471–480 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have a lot of potential political power. They refuse to use it.
> refuse to use it Or they’re a diverse set of people whose views can’t be summarised based on their race and religion alone. I doubt, for example, many of them are in favour of a one-state solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have a lot of potential political power. They refuse to use it.
"Refuse to use it" like African Americans in the Jim Crow south? Or is there some other context driving their non-participation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have a lot of potential political power. They refuse to use it.
> refuse to use it Or they’re a diverse set of people whose views can’t be summarised based on their race and religion alone. I doubt, for example, many of them are in favour of a one-state solution.
Though I'm not a member of that group, so I don't want to misrepresent "their" views (and of course there is no such thing as "their" views, as you mentioned, they are a large and fairly diverse group).
> I doubt, for example, many of them are in favour of a one-state solution.
Why do you say that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Took the same path recently. Probably the easiest thing to point to if you're looking for something to convince people of Al Jazeera's nature, (besides specific articles), is the incredible amount of time and editorial space devoted to Yusuf al-Qaradawi on the arabic channel (before his death). The man had an audience of 60 million people for a decade and a half, and could reasonably be called the face of Al Jazeera…
We are all trained starting from childhood to use a Hero-Villain framework when observing conflicts and it leaves us very confused when the real world is closer to Villain-Villain situation. Anytime I ever bring up say Kissinger and the crazy realpolitik actions he took, or now this lunatic Ben-Gvir in Israel I’ve recently learned about, other people are trained to see me as a communist or anti-semite immediately, be…
Just a point about Al Jazeera that is worth mentioning. There are two Al Jazeeras. One which is presented to Western audiences and one which is presented to Middle-Eastern audiences. The media and articles are politically aligned in each region. Don't assume what you read in the US/UK/wherever is the same as over there. In the case of Israel, the Middle-Eastern unit were literally showing videos demanding further upr…
Either the media was in English or in Arabic. If it was English, then it was the same stuff being shown to everyone else in the west. If it was Arabic, then I don’t think Israelis would understand any of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their journalist were trained at BBC. It is funny that BBC exactly fits your definition :-) BTW both have very high standards and make excellent journalism. I'd like to see examples of bad Al Jazeera journalism instead of just attacks to Qatar monarchy.
The BBC doesn't fit my definition as it's run by a democracy with a high degree of human rights and civilian freedoms. And journalism can be technically right while still showing a very one sided view. Not that I'm pro ban, just saying that there's a good reason to be vigilant when it comes to their news coverage and make sure it's not you're only source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> refuse to use it Or they’re a diverse set of people whose views can’t be summarised based on their race and religion alone. I doubt, for example, many of them are in favour of a one-state solution.
Actually, as far as I understand it, most have historically preferred not to engage with the Israeli political system for ideological reasons. This is changing somewhat over the last few years. Though I'm not a member of that group, so I don't want to misrepresent "their" views (and of course there is no such thing as "their" views, as you mentioned, they are a large and fairly diverse group). > I doubt, for example,…
Israel is rich. Palestine is poor. It would be on par with a German or Korean reünification in terms of cost.
Also, Israel has a relatively-liberal voting population. Palestine does not. One could have reasonable concerns around losing valued freedoms if a single Palestinian state drifts towards regional norms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you point to some articles in Aljazeera Arabic that is doing what you're accusing?
See for yourself: https://www.memri.org/search-results?country_id_report%5B0%5...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you openly call for the murder of in the US under the protection of the first amendment ?
> Can you openly call for the murder of in the US under the protection of the first amendment ? You can not. Inciting violence and calls for criminal action is a well establish limit of the First Amendment, but that is not what they are doing from what I gathered in this thread. From the poster a few levels above: > In the case of Israel, the Middle-Eastern unit were literally showing videos demanding further uprisin…
There is more to it than that. The Supreme Court has held that “advocacy of the use of force” is only unprotected when it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and is “likely to incite or produce such action.”