Ex-security chiefs chide Israel

[wholagun]

Ex-security chiefs chide Israel


The former Shin Bet chiefs said Israel must take the initiative
Four former Israeli security service chiefs have launched a scathing attack on the government's handling of the peace process with the Palestinians.
The men called for Israel to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and dismantle Jewish settlements, or face "disaster".

Their comments follow remarks last month by Israeli Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon, who said Israeli measures have generated anger among Palestinians.

Israeli government officials called the men's criticisms naive.

Pull-out urged

The former heads of the Shin Bet security service delivered their unprecedented assault in newspaper and radio interviews.

We are taking sure, steady steps to a place where the State of Israel will no longer be a democracy

Ami Ayalon, ex-Shin Bet chief

"[Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon has spoken often about the need for painful compromises, and there are no painful compromises except evacuation of settlements," Yaakov Peri, Shin Bet chief from 1988 to 1995, told the Yediot Ahronoth daily.

"We are heading downhill towards near-catastrophe. If nothing happens and we go on living by the sword, we will continue to wallow in the mud and destroy ourselves," he said.

Speaking on Israel radio, Mr Peri called for Israel to take unilateral steps, saying: "We need to take the situation into our own hands and leave Gaza with all the difficulty that that entails."

'Shameful behaviour'

Mr Peri's successor, Karmi Gilon, who led the Shin Bet between 1995 and 1996, said the Israeli Government's strategy for handling the Palestinian uprising was short-sighted.

"It is dealing solely with the question of how to prevent the next terrorist attack," he said.

"It [ignores] the question of how we get out of the mess we find ourselves in today."

Avraham Shalom, who headed the service from 1980 to 1986, said Israel was heading for disaster if "we do not recognise once and for all that there is another people which is suffering and towards which we are behaving shamefully".

Ami Ayalon, Shin Bet chief from 1996 to 2000 and co-author of an unofficial peace plan, said that without a peace deal Israel was endangering its existence.

"We are taking sure, steady steps to a place where the State of Israel will no longer be a democracy and a home for the Jewish people," he said.

However, an unnamed Israeli Government official told ******* news agency: "The situation is not as weak as [the former Shin Bet chiefs] describe," adding that Israel would relieve restrictions on Palestinians wherever it could.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3270491.stm

To the Israeli members in this forum. Can you offer more insight on this issue. Im interested and I don't want just this article on which to judge, and base my opinion on.

[StarvingStudent47]

In my experience, the BBC has an agenda against Israel and will "look for" stories in order to support that agenda.

Every military has some people who dissent. There were numerous stories of individual US soldiers disagreeing with going to Iraq. I'm sure Britain had numerous soldiers and officers who disagreed with British policy towards Ireland/Northern Ireland. But somehow, when it's Israel instead of the USA or the UK, the BBC tries to blow it up and make it into more than it really is. I would seriously question whether those quotes were taken out of context. And even if they weren't, since when does a country not have a single person who is naive and tries to blame that country for things that aren't actually its fault?

Here's something to ponder whenever you read a BBC article about Israel:
http://www.BBCWatch.com

[Mr. Nielsen]

In my opion BBC is one of the more unbiased news medias. Unlike mr. Asserson's website which clearly is biased to one site. There is quite a lot of such websides looking for biases in the media from either side.

[jdbjdb]

In my opion BBC is one of the more unbiased news medias
BBC is about as unbiased as Aljazeera

[He219]

In my experience, the BBC has an agenda against Israel and will "look for" stories in order to support that agenda.

Every military has some people who dissent. There were numerous stories of individual US soldiers disagreeing with going to Iraq. I'm sure Britain had numerous soldiers and officers who disagreed with British policy towards Ireland/Northern Ireland. But somehow, when it's Israel instead of the USA or the UK, the BBC tries to blow it up and make it into more than it really is. I would seriously question whether those quotes were taken out of context. And even if they weren't, since when does a country not have a single person who is naive and tries to blame that country for things that aren't actually its fault?

The difference is that these four individuals are not some disagreeing soldiers, but four former chiefs of Shin Bet serving between 1980 to 2000.


Ex-security chiefs condemn Sharon (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001791896_mideast15.html)
By Molly Moore
The Washington Post


JERUSALEM — Four former chiefs of Israel's powerful domestic security service warned in an interview published yesterday that Israeli's actions and policies during the 3-year-old Palestinian uprising have gravely damaged the country and its people.

The four, who headed the Shin Bet security agency from 1980 to 2000 under governments that spanned the political spectrum, said Israel must end its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The said the government should recognize that no peace agreement can be reached without the involvement of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, and must stop what one described as the immoral treatment of Palestinians.

Shin Bet is Israel's dominant domestic security and intelligence service.

"We must once and for all admit that there is another side, that it has feelings and that it is suffering, and that we are behaving disgracefully," said Avraham Shalom, head of the security service from 1980 to 1986. "Yes, there is no other word for it: disgracefully. ... We have turned into a people of petty fighters using the wrong tools."

The former security chiefs said they agreed to the two-hour interview with Israel's largest circulation Hebrew-language daily newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, out of "serious concern for the condition of the state of Israel," according to Carmi Gillon, who was Shin Bet chief in 1995 and '96.

