Hey Gotham,

Thanks for the link this is quite interesting

here are couple of links for you to watch

I am sure you saw this movie, the movie say's it all when you watch it.

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

MP from UK.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-brkmfrxrQY

Ashie

Interesting video.
One seldom sees an ambassador speaking so unconvincingly. He looked uneasy and stattered often. Could it be that even he did not believe in his statements? Thanks for the link.
Peace,
Donatella

Hello Gotham and Everyone,

Unfortunately, I cannot hear the videos, the sound does not work on my computer, but I am assuming your meaning is that the American press is bias and we are not getting the full story on what "atrocities" the Israelis are inflicting on the Lebanese and the Palestinians. I will agree, our press is bad it is not getting any better it is downright disappointing that our news organizations have geared themselves to entertaiment news, instead of objective hard core news that all Americans deserve. I usually watch the BBC.

As far as Israeli atrocities against their adversary I cannot deny those either. I think the Israelis could do so much more for the peace process than they have in the past, and I hope if a peace partner emerges from the Palestinian side they will be just and fair. That said, I do not deny my bias against the Hezbollah and Hamas organizations and it is not simply because they are fighting Israel it is because of they way they are fighting and the choices they are making away from a peace agreement. My strong aversion to the seduction of one's brothers and sisters children to martyr themselves is such an extreme and unnecessary action, not just in this situation but any situation, that I cannot help but relate it to choosing an addiction, the addiction of the fight, over the health and well being of the people who are in your trust and care. I see how they keep choosing the way of war and it is robbing their people of a future. I feel these men are betraying the people who need their leadership, their good sense, their intelligence, and their wisdom to guide them to a future, instead, all they are ending up with are expertly dug tunnels, and more missiles for future conflict and destruction and a lot of nothing to show for the last 20 years and most likely the next 20 years to come.

I cringe at the checkpoints I have seen the Palestinian people subjected to, they do not deserve this, but they do deserve a leader who cares enough about them to do the excrutiating, boring, tedious work of negotiating a future for them, they deserve a man or men who are not addicted to the excitment of the fight but who are willing to ride the boring wave of peace making. peace ruth

The reality is that money talks. And in the US, the reality is that the Jewish community and the Jewish lobby have tons of money and use it (legally) to influence policy.

There's nothing wrong with what the Jewish community is doing. I have tons of friends who are Jewish and all my colleagues are Jewish as well. They are doing what any smart, successful community would do - using their authority and money to help their homeland (or land of their brethren). In fact, I've often said that Indians could use the technology world much like the Jewish community has used media and banking -- use it to influence US policy towards India. In the US only two things work - A) a large voting population even if they don't have money and B) Money.

But, it is wrong for the US to be so one-sided b/c in the end it hurts the US. You can't only make your policy decisions based on campaign contributions. You can't alienate an entire region and an entire community because of campaign contributions. It is time for the US Politicians to represent all of the US, not only one community. And if they were truly wise, the Jewish community would see that this backlash against America will make their country and all of their fellow citizens much, much less safe.

Re: the media, remember, that the Jewish community controls most of the media in the country. News, Radio, Television, Films - all of it. Not sure how you fix that one since they are private channels. Look at the newspapers - The NY Times actually offered some balance, but I saw the Post and The Sun in NY during the war and they ONLY focused on Israeli casualties. What a joke.

Consumers need to get a handle on where they are getting their news and what biases underlie those channels. Isn't it funny that most of the Red States that would never vote for a Jewish President are being fed the Jewish version of events?!

At the end of the day, the United States is creating a horrible situation for its citizens. And they don’t even know it.

The skew of the media in the US is becoming so evident to everyone; I guess that is why more and more people in the society are leaning towards independent sources of information. No longer is traditional media about truth than it is about partisanship and political agendas.
In fact, we can actually keep talking at length about Israeli atrocities on Palestinian/Lebanese civilians. It's one thing that Israel is defending itself from Hamas/Hizbollah by 'accidentally' targeting civilians but torturing of civilians with a hatred? Breaking down homes, futures is like disrupting a chance to see a peaceful future. Everyone(civilians) has to be given a chance, you don't push them into a corner, label them and brand them (inflicting severe damage thinking that can actually change).
History should teach Israel that a hard-power approach (which it has been following all this while) is not the solution towards long-term peace. For Israel to live free of bomb shelters and breathe the air freely in their hills, they have to be open to trying a softer approach. They have to first believe in a stable future brokered by understanding and tolerance.
It may sound hard, but is there any other choice?
Yes, children are born into hatred (Hizbollah), but by showing some kind of tolerance, their hateful perceptions are bound to meet with resistance and eventually can bring about a truly tolerant relationship or maybe even more than that.
In the same note, after 9/11 & the London terror plot, we have to be careful about profiling and prejudice. Alienation of communities can only lead to further distancing and lead to the inability of constructive dialogue/understanding/solutions.

