Fraud uncovereed in Mainstream medias Depiction of War in Lebanon : Hawai'i IMC

On the night of July 23, 2006, an Israeli aircraft intentionally fired missiles at and struck two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances performing rescue operations, causing huge explosions that injured everyone inside the vehicles. Or so says the global media, including Time magazine, the BBC, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and thousands of other outlets around the world. If true, the incident would have been an egregious and indefensible violation of the Geneva Convention, and would constitute a war crime committed by the state of Israel.

But there's one problem: It never happened.
This photo published in the Boston Globe is among the best-known of the images depicting damage to the ambulance. The roof is dented and scarred, obviously, and yes, there is a circular hole right in the middle of the roof, caused (we are told) by the missile. Notice, for later identification purposes, the three irregular white blotches next to the hole, and various distinctive gashes and marks -- as well as the number "782" in the background. Since this is the only picture that most people saw of the ambulance, they might be willing to accept that the hole was caused by a missile

In fact, the hole looks unmistakably like a pre-existing circular hole in the roof, to which some feature -- such as a light or a vent cover -- was attached, and then removed.

Intact Ambulances
by no retraction ever published Saturday, Oct. 21, 2006 at 6:18 AM

Lo and behold, when we look at other pictures of undamaged Lebanese Red Cross ambulances, we see that many of them just happen to have a ventilation cover of the exact same diameter as the "missile" hole right in the center of the cross on the roof.

I guess this ambulance issue proves there was no invasion of Lebanon (it was a moral and necessary defense against evil), no killing of civilians (accept by Hezbollah), no violations of international law, no first hand accounts to the contrary by citizens or NGOs (who are all evil and hate Israel), and no damage to Lebanese infrastructure (other than what they deserved). What a relief. For a minute I thought I was going to have to grapple with many different accounts and reports, sattelite images of before and after destruction, timelines which included Israeli state incursions into Lebanon and kidnappings and imprisonment of Lebanese civilians, the Lebanese peoples' views of Hezbollah before during and after the invasion, criticism from inside Israel by some of the press and citizens, what the world communitys' various representatives and people themselves say, the sheer numbers of displaced people, the collective punishment and proportionality issues in the context of history and what we claim to believe, the role of the state and the capitalist system in bolstering ethnic tensions, the history of relations between the two sides, the 1982 Israeli invasion, the photo accounts with descriptions of who and what was targeted on both sides, and actually have to think of what possible solutions based on treating both sides as human beings might entail. But now I know I can look at one ambulance, decide it was a conspiracy, and that therefore anything anyone says about the Israeli invasion is a lie which only proves they are anti-Semitic. This makes it so much easier as now I can just fall back on my two dimensional world view in which my nation state is better than others (and can beat them up too). Thanks for your solid critical thinking on this and I will continue to come to you to spoon feed me what I want to hear in a narrow and limited way that makes it easy on my brain, and enforces my loyalty to my state and its ruling class over people in other nation states forever and ever and ever.

The ambullance expose is critical to show how the mainstream media can manipulate public opinion. The first story out is what sticks in people's minds and influences public opinions. People remember their first impressions, not the one paragraph retraction published a week after the fact.

The most remarkable thing about the falsified ambullance stories is that they were exposed by an independent blogger. This story isn't as much about falsified information coming out of Lebanon, as it is about the triumph of creative alternate media over the mainstream.

The US corporate media's interest is slamming Israel? Anyone who watched the coverage of the invasion of Lebanon knows it was not very critical of The Israeli state's actions, from targetting civilians in a massive collective punishment, to the Israeli kidnapping in Gaza days before the Israeli soldier was kidnapped:

Gaza, itself, the latest phase, began on June 24. It was when Israel abducted two Gaza civilians, a doctor and his brother. We don't know their names. You don't know the names of victims. They were taken to Israel, presumably, and nobody knows their fate. The next day, something happened, which we do know about, a lot. Militants in Gaza, probably Islamic Jihad, abducted an Israeli soldier across the border. That's Corporal Gilad Shalit. And that's well known; the first abduction is not. Then followed the escalation of Israeli attacks on Gaza, which I don't have to repeat. It's reported on adequately.
source:http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=10577

It seems to me a liberal media elite would have been all over that story if their goal was making Israel look bad. That never happened.

mainstream media
by neglects facts and history Tuesday, Oct. 24, 2006 at 12:45 PM

The mainstream media hasn't reported at all on the hundreds of Qassam rockets that have been launched at Israel from Gaza, since disengagement.
Rather than accept the Israeli pullout from gaza as a gesture indicating a commitment to peace, Palestinians have used it as an opportunity to launch attacks on Israel with impunity.

Have you heard about little Dorit, an Israeli killed by a Qassam rocket, launched from Gaza?
No, I didn't think so. And she wasn't the only one.

