standard.

The UN is not synonymous with International Law. My issue with the UN is not specifically related to International Law, but its bias and the inherent inefficiency of the principle of one country-one vote regardless of other factors.

At any rate, there was never a state of Palestine, so by definition – according to International Law – Israel cannot "occupy" so called Palestinian Land. Who was the High-Contracting party in the West Bank on June 4, 1967? Arguably, it was not Jordan; it was not Britain; it was not the UN. Can the Palestinians even lay claim to it after rejecting UN Resolution 181? Does Jordan have a claim?

The UN and others are in the wrong when they tell Israel to end the occupation. (For the sake of discussion, I will grant you that the UNGA has passed such a resolution; although I am unaware of such a specific resolution. The Zionism is Racism resolution probably suffices.).

Remember that the binding UN resolution on the matter - UNSC 242 – does not require Israel to end the “occupation.” UNSC 242 does not require an Israeli withdrawal from all of the territory conquered in 1967. Also, it does not require any withdrawal whatsoever without an accompanying peace agreement. If the Palestinians would have accepted a peace deal at some point after 1967 then Israel would have withdrawn from the West Bank. But, UNSC 242 does not define the extent of that withdrawal as it is to be negotiated by the parties.

Just so you know, I am echoing the legal position of the State of Israel on the matter.

BTW, who is pictured in your avatar? I believe that it is Rommel, but prefer not to assume.

[timetraveller]

Bad thread title. The reporter was in a dangerous spot so shouldn't be surprised that a teargas cannister goes off near her. But does anyone here truly wish she was hit (and possibly injured) by the cannister itself? That's pretty immature.

Very true ...


People seem to forget she is doing a job which pays her bills ..we all do jobs to earn the money to pay the bill's

I find it very sad that some take a dim view of her all because she work's Al Jezzera , She could have wrked for any other News outlet ,

Slating a lady who is just doing her job

And people seem to forget what happend in Northern Iraq when a ITN journalist caught the whole incident on film

[timetraveller]

So what? Alternatives like NPR and BBC are also biased despite the fact that they receive public funding. They support a political perspective/agenda not unlike FOX or WSJ or anyone else. For the record, I used to listen to NPR, and the reason I stopped listening to them had nothing to with Israel. (I made that choice because I reject the notion that person responsibility can be absolved because of societal pressures … but that is of course OT.)



The land is, at best, legally disputed; it is not occupied. There never was a historical entity known as Palestine, so there is no Palestinian land to “occupy” or steal.

Now, individual Palestinians may claim (and may even have reason to claim) that their land was stolen or misappropriated. But she does not make that distinction, and I will not give her the benefit of the doubt of that distinction. (At any rate, individual Palestinians have the benefit of a judicial process to redress claims of land seizure.)


Sorry you claim that Palestine doesn't exist historically ,.,, tell that to the Jewish children whom are now grown up and some now still reside in Scotland who came from Germany transport through holland and finally to Scotland ..
It was charity set up to help those escape persecution and give those a new life ,,,

[GB_FXST]

Sorry you claim that Palestine doesn't exist historically ,.,, tell that to the Jewish children whom are now grown up and some now still reside in Scotland who came from Germany transport through holland and finally to Scotland ..
It was charity set up to help those escape persecution and give those a new life ,,,

I do not mean to be rude, but I do understand your point regarding the children’s rescue transports in WWII and the historical fact that an independent State of Palestine has never existed.

I can connect the two, but I somehow doubt that you intended the following point:

Britain had a mandate over the geographical area of Palestine/Trans-Jordan from 1917 to 1948. Prior to 1917, that geographical area was comprised of a set of provinces under the Ottoman Empire.

Back to the years of WWII, Britain was the sovereign power over its mandate; Britain controlled immigration. Jewish refugees were denied entry into British Mandate of Palestine because of harsh prejudicial British immigration quotas (per the White Paper of 1939).

Jews of all generations owe a debt of gratitude to all of the kindhearted people across the global who extended a helping hand at the time of their greatest need.

But,let's not also forget that if Jewish immigration to the British Mandate of Palestine was not restricted on the eve of WWII, untold numbers may have been saved. The kind efforts of the good people of Scotland may not have even been necessary.

[Hollis]

In a way there was one other Palestine than the one today. The one that was named by the Romans around 112 B.C. Then the one of today which came into being sometime after 1948, more likely around 1967. One could say that the first Palestine was actually Israel (renamed by the Romans) so it never really existed. It became a substitute name for Israel until the formation of Israel and the PLO. Kind of like arguing over semantics.

Like the reporter here, she is just putting on a show for the audience. I am sure those who think she is hard working and honest would be the first to point out the fallacy if Geo. Bush was doing the reporting. Some how when it comes to Palestine, intellectual honesty is missing. I doubt if people actually support the Palestinian people. but more are just anti-Israel. If people did support the Palestinian people they would be clambering for the removal of the terrorists groups from the PA area who victimize both Palestinians and Israelis. A good review would be:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys

As long as those terrorists can act with immunity, there will never be peace or a two state solution. Yes the Palestinian area belongs to the Palestinians, but not the terrorists.