"Why is it that everyone — (Shin Bet) directors, chief of staff, former security personnel — after a long service in security organizations become the advocates of reconciliation with the Palestinians?" asked Yaakov Perry, whose term as security chief between 1988 and 1995 covered the first Palestinian uprising. "Because they were there. We know the material, the people in the field and, surprisingly, both sides."

Maj. Gen. Ami Ayalon, who headed the agency from 1996 until 2000, said, "We are taking sure and measured steps to a point where the state of Israel will no longer be a democracy and a home for the Jewish people."

Perry said the country is "going in the direction of decline, nearly a catastrophe" on almost every level — economic, political, security and social. "If something doesn't happen here, we will continue to live by the sword, we will continue to wallow in the mud, and we will continue to destroy ourselves."

The four men said Israel should be prepared to initiate a peace process unilaterally rather than wait for the Palestinians to bring a halt to terrorism, Sharon's overriding prerequisite for negotiations.

Members of the Sharon government said they would not comment officially on the statements.

"I don't want to add more fuel to this," said a senior government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "These, of all people, should have known this is the worst time to conduct public debate on these issues."

[StarvingStudent47]

The difference is that these four individuals are not some disagreeing soldiers, but four former chiefs of Shin Bet serving between 1980 to 2000.

And former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark said "The greatest crime since WWII is American foreign policy."

Any government can get a few morons in it. These things happen. Israel just happened to get a couple Ramsey Clarks here.

[IDFM203]

Ok hers the deal with this………

Israeli military is a peoples army and is made up of its citizenry. As such there is a deep blurring of citizens and politicians and their acts. I mean almost every one in government was a general or some high-ranking officer in the military,

The point is that everyone has an opinion and in that type of society these four dont have any more of an opinion then anyone else. I mean there are many on the “right” that also served very illustrious careers and have achieved high positions that disagree with them. I mean sharon disagrees with that and he has had a great military career. I can find you many more examples of great military and security officials that disagree with them.

Yes I respect their military and security service but in a society that is very divided about what to do and that division on both sides has members that have had the same or even more illustrious careers, all that doesn’t really make anything more newsworthy about these four. To me they are just another four illustrious former military people who made an opinion in a society that is filled with these types of people that are making the same or opposing opinions.

I mean if your going to tout their military service as some sort of credential as that they are a know it all, then the same can be said for Sharon or others like him that disagree and they too have respected military and security careers.

Oh and lastly to he219. I suggest you go back to defending the U.S.’s Israeli or worse type of actions and its own dissent amongst various generals and in your own population and around the world before coming in and criticizing Israel’s actions or pointing out our dissenting views.

I agree with the U.S. actions in iraq and in afganisthan but if I were to play you hypocritical game (where you defend the U.S. and yet criticize Israel for doing the same or less) and do what you are doing here and do that in the Iraqi threads, you will be too swamped to even muster up a credible defence.

Shalom :D

[cut]

my money goes towards that so **** you! the bbc is the best news service in the world!

Bush is on tomorrow morning he's got nothing against it why should you?

[mocking_loudly_died]

All these people saying that the BBC is biased are plugging a load of old crap.

You just are pissed that they might show another side to a conflict that you don't want to hear.

Horrible things happen to both sides in war / conflicts , deal with it.

It really is a sign of immaturity to deny yourself other sources of information because it may not be what you want to hear.

Christ, am I the only person in the world that likes to be educated on all factors?

[StarvingStudent47]

All these people saying that the BBC is biased are plugging a load of old crap.

You just are pissed that they might show another side to a conflict that you don't want to hear.

Horrible things happen to both sides in war / conflicts , deal with it.

It really is a sign of immaturity to deny yourself other sources of information because it may not be what you want to hear.

Christ, am I the only person in the world that likes to be educated on all factors?

Well then explain this, Mocking. Here is coverage of today's bombing of two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey by both FoxNews and the BBC:

The FoxNews article:
"Six Jews were killed at Beth Israel and many injured, including Chief Rabbi Isak Haleva and his son. Fourteen Muslims were also killed--including two security guards at Beth Israel and one at Neve Shalom." It goes on to mention that Neve Shalom Synagogue has been attacked twice before by radical Muslim terrorists--by Abu Nidal in 1986 and by Hezbollah in 1992.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103157,00.html

The BBC article:
"Most of the victims were Muslim Turks walking to work or out shopping. The synagogue had been full of worshippers but they seem to have been largely protected by the front of the building." The pictures in the article only show Muslim victims, and the rest of the article focuses exclusively on the Muslim victims. It never once mentions that Jews were wounded or killed. It also mentions no history of violence against Jews in Turkey.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3273695.stm

Make whatever conclusions from that you want. I've made mine.

[mocking_loudly_died]

Please do not tell me Fox news is your basis for informed opinion.

Gawd, you need a good dose of PBS news hour my friend, it will help to wash out the "crazy patriot" nonsense Fox sells.

:lol:

I refuse to get into pedantic arguments over sections of each media's outlets information - we could trade blows for a week and still not agree.

