zaterdag 11 juli 2009

Sander van Hoorn 25


Van de weblog van Sander van Hoorn:

'Corrie van der Hart zegt: 11-07-09 om 15:40 Sander, Klopt het dat wat Joris Luijendijk schrijft in zijn boek “Het zijn net mensen”, dat de NOS (Israel) bepaalt wat er op/in het nieuws komt? Ik hoor wel eens, dat je tussen 6 en 7 uur ’s morgens uitgebreider aan het woord komt dan in latere uitzendingen. Dat hou ik altijd in mijn achterhoofd als ik je hoor of zie.

Sander van Hoorn zegt: 11-07-09 om 15:56

@Corrie. Heb t boek ook gelezen. Weet niet waar dit staat. De NOS bepaalt wat er op/in het nieuws komt voorzover het de eigen uitzendingen betreft. Over de rest hebben we niets te zeggen. Israel heeft vervolgens weer niets over onze uitzendingen te zeggen, net zo min als Hamas of de Fietsbond dat heeft. Tussen 6 en 7 smorgens niet uitgebreider. Wel in het Radio 1 Journaal in het algemeen meer ruimte dan op televisie. Aard van het medium, en de uitzendingen op TV zijn gewoon kort. In Het Oog nog meer ruimte.

********* Topic is nu gesloten.

stan van houcke zegt: Your comment is awaiting moderation. 11-07-09 om 20:41

Sander, het antwoord dat je aan corrie geeft, vermijdt het punt waar het hier om draait. israel hoeft niet eens te bepalen wat wel en niet in het nos-journaal komt. er bestaat wereldwijd onder commerciele journalisten een consensus over hoe de werkelijkheid gepresenteerd moet en kan worden en hoe niet. een concreet voorbeeld: als er door amnesty zou worden vastgesteld dat meer dan 1400 joodse burgers in israel door palestijnse oorlogsmisdaden vermoord waren, dan was dit tenminste een weeklang voorpaginanieuws geweest. het nos-journaal had er mee geopend. nu amnesty na uitgebreid onderzoek vooral de joods-israeli’s aanklaagt vanwege oorlogsmisdaden wordt er door het nos-journaal op televisie nauwelijks aandacht aan besteed. want deze informatie is in strijd met de consensus, die bepaalt dat het leven van een palestijn in palestina minder waard is dan het leven van een jood in israel. het probleem voor jou is nu het feit dat er een omslag gaande is in de vs. de israelische propaganda, hasbara, werkt niet meer optimaal en een aanzienlijk aantal amerikaanse colega’s van ons is niet langer bereid om alles klakkeloos te slikken, zoals uit dit bericht uit newsweek blijkt. ik vermoed daarom dat ook jij binnenkort toestemming vanuit hilversum zal krijgen om evenwichtiger te gaan berichten over de israelische terreur. ‘Chosen Words How to Sell Americans on the Idea of Israeli “Settlements” By Dan Ephron | Newsweek Web Exclusive July 10, 2009″Newsweek” — How do you sell the American public on the idea that Israel has the right to maintain or even expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank? Be positive. Turn the issue away from settlements and toward peace. Invoke ethnic cleansing. Those are three of the recommendations made by Frank Luntz, a political consultant and pollster, in an internal study he wrote for the Washington-based group The Israel Project (TIP) on effective ways to talk to Americans about the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The 117-page study, titled The Israel Project’s 2009 Global Language Dictionary, was commissioned by the nonprofit group, which aims to promote Israel’s side of the story, and leaked to NEWSWEEK. It includes chapters with such titles as “How to Talk About Palestinian Self Government and Prosperity” and “The Language of Tackling a Nuclear Iran.” The report is strewn with bolded examples of “Words That Work” and “Words That Don’t Work,” alongside rhetorical tips such as “Don’t talk about religion” and “No matter what you’re asked, bridge to a productive pro-Israel message.” Taken together, the 18 chapters offer a fascinating look at the way Israel and its supporters try to shape the public debate in their favor. Asked about the document, TIP’s founder and president, Jennifer Laszlo-Mizrahi, told NEWSWEEK it was based on polling and work with focus groups and is used to formulate communications strategy. She said setting people straight about settlements is particularly important: “The idea that some have in Washington that unilaterally putting pressure on Israel to make concessions on settlements is going to lead to peace is unfortunately shortsighted.” The settlement issue has been the single biggest source of friction between the United States and Israel since Benjamin Netanyahu became Israel’s prime minister in March. President Obama has said he wants to see a complete halt to housing construction in Jewish communities of the West Bank. About 300,000 Israelis live in settlements in the West Bank, not including East Jerusalem; Palestinians regard the area as the heart of their future state. Luntz, who has advised mostly Republican candidates, appears to have tested a variety of messages on the focus groups. He concludes that “public opinion is hostile to the settlements,” even among supporters of Israel. “Nothing is tougher to articulate effectively to neutral Americans than a message in favor of the settlements,” Luntz writes. “Let me be clear about this conclusion. Plenty of Israeli and American Jewish leaders have tried, but American and European audiences rejected almost everything we tested.” Luntz did not respond to NEWSWEEK’s request for comment. The report cites three particularly ineffective arguments Israeli officials often make in defense of settlements: (1) The religious argument: “Quoting from the Bible in defense of the current settlements will have absolutely the opposite impact. Even your Jewish audiences will recoil at an attempt to use Biblical passages to justify the settlements.” (2) The ownership argument: “Some of those reading this document will reject this advice ideologically but to claim that Israel ‘owns’ the land that the settlements are on will cause most listeners to reject everything else you say. Semantics does matter, but if we correct Palestinians using the words ‘disputed territory’ when they say ‘occupied territory,’ we have to accept that the settlements are disputed territory as well.” (3) The scapegoat argument: “Claiming that Palestinians and other Arab groups are using the settlement issue to gain political advantage may be correct but it does nothing to legitimize Israeli policy.” In the report, Luntz describes the “best settlement argument” as one that draws a parallel between the Arab communities in Israel and the Jewish settlers in the West Bank—and refers to the idea of evacuating Jews as racist. “The idea that anywhere that you have Palestinians there can’t be any Jews, that some areas have to be Jew-free, is a racist idea,” he suggests saying. “We don’t say that we have to cleanse out Arabs from Israel. They are citizens of Israel. They enjoy equal rights. We cannot see why it is that peace requires that any Palestinian area would require a kind of ethnic cleansing to remove all Jews. We don’t accept it. Cleansing by either side against either side is unacceptable.” One line of argument that Luntz says actually harms the cause is Israel’s policy of restricting Arab housing construction in East Jerusalem: “The arguments about demolishing Palestinian homes because they are not within the Jerusalem building code tested SO badly that we are not even going to dignify them with a Word’s That Don’t Work box. Americans hate their own local planning boards for telling them where they can and can’t put swimming pools or build fences. You don’t need to import that animosity into your own credibility issues. Worse yet, talking about ‘violations of building codes’ when a TV station is showing the removal of a house that looks older than the modern state of Israel is simply catastrophic.”
© 2009 Newsweek