Hi Gotham,

Thanks for those very reveling videos.

Listening to the Israeli Ambassador say the reason they bombed the power stations was to prevent Hezbollah from smuggling the two Israeli soldiers out of Lebanon would have been laughable, if it wasn’t so illegally tragic.

Professor of International Law, Francis Boyle’s sharing of some of his frank conversations with Joel Zinger the Israeli military lawyer was very surprising. Zinger’s admission that the Nuremburg like attacks on Lebanon were just a military necessity, and that Israel has PR people in the USA to help them deal with things like that, shows a very cold psychotic side of Israeli thinking.

There may very well to be a National “acting out” going on, relative to the pain and suffering Israel went through in the holocaust. Psychologically speaking, psychotic people often try to get rid of their pain by giving it to someone else.

We should also reflect on how the United States enjoyed such a wonderful reputation in the Middle East back in the 1950’s, and try to return our foreign policy model to one that more resembles what we were doing then.

Kind Regards,
Stan

Everyone needs to quit trying to create appearances and portray reality. What we are really dealing with is projections people trying to get others to buy into their Illusions.

These broadcasts were simply one-sided, anti-Israel, pro-Hesbollah, just attacking, what's the big deal? Anyone can tune into BBC news here or International CNN and certainly the internet is not going to stop anyone from reading virtually anything they want from anywhere in the world. You want Hindustan Times.com you got it, you want Al Jazeera, no problem.

It always boils down to psychology here on IB, if it feels or seems bad it must be bad, psychology changes with the wind. If it satisfies , I'm happy.

Steve

No one is going to like this news from Israel:

JERUSALEM - With the purchase of two more German-made Dolphin submarines capable of carrying nuclear warheads, military experts say Israel is sending a clear message to Iran that it can strike back if attacked by nuclear weapons.

The purchases come at a time when Iran is refusing to bow to growing Western demands to halt its nuclear program, and after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

The new submarines, built at a cost of $1.3 billion with Germany footing one-third of the bill, have diesel-electric propulsion systems that allow them to remain submerged for longer periods of time than the three nuclear arms-capable submarines already in Israel's fleet, the Jerusalem Post reported.

The latest submarines not only would be able to carry out a first strike should Israel choose to do so, but they also would provide Israel with crucial second-strike capabilities, said Paul Beaver, a London-based independent defense analyst.

Israel is already believed to have that ability in the form of the Jericho-1 and Jericho-2 nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, which are buried so far underground they would survive a nuclear strike, he said.

"The Iranians would be very foolish if they attacked Israel," Beaver said.

German officials have said the contract for the new submarines was signed July 6, and the Jerusalem Post reported this week the subs will be operational shortly.

Israel, operating on a policy of nuclear ambiguity, has never confirmed or denied whether it has nuclear weapons. It is believed, however, to have the world's sixth-largest stockpile of atomic arms, including hundreds of warheads.

Iran so far has resisted calls by the U.N. Security Council to halt uranium enrichment, which can produce, among other things, the material for atomic bombs. The council set an Aug. 31 deadline that is accompanied by the threat of sanctions.

The dispute over Tehran's nuclear program revolves around Iran's insistence it wants to master the technology simply to generate electricity. Critics say Iran wants to make nuclear weapons.

The Dolphin submarine could be one of the best deterrents, Beaver said. The technology on the subs makes them undetectable and gives them defensive capabilities in the case of attack, he said.

"They are very well-built, very well-prepared, lots of interesting equipment, one of the best conventional submarines available," Beaver said. "We are talking about a third string of deterrence capabilities."

Michael Karpin, an expert on Israel's atomic weapons capabilities who published a book on the issue in the United States, said nuclear-armed submarines provide better second-strike capabilities than missiles launched from airplanes.

"Planes are vulnerable, unlike nuclear (armed) submarines that can operate for an almost unlimited amount of time without being struck," Karpin said. "Second-strike capabilities are a crucial element in any nuclear conflict."

