Add me to Skype

Atlantisme Blogosphère Culture Désinformation Economics Europe Histoire Humour Israel Kim Jong Il-Prize Legal Mideast Politique Realworld Résistance Suisse UNO

Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign! Subscribe in NewsGator Online Add to Google Subscribe in Rojo Subscribe in Bloglines Add Le Mont De Sisyphe - le blog qui rend beau et intelligent to Newsburst from CNET

Google search

Le Mont de Sisyphe
My Photo
Location: Zurich, Switzerland

Je suis beau et intelligent. À part cela, je suis juriste helvète, libéral-conservateur, amateur d'armes, passionné d'histoire et de politique. Je suis libéral et capitaliste convaincu car je pense que c'est cela l'état naturel de l'homme. Je parle le "Schwiizerdütsch" avec un accent zurichois, j'adore la bonne musique, la bière et surtout la femme avec qui je vis.

Keep on Blogging!

Thursday, September 29, 2005

It's been five years now.

It's been five years now since the Intifada started. Five years of intensive terrorists attacks and a de-facto-war imposed on Israel. In this time, the MSM (Mainstream-Media)-reporting on the situation has been extraordinarily biased. On the one hand, palestinian terrorists have been called "militants", "insurgents", "gunmen" sometimes even "activists" or "radicals". On the other hand, Israel has been portrayed as a "criminal", as a "terrorist" or even as a "genocidal" State, responsible for all the bloodshed (responsible for everything indeed). The parts were assigned. Everytime, it was Israel's turn to act, to make concessions - the palestinans were only reacting against oppression. Israel would thus only have to withdraw and to make concessions and the palestinian "resistance" would automatically stop then. Furthermore, the USA were demanded to put enough pressure on their "all-time-ally": if Israel was forced, it would cease to oppress its arab neighbours. As if it was an inevitable, spontaneous reflex of the jewish State to attack and kill innocent palestinan civilians.

The security barrier has been compared to the Berlin wall suggesting that Israel was a totalitarian State. No word about the fact that this "Wall", as palestinophiles use to call it, considerably helped preventing israely civilians (people like you and me) to be assassinated by terrorists. Of course, people are also being expropriated. No doubt that this is tragic for the concerned people, as it always is, when your land is taken away by the State for the common good. But this also happens elsewhere. The difference is, that unlike in Switzerland or France or Germany, where people are being expropriated in order to build railway tracks, some palestinian owners had to give away their lands for compelling security reasons. The real responsible for that are the terrorists, is Arafat, is the so-called palestinian authority. Had they not forced an asymmetrical warfare on Israel, there wouldn't have been any need for the "wall" (which is, by the way, also damaging Israel's economy). Then of course, the security barrier has been called "illegal" under international law by the Hague tribunal. In fact, this "judgement" is officially considered to be an expert opinion, not binding for the concerned States. Nevertheless, those who read this document tribunal know that the judges negated Israel right of self-defense (got that? Israel has to tolerate terrorism against its own citizens) and that the judges didn't even feel they had to verify the proportionality of the barrier. This would of course have implied to ask whether there is any need for it (there obvioulsy is) and whether there would be any other comparable, but softer measures. But this would have meant for the judges to make some better suggestions. Did they perhaps know there weren't? However, the question of proportionality was simply not raised, although one judge (minority opinion) asked for it. I would have guessed that this question would be the very first step when you verify the legality of any measure. Maybe the judges in The Hague don't agree. But how should Israel accept a judgement saying the barrier is illegal without even mentioning palestinian terrorist attacks? This of course, was not a question of special interest for the MSM. Israel was - as always - not complying to international standards and therefore remained the bad guy killing innocent people.

It's been now five years of terrorist war against Israel. It has also been five years of an international war of information against the jewish State. I wonder what will happen until the public opinion realizes the real nature and the real intents of those it supported.

UPDATE (29.09.2005; 2335): Here's a link on the media bias after the Gaza pullout (Hat Tip: Pan)


web site hosting count:

Politics Blogs
Start Blogging

© 2005 - 2009 by Sisyphos.
You may quote anything that pleases you. Thank you for not forgetting to mention the source.
Images belong to their respective owners.

Ubi libertas, ibi patria.