Facts and History
by You should look into those Wednesday, Oct. 25, 2006 at 2:18 AM

you:
The mainstream media hasn't reported at all on the hundreds of Qassam rockets that have been launched at Israel from Gaza, since disengagement.

response:
Disengagement was in Sept. of 2005, and yes there have been many many reports of Qassam rockets since then in all mainstream media, with the term becoming as familiar as the scud missile was in the first Gulf war.
The problem is that, in your rush to excuse anything carried out by the Israeli State, you remove every aspect from the history of the conflict, and from any context, as the neglect of the kidnapping by Israel of two Gaza civilians before the Israeli soldier was kidnapped shows. One victim became known world wide, the other two are utterly unknown by 99.999 % of the world.
Instead of a double standard, you might consider applying the same criteria for what constitutes unexceptable moral actions to Israel that you do for Palestine, Lebanon, and others. Then, you might open a path for yourself to begin some meaningful analysis in place of your current blind loyalty to a nation state, which like all nation states acts in its own material interests as shaped by global capitalism, not any higher moral code.

you:
Rather than accept the Israeli pullout from gaza as a gesture indicating a commitment to peace, Palestinians have used it as an opportunity to launch attacks on Israel with impunity.

response: Impunity is the exact wrong word choice here, and wrongly implies that the Palestinians are somehow to blame when there is no dispute among serious thinkers that Israel's 57 years of brutal illegal occupation have been the root cause of the conflict.
The Gaza disengagement does not show a commitment to peace. Remember the occupation of Gaza was illegal according to international law. Even if the pullout was somehow in accordance with the spirit of the wishes of the Palestinians and the international community, it would not be a favor, but Israel finally reversing their policy of brutal occupation. But it doesn't even amount to that. This "disengagement" is nothing more than a cloaked West Bank expansion plan bringing in more prized land and resources to the Israeli state from the Palestinians.
As for the "disengagement" itself Israel again engages in collective punishment as they did with the Lebanese:

One year ago, on 12 September 2005, Israel completed its unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip under the 'Disengagement Plan'. In the year that followed, the Gaza Strip endured military incursions, shelling, attacks on infrastructure, targeted assassinations, sonic booms, aerial surveillance, border closures, and fishing restrictions. Also Israel retains control of the civil population registry. The unilateral withdrawal aimed to establish that the Gaza Strip was no longer occupied, thereby relieving Israel of its duties as the Occupying Power. In reality, Israel has retained effective control of the Gaza Strip and consequently has never ceased its occupation.

Israel continues to control Gaza's land borders, air space and territorial sea. It closes at will the border crossings regulating the entry and exit of people, goods and services. In fact, external freedom of movement has worsened since the withdrawal. In the year since 12 September 2005, Karni Crossing, used for the transit of goods, was closed completely for a total of 175 days and partially for a further 169 days. Since April 2006, there have been severe humanitarian shortages in the Gaza Strip, including essential medicines and food stuffs. The situation has been aggravated by restrictions on the entry of humanitarian supplies and access for humanitarian workers. These measures violate Israel's obligation to ensure the right to freedom of movement to, and to provide for the well-being of, the civilian population of the Gaza Strip.

Since the unilateral withdrawal, Israel has actually increased its shelling and its targeted assassinations of wanted Palestinians within the Gaza Strip, especially since the beginning of large scale military incursions (Operation 'Summer Rains') on 28 June 2006. These attacks have killed 362 Palestinians, the majority of whom were civilians, including women and children. The attacks have also targeted private houses, educational institutions, charitable associations, government ministries, and infrastructure such as bridges and roads, as well as Gaza's main power plant, resulting in severely restricted power supply. By these actions, Israel has repeatedly failed to uphold its duty to distinguish between combatants and civilians, as well as between military objectives and civilian objects.

On 9 July 2006, Israeli online newspaper Arutz Sheva reported that Israeli General Yoav Galant, Southern District Commander, described the purpose of Operation 'Summer Rains' as follows:

The IDF is ready for a long operation involving raids. Within a month or two, the Palestinians will count hundreds of dead terrorists, damaged infrastructures and destroyed offices. When they make the overall calculation, I assume that they will think twice before their next attack or abduction attempt.

The stated intention is to punish all Palestinians in the Gaza Strip for an armed raid and rocket attacks against Israel carried out by a small number of individuals. Those actions cannot justify Israeli military operations such as indiscriminate shelling and sonic booms by low-flying military planes, which affect the Palestinian population as a whole. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits collective punishment of protected persons for an offence they have not personally committed. By undertaking such measures, Israel is in clear breach of this provision.