[StarvingStudent47]

Please do not tell me Fox news is your basis for informed opinion.

Gawd, you need a good dose of PBS news hour my friend, it will help to wash out the "crazy patriot" nonsense Fox sells.


I mainly rely on CNN, though I try to read everything from the BBC to FoxNews on a regular basis. That is how I discovered that the BBC pulls s--- like this quite often.

Say what you will about FoxNews, at least they acknowledged that six people were killed inside the synagogue and many wounded, including the Chief Rabbi. The BBC was not willing to acknowledge that, and as a regular reader of the BBC, that didn't surprise me one bit.

[citizen-k]

my money goes towards that so f*** you! the bbc is the best news service in the world!

Bush is on tomorrow morning he's got nothing against it why should you?

rofl

[citizen-k]

All these people saying that the BBC is biased are plugging a load of old crap.

You just are pissed that they might show another side to a conflict that you don't want to hear.



The problem is they only show one side of the conflict... but you don't care as long as it's your side of the story, right?

Fox and BBC give the same amount of truth, but the difference is that Fox is a private network, unlike the BBC which supposed to be "public" and therefor more reliable.

[mocking_loudly_died]

The problem is they only show one side of the conflict... but you don't care as long as it's your side of the story, right? your quote


It really is a sign of immaturity to deny yourself other sources of information because it may not be what you want to hear.

Christ, am I the only person in the world that likes to be educated on all factors? my quote

Right now, the only thing I give a **** about is England beating France in the Rugby.

[cut]

Well then explain this, Mocking. Here is coverage of today's bombing of two synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey by both FoxNews and the BBC:

The FoxNews article:
"Six Jews were killed at Beth Israel and many injured, including Chief Rabbi Isak Haleva and his son. Fourteen Muslims were also killed--including two security guards at Beth Israel and one at Neve Shalom." It goes on to mention that Neve Shalom Synagogue has been attacked twice before by radical Muslim terrorists--by Abu Nidal in 1986 and by Hezbollah in 1992.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103157,00.html

The BBC article:
"Most of the victims were Muslim Turks walking to work or out shopping. The synagogue had been full of worshippers but they seem to have been largely protected by the front of the building." The pictures in the article only show Muslim victims, and the rest of the article focuses exclusively on the Muslim victims. It never once mentions that Jews were wounded or killed. It also mentions no history of violence against Jews in Turkey.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3273695.stm

Make whatever conclusions from that you want. I've made mine.

I see no reason why you should mention the number of dead expressed as muslims and jews. why do you need to know this to add to a tally of muslims/jews killed tally.. the point being made by your carefully selected quote is that this was an own goal by the terrorists. can they really justify killing more than two of their own for 1 "enemy"? Besides I reckon this is an initial report. and there's plenty of related articles..

SEE ALSO:
Suicide theory for Turkey attack
16 Nov 03 | Europe
World leaders denounce bombings
15 Nov 03 | Europe
Turkish press aghast at bombings
16 Nov 03 | Europe
Turkey blast wreaks carnage
15 Nov 03 | Europe
Tense times for Turkey's Jews
15 Nov 03 | Europe
Country profile: Turkey
12 Nov 03 | Country profiles



and about turkish jews

TURKISH JEWISH COMMUNITY
About 20,000 Jews, mainly in Istanbul
Influx after expulsion from Spain in 1492
17 synagogues in Istanbul



we effectively have fox news in england too in the form of sky news and the reports on sky news are much more sensationalised like in the tabloids.

[StarvingStudent47]

If the BBC doesn't have an anti-Israel bias problem, why did it just appoint a new staff member to help snuff out their anti-Israel bias problem?

Telegraph.co.uk story (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F11%2F11%2Fnbbc11.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=172218)


The BBC has appointed a "Middle East policeman" to oversee its coverage of the region amid mounting allegations of anti-Israeli bias.
...
Its reluctance to describe suicide bombers as "terrorists" has proved particularly controversial, recently prompting the Simon Wiesenthal Centre to pull out of a BBC series about Nazi genocide.

[Gordon]

Starvin' student:

Check this BBC link out .. if you haven't already:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3272815.stm

Oddly enough it was written on the same day as the article you decided to mention so i'm surprised you didn't mention it too.

Hmmm, someone's definitely being biased around here, just trying to work out who.

For those who can't be bothered to read the article here's an extract:


At least 20 people were killed, most of them at Istanbul's largest synagogue, the Neve Shalom.

At least six of those who died were Jewish, according to members of the local community.

Check back to Starving"I'm not biased"Student47's post where he tries to blast the BBC for not mentioning this ... funny aint it.

I'm not saying the BBC is perfect but from all the media coverage i've ever seen, which isn't a totally small amount, I think the BBC is right up there at the top. The BBC does have a bias but compared to other news networks it aint anything worth talking about.

According to most of the crap I read on this site about how biased the BBC is you'd have thought they would conveniently miss all the Palestinian atrocities against Israel in favour of Israeli attacks on Palestine .. unfortunately, for those who would like to believe it, i'm sorry ... it aint true.