In Germany, members of two opposition parties criticized the deal. Winfried Nachtwei, national security spokesman for the Greens, said the decision was wrong because Germany had obtained no guarantee the submarines would not be used to carry nuclear weapons.

"This red line should not be crossed," Nachtwei was quoted as saying by the newspaper Taz. "Otherwise it is a complete renunciation of Germany's policy of non-proliferation."

David Menashri, an Israeli expert on Iran, said Tehran is clearly determined to obtain nuclear weapons and "the purchase of additional Dolphin submarines by Israel is a small footnote in this context."

What also makes Tehran dangerous, Beaver said, is that it may not understand the consequences of carrying out a nuclear strike.

"They (Iran) have a belligerent leadership and that's why Israel is prudent in ensuring that it has that deterrent capability," Beaver said. "What they (the submarines) are is a very good insurance policy."

Ambasteve, I think the point is that most people in the US watch network news. That's clearly not providing this perspective in any way.

And yes, it is a one-sided point of view in the link. Makes you mad? It should because it is *exactly* like the US Coverage - completely one sided.

I bet you less than 1% of the US population accesses BBC. :)

These videos are humorous. All this time I thought Hezbollah was a terrorist organization. It sounds like I was wrong.

You can't justify crossing international boarders to kidnap soldiers, and you can't justify shooting off rockets while hiding among innocent civilians. That is, if you care about their safety.

I have a good question. How would things be different if Hezbollah was the greater military power? Are they more "humane"? Would they promote peace?

Hello IndiVio,

Network news , newspapers, or mainsteam media viewership is dropping like a rock.

It doesn't make me mad, why should it?

There is such a variety of ways to access news and commentary, whatever floats your boat.

Steve

Hello Gotham and Everyone,

An interesting note on the news media.

Anthony Bourdain has a cooking/travel show on the travel channel and they advertised that his next show would be from Beirut, he was taping a show on the day Hezbollah attacked the Israeli soldiers. Of course, I had to watch. It shows him and a Lebanese friend eating what looked like a delicious meal in a trendy restaurant in downtown Beirut. They leave the restaurant to walk around the downtown and as they are walking they start to hear gunfire, then more gunfire and lots of cars are driving through the streets with the men and supporters from Hezbollah cheering and waving flags, shooting off their weapons shouting something (I don't remember what) but, clearly all the citizens were confused as to why they were doing this. This was happening before the World got the news of what had happened, before the Lebanese themselves new what had happened on their border. What struck me was how fast and joyfully Hezbollah celebrated their perceived victory with this parade through the streets while the World was still unaware that anything had happened. We did not see this "early" celebration on any news channels either.

The show went on follow his and his companies eventual rescue from Beirut. It was an interesting vantage point of the early hours of the war..peace ruth

IndiVio,

You think network news is pro Bush?
Do you think they are pro Israel?
Do you think they didn't plaster pictures of what happened in Lebanon?

Why did Time Magazine have Hillary Clinton on the cover over 10 times? Have you seen the latest issue? It has practically crowned Hillary as the new Princess Diana, certainly the next president of the US.

Did they ever do that with Bush?

Did you watch the 60 Minutes Interview with Mike Wallace and Ahmadinejad ? Do you think Wallace would have asked the same type of questions to Bush?

You think the NY Times is pro Bush, pro Israel?

CNN with great glee announces over and over the low ratings for Bush

MSM is one sided , and if you pay close attention you might be more pleased than you realize.

Steve

Dear Steve,
Don't you see the inequity between the two sides?
One population will have to go without electricity for one year. Israel instead can afford to spend $1.3 billion for new submarines as a 'deterrent', while at the same time demanding that Iran stop all attempts at improving both its technology and armaments. I am sorry, but I don't understand the logic behind this.
Peace,
Donatella

It seems events inside Israel are forcing the western press to report more of the negative side of things there. A recent poll shows over 70% of the population of Israel wants the Prime Minister, and all the top military leaders to resign, for the way in which they handled the war.

In other more shocking news, the New York Times is reporting that a secret deal between Israel and the USA provided large numbers of cluster bombs to Israel. These deadly weapons were given, according the USA, for clear military targets only; however, Israel now stands accused of using these bombs indiscriminately against Lebanon.

Now they have the latest nuclear submarines! Yes, I can see why no one is going to like this.

Kind Regards
Stan

Hello Gotham and Everyone,

About the news media, getting away from the war issue a little, I would like to talk about the power of the media in any situation and how dangerous it is when it is irresponsible.

