Israel's first Arab Cabinet minister convicted of corruption
...
[The businessman] had previously been refused citizenship because of a criminal record, the report said.
ok found an NY Times article. (i want to do more from major US media sources. and less with obviously biased URLs)
hum, they try to make the outposts sound bad, but umm since when is buying land and living there a crime? sigh
I can't say I'm in love with the idea of tearing Israelis from their homes, but I know Israel does not take this step lightly, and cares more for peace and security than preventing a few injustices today.
But of course no concessions are enough for the NY Times, which I believe insists on nothing less than a full evacuation of Israel.
Amazing! Here Israel is kicking citizens out of their homes, and the NY Times takes this opportunity to blame settlements on Sharon and say he's not doing enough.
And should the government of Israel be "committed to more than gradual steps in clearing the West Back of [settlements]"? No! Phase one of the roadmap requires the Palestinians to oppose terrorism. When they won't do that, Israel shouldn't be committed to doing it's reciprocal bits. Rather, Israel should be willing if the roadmap can progress, but otherwise shouldn't make concessions.
Any attempt to raze such established communities would trigger a coordinated, possibly violent response from the highly politicized, well-organized settlers and further polarize Israel's already faction-ridden society.
My fucking God. Yeah, taking small steps proves they aren't willing to take big ones. *cough* And remember they have no reason to take big steps along these lines until the Palestinians oppose terrorism.
Then they have the nerve to allege the Israeli settlers are a murderous bunch.
The article then goes on for three more paragraphs to say Israelis actions were insignificant, and generally poo poo them.
Erm, not quite. Phase one requires the Palestinians to oppose terrorism. Get it? It's not that compliated. PHASE ONE SAYS STOP TRYING TO KILL JEWS. if they won't do that, they shouldn't get a bloody thing, and aren't entitled to anything from the roadmap.
and notice how the articles goes:
1) israel did something to help the roadmap along, but not enough
2) israel is obligated to do stuff for the roadmap, and this little step is along those lines, but definitely not enough
3) the roadmap has been stalled for a while.
THEY MAKE IT LOOK LIKE ISRAEL IS BLOCKING THE ROADMAP
They always do this. they find some organisation saying something, say it, then cite the Israeli Government contradicting it, and don't support the Israeli government's contradiction in any way. why? to make the Government of Israel look like a bunch of habitual liars.
and, btw, 20 outposts dismantled? sounds to me like israel is taking concrete steps, even though the palestinians haven't done their part. sheesh.
sigh. on and on the whining goes. you almost get the impression the NY Times thinks Israel is the bad guy here.
the article goes on for 5 more paragraphs, and it's just more of the same. weeeeeeee
who came up with the idea that we need to force young children to eat more? how can something so idiotic be the cause of constant struggles and strife in families? sheesh
This is from MEMRI, an organisation that translates Arabic news and sermons into English. It really helps illuminate who we are fighting and why. If you read it, you'll hear Palestinian Khatibs (preachers) who are paid by the Palestinian Authority (PA) give sermons on PA TV, from PA controlled mosques, looking for the destruction of the USA, and Israel, and Britain.
They call us crusaders and want us dead. Get it?
update: link moved here.
Found an article. from Christian Science Monitor.
Well, the title is clearly intended to make Israel sound bad. Forgive me if I'm skeptical.
Later it says Israel annexed the Goaln Heights in 1981. That means the Golan Heights is part of Israel. And it's not West Bank or Gaza, so has nothing to do with roadmap agreement against settlements. Hell, even calling these "settlements" seems a bit biased. Why not call new houses in Tel Aviv settlements?
They're implying that Israel is giving the finger to the Arab world. By ... building some houses and living in them. I mean, I guess I understand many Arabs are opposed to live Jews, but is the Christian Science Monitor? sheesh
Yeah, that's it, the Syrians are peace-loving but the damn Jews just insist on conflict. Their way of insisting on conflict is to respond to peace negotations by building houses. I suppose if Israel were truly commited to peace, that money would have been redirected away from houses and into birth control. *cough*
Right. Jews thriving and flowering IS OFFENSIVE TO SYRIA.
