July 18, 2002

5:00 AM

Americans for a Third Way in the Middle East - Daily Links to Voices of Moderation. A soldier's blog which had fallen silent resumes. Rantburg salutes the Palestinian Resistance. Research Guide to the Palestinian - Israeli Conflict. You must read all 3719 research links before peace negotiations can resume.
posted by sheauga (9 comments total)

My first click on the rather lengthy listing of "history" cites the usual anti-Israel sources, biased. Why not present biases from both sides and let the reader sort out the truth or at least become aware of what each side believes. This is merely a pro-Arab rant.
posted by Postroad at 7:13 AM on July 18, 2002

casualty statistics from electronicintifada.com

Palestinians: 29 September 2000-1 July 2002
1,638* Palestinians have been killed and 19,633* Palestinians have been injured in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Subtotal since March 29, 2002 invasion is 381* deaths and 1,080* injuries
[*figures are likely underestimates due to PRCS inability to access many areas and the many people who 'disappeared' during Israel's invasion of Jenin Refugee Camp].

Original source: updated daily on the Palestinian Red Crescent Society website.


Israelis: 29 September 2000-30 June 2002
563 Israelis have been killed and 4,122 Israelis have been injured (358 severely, 486 moderately, 2795 lightly -- injury stats up to 30 June 2002).

Original source: Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs
posted by outsider at 8:09 AM on July 18, 2002

News Jews can Use - MaxSpeak

"The links below provide kosher, heterodox sources of information. I limit these to Jewish sources so that in debates, the serious student of Middle East affairs can better cope with efforts to debunk arguments and deny facts by the religious/ethnic equivalent of "playing the race card." Suggestions for new links are always welcome."
posted by sheauga at 8:44 AM on July 18, 2002

good links, sheauga, lot of good reading here. Postroad, if you have a problem why not enter your own "non-biased" links in the blog rather than criticize others? I'd be happy to see what you suggest as a solid historical background. I agree that the Guardian, Counterpunch, Al ahram are critical of Israel, but I don't see how that's necessarily biased. It seems that anyone who criticizes Israeli practices in the West Bank in any way or represents the Palestinians and their history fairly is automatically anti-Israeli and needs to be countered with "unbiased" journalism and language that AIPAC or the Zionist poltical machine approves of. I think the Guardian is about as fair as it gets. But please share some of your reading suggestions.
posted by aLienated at 10:16 AM on July 18, 2002

there's the FT's middle east & africa page. a couple headlines that caught my eye today are:

• Reformist warns against hardliners in Iran The leader of Iran's largest pro-reform party warned of chaos should hardliners take radical steps to remove their opponents and continue to block political changes.
• US ready to accept Arafat as figurehead European, US and United Nations leaders tried to show a united international front towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but failed to paper over their differences.

also from the former, "Conservatives have called for a mass anti-US rally tomorrow in response to the statement last Friday by Mr Bush who urged Iran to abandon "uncompromising, destructive policies" while promising that a reforming Iran would have "no better friend" than the US." nice to see 'axis of evil' rhetoric has been toned down!

and from the latter, "Colin Powell, US secretary of state, said on US television late on Monday that he would be "more than willing to consider" a plan that would lead to the appointment of a new Palestinian prime minister and leave Mr Arafat as a figurehead president." go figure :)
posted by kliuless at 10:40 AM on July 18, 2002

Life, the Universe, and Everything - A lesser read blog with news from Israel. Erudite and well-written. Not hysterical.
(See also: Nikita Article List)

"We wonder how many Americans are aware of the deep-seated prejudices of so many of our relentless warmongers -- inside and outside the government -- a thuggish gang that has virtually no respect whatsoever for Arab culture and is completely unable to view Arabs as fellow human beings."
posted by sheauga at 10:59 AM on July 18, 2002

That quote in sheauga's 10:59 comment refers back to the site we discussed here. I don't believe there's an exact correlation, by any means, between supporting the War on Terrorism and being a prejudiced hick, but it's certainly mathematically likely that most prejudiced hicks support the War on Terror, and are in the traditional sense 'warmongers' advocating policies that one cannot but interpret as ethnic cleansing or genocide.
posted by dhartung at 1:43 PM on July 18, 2002

By "prejudiced hicks" you mean "Little Green Footballs," right? Heh.
posted by donkeyschlong at 9:22 PM on July 18, 2002

A Third Way? That's the arguably insanely moderate policy Israel has followed. It contrasts with something much more violent, but arguably more productive in the long term.



So basically, another biased source of propaganda.



Oh, and by the way, "Muslim" atrocities against Israelis are not, somehow, legitimated because their end result is the death of more Palestinian Arabs than Israelis. Just as more domestic criminals than police die. Thankfully.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:20 PM on July 18, 2002