Take the Tom Cruise issue, there is a big who-ha about Paramount letting him go for certain reasons concerning his personal actions over the past year, but it is pretty clear the real reason is that his movies did not make as much money as they anticipated, War of the Worlds (stunk) in my opinion, Mission Impossible 3 (how many of these can anyone take?) and he does take quite a cut of the profits, plus a hefty salary (kudos to his negotiating team, wish they handled me.) Paramount gave a ridiculous statement about why they let him go, referring to his jumping on the furniture stunt and the statements he made about the danger of drugs and psychiatry on the today show, and lets not leave out the Scientology stuff. All these statements and actions are, in my opinion, pretty normal. Who hasn't jumpbed for joy, especially, when falling in love, who isn't concerned about drugs and the fact that they are over perscribed, especially, in the case of children. His statements about Brooke Shields post partum depression can really be attributed to the fact that he is a male and most males think they know everything about everything. Then there is his Scientology issue.

Well the media, in all these issues, played them up so much, even to this day that it is almost ridiculous. They make his belief in Scientology sound like it is something on the cult lines of that Jones guy who committed mass suicided. They make the jumping on the couch issue sound like he is ready for the nearest mental health facility. Now, since he is not rushing to plaster pictures of his newborn on a magazine cover they are anticipating God knows what horror. All these remarks are so alive and well and repeated constantly in the news media that one can see how it is effecting this man's reputation in every way. Tom Cruise seems like a genuinely fine human being, good actor, loved A Few Good Men and many other movies of his, but the press seems like it is on a mission to smear, and for what reason, to fill air time? peace ruth

Dear Ruth,
I am sorry if this sounds biased, but we can't seriously compare news worthy of tabloid coverage with world news reporting on the well being of large segments of the earth population. Personally, I couldn't care less about the private life of actors. I may appreciate their talent when watching a movie, but that's all.

I think distracting the American people with irrelevant issues, or worse with tactics that engender fear, is irresponsible. When I moved to the U.S. from Italy, the first thing I noticed was that the rare news about Europe was gossipy and not worthy of mention.
Peace,
Donatella

Ruth, I almost forgot to say that I really liked your post #3.
Love,
Donatella

Dear Donatella,

If you start going down the path of inequality when it comes to the middle east and it's long history and politics, it would be easier to fly an aircraft to the sun!

In either case, one would get really burned, so I'll end with a smile, it will all work out, it really will.

Love, Steve

Hello Gotham and Everyone,

Donatella, Thank you, I really appreciate your generosity as to my post.

Steve, you write.."so I'll end with a smile, it will all work out, it really will."

I agree, I think? that is until I hear the President of Iran utter those oh, so scary words, "if God willing" then I start biting my nails wondering "now just what does he mean by that?"

peace to all ruth

Ruth,

You know this prayer, you don't have to take on the worries of the world Ruth, it's ok, you are a good soul:

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference

You just need to re-balance yourself, many are helping, this thug is not going to last long, things will work.

Love,

Steve

Steve,

Not sure what media bias between Republican or Democrat has anything to do with the discussion??

Anyway, it is all about just making sure that all points of view are heard so that viewers can make up their own minds. I hate being spoon-fed an opinion. Give me both sides, I will decide. The US media needs to give people the option, that's all.

Here -- even Israelis are sick of what's going on.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9071731896689197790&q=George+Galloway&hl=en

Btw, the link in my previous post is all about Media and the role in the conflict. Very appropriate to this discussion.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6604775898578139565&q=promise+land+media

IndVio,

Media has major political biases, that's my point.

Time happens to love Hillary, and will do everything it can to promote her. Now are they suppose to be unbiased? I realize what it is and have a good laugh and the obvious attempts to sway votes.

Otherwise I agree with you, I do believe with the new media i.e. blogs even like this one makes things very exciting. I have no idea where you live and it doesn't matter, it's kind of neat we can meet this way and share sometimes argue viewpoints. Also people are great at sharing links.

Blogs were very powerful in the last major election, they call out the bullshit, both sides.

Cheers,

Steve

Thanks so much for posting this, Gotham. I only just took a look at these videos earlier today and I'm glad that I did. It's striking the difference in reporting depending upon the perspective (and agenda) of those creating the news. It's a good reminder that - it's all perspective. And, for myself, tells me that I need to keep going deeper.

Love, Kristin