Israel should make or considering making concessions to Syria about the West Bank why?
Israel isn't threatened by people who find new Jesish houses offensive?
And Israel remains averse to ceding land? Since when? Ever heard of Oslo? Israel has offered up land over and over. And if Israel was averse to ceding land, where would the borders be? Instead of little buffer zones, Israel would have kept all land it captured anywhere ever.
And Hamas says the Jews should all die. But news agencies shouldn't just be proxy Hamas spokesmen. Nor should they repeat lame criticism from anonymous sources that they're too craven to say themselves.
How come articles never read, "Anonymous Sharon supporters say the posture is well thought out and moral."?
Notice how a Professor from Tel Aviv is anti-Israel.
Dore Gold, an adviser to Sharon, says Israel is not interested in Assad's statements but rather in Syria acting against the Lebanese Hizbullah organization and shut down radical Palestinian groups in its territory.
Damn straight.
Anyhow, before I close I just want to point out: Why would Israel want to keep the Golan Heights away from Syria? Maybe cause they are a high place perfect for shelling part of Israel from. Combine that with the fact that Syria sponsers terrorism...
Maybe I'm naive, but I really wasn't expecting the NY Times to be this bad.
I'm going to try out a new approach. I will just give quotes, and bold key bits, and let them tell the story. Try reading through only the bold bits. I'm going to keep more than the key bits for context though. I also use italics once to point out a lie (yes, to point out the lie, all I have to do is highlight part of their own article). UPDATE: sigh, not a lie. just enough of a trick to fool me. I thought they'd said Israel used live ammo in that specific incident, but they hadn't. they just slyly insinuated it. damn them.
oh btw, amusingly, i spell-checked and the only error was in one of the NY Times quotes (they spelled occurence wrong).
this is entirely unremarkable. it's easy to find dozens like it. meanwhile there's kind of a lack of non-insane articles. weeeeeee.
yeah, the anniversary of the Fatah movement is a good time to say *other people* are opposed to peace. *cough*
if you know nothing about Fatah, the short summary is: they are terrorists.
the other summary is: google will easily find you plenty about them, like this about them trying to blow up a Jewish holy site, and bitching (the article, not Fatah) about how The World (not Setting The World To Rights, but rather the set of all countries) doesn't care.
here's more info. it seems to think that since Yasser Arafat renounced terrorism *cough* Fatah's been clean, at least "officially" whatever that means. weird.
killing terrorists = turning back on peace. therefore peace = terrorists operating in peace, i guess. *cough*
ever hear Israelis use 6 times as much water per person as Palestinians?
ever hear Israel is stealing Palestinian water?
ever hear Israel is wasteful of water and greedy?
ever hear Israel violates international law with its water policies?
ever just wonder about Israel and water?
if so, this'll set you straight
once upon a time there was a physicist and a lion.
the lion said to the physicist: I'm going to eat you.
the physicist said: Have you ever heard a fable about fishing?
the lion said no.
the physicist said: i wish i hadn't been so focussed on physics. i don't know it either.
then the lion ate the physicist.
off west wing (which is good).
so this guy lives by the river. and he's highly religious. anyway, he here's a radio report that the river is gonna flood, so he should leave. but he says he's a religious man, who loves God, and prays, and stuffz, so God will save him, and he stays.
so the river starts flooding. the town is being filled with water. and this boat comes by, and they guys yell at him to get in the boat, and they will rescue him from the flood. but he says no, he has faith in God, so he doesn't need their help. and he stays.
later he's on the roof of his house, cause the water is that high, and a helicopter comes, and throws him a rope ladder, and yell at him to climb it. but he says no he is a religious man, who does as God asks him, loves God, and prays, so God will save him, and he stays.
so then he drowns and goes to heaven. and at the gates, he demands an audience with God. and he asks God, "I'm a good man, I did all the things you asked of men, I loved you and prayed to you, why didn't you save me?"
God says, "I sent you a radio report, a boat, and a helicopter. What the fuck are you doing here?"