[seasch]

who is pictured in your avatar? I believe that it is Rommel, but prefer not to assume.

10 points to you. He is Rommel

http://digilander.libero.it/Bologna16/volpi/erwin-rommel.jpg

[GB_FXST]

10 points to you. He is Rommel


Thank you for the confirmation.

[timetraveller]

In a programme called Scotland's war ..

They interview those whom were saved and one of the ladies say's Palestine as she was offerd passage yet she refused and stayed in Scotland and still to this day .

[GB_FXST]

In a programme called Scotland's war ..

They interview those whom were saved and one of the ladies say's Palestine as she was offerd passage yet she refused and stayed in Scotland and still to this day .

Prior to 1948, the phrase “Palestine / Palestinian” often referred to the Jewish community and Jewish residents in the British Mandate of Palestine.

Today, the phrase “Palestine / Palestinian” is used to define or label the Arab inhabitants of WB and Gaza, as well as Arabs who left Israel during the 1948 war.

My point is that there has never been a nation state - a political sovereign entity - comprised of the people who today refer to themselves as Palestinians.

[budgie]

Fair enough. No, I really do not wish her any personal harm.

But, I have no sympathy or respect for biased and deliberately provocative journalists in Gaza and the WB. A journalist who assumes the mantle of an activist should also accept the risks that come along with it. They were a problem 20+ years ago during Intifada I, and appear to be even more troublesome today.

Awww and I was gonna hope you got run over by a moped ;)

I agree though if reporters put themselves in the middle of a riot they can expect things to go wrong.

[dttk0009]

In a way there was one other Palestine than the one today. The one that was named by the Romans around 112 B.C. Then the one of today which came into being sometime after 1948, more likely around 1967. One could say that the first Palestine was actually Israel (renamed by the Romans) so it never really existed. It became a substitute name for Israel until the formation of Israel and the PLO. Kind of like arguing over semantics.

Like the reporter here, she is just putting on a show for the audience. I am sure those who think she is hard working and honest would be the first to point out the fallacy if Geo. Bush was doing the reporting. Some how when it comes to Palestine, intellectual honesty is missing. I doubt if people actually support the Palestinian people. but more are just anti-Israel. If people did support the Palestinian people they would be clambering for the removal of the terrorists groups from the PA area who victimize both Palestinians and Israelis. A good review would be:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys

As long as those terrorists can act with immunity, there will never be peace or a two state solution. Yes the Palestinian area belongs to the Palestinians, but not the terrorists.

Wow! I must say I haven't seen a report or read an article about this kind of behavior. Great video. The guy claiming to have had his hospital hit by tank shells is hilarious. That building looks in better shape than 80% of the hospitals here. I mean, those little cracks can be considered wear and tear, no?

Either way, concerning the original vid: I don't see how it's newsworthy seeing as no one was injured or killed. Thread title should read 'Newscaster is inconvenienced'.

[GB_FXST]

Awww and I was gonna hope you got run over by a moped ;)

I agree though if reporters put themselves in the middle of a riot they can expect things to go wrong.

I may be many things, but hopefully not an immature a$$ … :)

[Dirt_Diver]

yea not the smartist decision a reporter can make, jump into the middle of a rioting crowd. And tear gas isnt what i would call "fire".

[gilgoul]

. Did the Israelis kick out Palestinians from their homes and then fence off the area? This is what angers a lot of people (from the CBC message boards) when palestinians are forced from their homes, and then Israelis move in.



And this is what "objective journalism" made of activists and agents have been succeeding to do, to create a complete system of interpretation of events that has nothing to do with the reality on the ground.
Because reality of an event cannot be linked to narrative, but to facts, hard facts.
True, wether you want to call it occupation or liberation, the State of Israel rules large swaths of land in the WB.
True, since 1967, Israeli Jews (and Israeli arabs BTW, but it doesn't seem to bother anyone) have, with (in most cases) or without the aid of the Israeli government, established and reestablished villages, towns and even two cities on territories determined by the UN in 1947 to become an arab state, and later annexed to the Kingdom of Jordan.

But the general image of hordes of zealot jews evicting arabs from their homes and establishing colonies immediately is not only inaccurate, but slanderous.

But there is no way to combat an impression.

[Fat Lazy American]

established and reestablished villages, towns and even two cities on territories determined by the UN in 1947 to become an arab state, and later annexed to the Kingdom of Jordan.


You mean beyond the 1949 ceasefire lines. There's more than just two cities beyond the 1947 partition plan lines (there's Nahariya, Askhelon, Ashdod etc ...)

[gilgoul]

You mean beyond the 1949 ceasefire lines. There's more than just two cities beyond the 1947 partition plan lines (there's Nahariya, Askhelon, Ashdod etc ...)

I stand corrected
thank you