The events of the past year demonstrate that Israel's occupation remains, and consequently its obligations as the Occupying Power in the Gaza Strip. Nevertheless, there have been numerous breaches of these obligations, and Operation 'Summer Rains' has done much to worsen the situation. Ending occupation and respecting international law are fundamental prerequisites for a durable solution to the conflict. On this day, one year after the conclusion of Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, Al-Haq calls on the High Contracting Parties to the four Geneva Conventions to recognise Israel's continued occupation of, and responsibility for, the Gaza Strip, and to uphold their obligation under common Article 1 to ensure Israel's respect for the four Geneva Conventions.
source:http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article5718.shtml

you:
Have you heard about little Dorit, an Israeli killed by a Qassam rocket, launched from Gaza?
No, I didn't think so. And she wasn't the only one.

response: There are reports yes. Importantly, if you are claiming that Palestinian casualties enjoy better media coverage than Israeli ones, that would be an impossible case to make. There may have been a temporary shift in media coverage due to Israel's blatantly obvious flouting of international opinion when they went in and destroyed Lebanon for a second time in 25 years, but even US corporate media had a hard time spinning it and had to feign some outrage as they portrayed it as a fight in which both sides shared equal blame, which it clearly was not. But did you hear CNN or FOX call Israel terrorists?
I do agree that firing Qassam rockets at civilians is totally unacceptable. What is insulting in your approach is that you let your chauvinism guide your critique. It is ahistorical to talk about Qassam rockets, or ambulances, without giving a realistic picture of the overwhelming superiority in arms that Israel enjoys, their well documented record of ethnic cleansing from the al nakba on, the racist laws within Israel regarding land ownership and marriage, the clear record of Israeli/US rejectionism of peace plans, the UNISPAL archives of Israeli state aggression, and so on.
Were you able to move beyond your indoctrinated pro-state position, and I seriously doubt you ever will, you would see that a serious critique has to be based on analysis of power, what nation states are and why they exist, what role the world economic system plays, how the US exploits Israel for its own ends (not the other way around as some claim).
Even if you are incapable of moving beyond your obvious jingoistic blind spots and lack of broader cohesive theory and analysis, you should be aware that your propaganda posts don't fool people into thinking you are engaging in "critical analysis" of the media. Your claim of left wing anti-Israel media is preposterous on its face.

"Remember the occupation of Gaza was illegal according to international law."

These territories are "disputed" under international law.

The standard definition of an occupation under international law is found in the Fourth Geneva Convention, which applies explicitly to
"partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party" In other words, "occupation" for the purposes of the convention means the presence of one country's troops in territory that
belongs to another sovereign state the only type of entity that can be a contracting party to the convention.

But when territory that does not clearly belong to another sovereign state is captured by one of the possible legitimate claimants as, for instance, in
Kashmir, which is claimed by India, Pakistan, and the Kashmiris the term generally used is "disputed," not "occupied."
And that is precisely the situation in the West Bank and Gaza. Neither of these territories belonged to any sovereign state when Israel captured
them in 1967; they were essentially stateless territory. Both had originally been part of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and, according to the
UN partition plan of 1947, they should have become part of a new Arab state
when Britain abandoned the Mandate in 1948. But since the Arabs themselves rejected this plan, not only did that state never come into being, it
never even acquired theoretical legitimacy: The partition plan was no more than
a non-binding "recommendation" (the resolution's own language) adopted by
the General Assembly. Once rejected by one of the parties involved, it essentially became a dead letter. The West Bank and Gaza were therefore
not owned by anyone when they were seized by Jordan and Egypt, respectively,
in 1948; and since their annexation by these countries was never
internationally recognized (Jordan's annexation of the West Bank, for instance, was
accepted only by Britain and Pakistan), they were still stateless territory in 1967.

It is ahistorical to talk about Qassam rockets, or ambulances, without giving a realistic picture of the overwhelming superiority in arms that Israel enjoys, their well documented record of ethnic cleansing from the al nakba on, the racist laws within Israel regarding land ownership and marriage, the clear record of Israeli/US rejectionism of peace plans, the UNISPAL archives of Israeli state aggression, and so on.

Israeli military superiority?
Israel is one country, surrounded by hostile neighbors. When you factor in that it isn't just Israel vs. the Palestinians- but rather Israel vs the Palestinians backed up by Iran, and Syria, and others, the odds got a lot smaller.

ethnic cleansing?
The population of the disputed territories has increased dramatically. Gaza has among the highest birthrates in the world. Infant mortality is way down. In the years between 1967 and 1993, Israel built 166 medical clinics, schools, university- even a sports stadium. Doesn't sound like ethnic cleansing to me. You tell me this is well documented- I'd like to see this documentation.

Rejecting peace plans?
In 1937 the Peel commission proposed a two state solution. The Jews accepted it- the Arabds did not. It was repaeated in 1948. there have been a dozen peace proposals put on the table that have been rejected by the Palestinians. When Arafat turned down what was offered at camp David, Saudi Prince bandar called it a crime against the Palestinian people.