Israel/Lebanon/Gaza conflict (continuation thread)

A fact is not a fact because someone says something is what they say it is. You do know it is folk at EvC you are talking to, not some kindergaarten troupe

If civilians getting killed is a reason in itself to cease fire for humanitarian reasons then why have war at all where civilians can get killed? Should the US call a ceasefire in Iraq. Should the Allies have called a ceasefire before Dresden and Hiroshima.It seems to me that the world is a little more complex than that Jar.And that is a fact tooEdited by iano, : No reason given.

And whats wrong with the fact that Israel turned down a ceasefire? That civilians are getting killed?Let me guess: "Thems the facts and the world will make up its own mind"

No Jar. Thats something someone asserted was the reason. Are you saying now that because someone says something that it is a fact?

I know it is. But Jar seemed to think that the mere calling of a ceasefire at any point in the proceedings makes a ceasefire "as simple as that". There are times when it is possible (when both parties have arrived at the point where it might be considered as a preferable strategic device - as in Northern Ireland) and times when it is not (one or both parties see an alternative route as being most profitable in terms of achieving ultimate objectives). Jar's grasp on such realites seemed to me to be simplistic in the extreme. Can you imagine the effect on the moral of the German troops when news of Dresden filtered through. Yes, there would have been some whose desire to exact revenge would have been inflamed, but globally such news (along with reports of less destructive but frequent bombings on many more cities) would have been devastating. Soldiers whose thoughts have turned irrevocably to loved ones at home do not efficient fighters make. A war which the top line knew to be long lost filtered down in no uncertain terms to the baseline. It was obscene - there has been few acts of terrorism to parallel it - but if you're looking not at the obscenity or (do not take me up wrong in this)...the efficiency of it - but take it as something which contributes to winning a war at the stage that it was set then.. ...is a statement I would have to disagree with.Hiroshima underlines the point even more strikingly (again, I beg tolerance of such words). Obscenely inefficient - but it resulted in an ending of the war. Killing always gets peoples attention. And when prolonged conflict dulled peoples appreciation for death then super-massive death and extreme fear is a way (an obscene and depraved way) of getting their attention. I take it from the longevity of the situation that you don't see it as simply Israel not responding to a call for a ceasefire. Surely you, like me, are more cynical than that.I am no blind supporter of Israels way of doing things anymore than I am a supporter of Hizbollahs. Not for me some notion that Israel are 'Gods chosen people' and that anything they do has Gods stamp of approval on it. But to suppose that you can place, in the position of prime import, the winning of hearts-and-minds when you are faced with a general problem of surviving as a nation in an environment which generally wants your scalp is mixing motivation-for-war metaphors.'Hearts and minds' is an approach that applies to some - not all - wars. Might I push it out a bit to suggest that 'hearts and minds' is a device employed to win a war in the quickest possible fashion before casualties cause the folks back home call a halt? Which may not apply in so widespreadly as a notion to the folk in Israel.I wonder which war has ever succeeded on the basis of hearts and minds anyway. It's an abstract concept which salves those who need salving for the days ahead - not a concept that has actually achieved much on the field of battle - as far as I am aware. It seems to be something best left to the time when the war is over.

Faiths link: shortened link

quote:

---

An Israeli paratrooper hugs his unit secretary as he returns safely from Lebanon. Several hundred troops returned Saturday after seven days of fierce fighting.

---

If anyone wants to see a classic example of the inability of the press to report objectively (on anything) then photo 13 (which is described by the above) should suffice... Edited by AdminJar, : shorten long linkEdited by iano, : No reason given.

A good friend of mine is a top crime journalist in Ireland. Conversations with him indicate to me that we shouldn't go pointing the finger at journalists-in-Israel per se.News is a product, journalists have to produce that product. If the do not then journalists they will no longer be. As long as the story can be sold as something which meets the general criteria required which places the product on the shelf then all is fair game. What sells is what the consumer is prepared to buy."Sources say" (for that is what they said - for whatever reason),"Amheds mother said that he was a good boy and that..." (for that is what she said of him)There is no more reason to trust a journalist saying "that is what is truly happening" than there is to trust what the packaging of any other product says. And if anybody should object I would ask them to state why it is they do so.

Having spent so long consuming the news media myself I find conversations on the workings of the industry with my jouralist mate all the more fascinating. They were doing a shoot on organiszed drug crime. Some tricks employed- shoot secret footage of the alleged crim on shaky hand held camera. There was no need to do so - the footage could have been shot smoothly. But it helps fix in the mind of the viewer that this is a real crim. The shaky footage provides evidence as strong in the mind as any hard evidence which may be included- the product must contain points of drama at not-to-distant intervals from each other. The attention span of the viewer demands this. So a scene is shot where a man is talking about his suspicion that his drug dealer son is buried in some building foundations somewhere. Off camera questioning encourages the father to point to some building foundations (picked for the shoot). In editing, the impression is given that these are the very foundations the father suspects. The viewer is given the unmistakable impression that one would only have to dig and a body would be found. Such a thought holds the viewer locked into those foundations and imagining the body (so says my mate)- the product to succeed must appeal to high-end emotion: it must evoke anger or worry or fear or despair or joy or pride or excitement etc however that is achieved. If the news doesn't do these things then it isn't really news. A slow news day is a day when the news doesn't contain these triggers. A successful product is one which grips people. Grip is prime, objectivity second. Objective without grip is useless.Coverage of Lebanon is ripe with the factors necessary for a good product. Israel is not. In fact the David vs Goliath angle only adds to things. Survey after survey ranks journalist as those the public distrust. Except when it comes to such as this conflict. The appeal to emotion is apparent don't you think - if nothing else.As a once high-up-in-NASA uncle of mine once told me regarding its reporting of NASA-related issues: "I watch CNN to find out what's NOT going on. Whatever they say is happening helps me to know what might well be happening - for what they say it is, it most certainly isn't. It's how I keep track of the game that is being played. CNN are a pawn and it is worth watching in which direction the pawn is being moved"Quite..Edited by iano, : No reason given.