The full report can be viewed here.: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23022.htm

Opgelet Nederlandse collega’s van me. Trap er ditmaal niet in. Land stelen van een ander mag niet volgens het internationaal recht, zo heeft het Internationaal Gerechtshof in 2004 nog eens expliciet gesteld. Dus ook de Joden in Israel mogen dit niet. Laat je niet chanteren zoals de Duitse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken toeliet. De christelijke cultuur mag dan wel millennia lang een verschil hebben gemaakt tussen joden en niet joden, en de commerciele journalistiek mag dan wel decennialang een verschil hebben gemaakt tussen joden en niet joden, maar het recht maakt goddank geen verschil tussen joden en niet-joden.

Diplomatie a la Israel Last update - 06:43 10/07/2009

Aide: Netanyahu told German FM West Bank cannot be ‘Judenrein` By Reuters Tags: Frank-Walter Steinmeier Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu used the Nazi term ‘Judenrein’ in a recent meeting with the German foreign minister to condemn the Palestinian demand that West Bank settlements be removed, a confidant of the premier has said. “Judea and Samaria cannot be Judenrein,” the confidant quoted the prime minister as telling Frank-Walter Steinmeier earlier this week. Asked how Germany’s top diplomat responded to hearing the term used by the Nazis to refer to areas “cleansed of Jews”, the confidant said, “What could he do? He basically just nodded.’

Zie: http://weblogs.nos.nl/midden-oosten/2009/07/03/unrwa-minister-koenders-en-palestina/comment-page-1/#comment-1230

1 opmerking:

Paul2 zei

'een concreet voorbeeld: als er door amnesty zou worden vastgesteld dat meer dan 1400 joodse burgers in israel door palestijnse oorlogsmisdaden vermoord waren, dan was dit tenminste een weeklang voorpaginanieuws geweest. het nos-journaal had er mee geopend.'
@Stan

Nog zo'n plek die niemand interesseert ,het ontkennen is niet alleen tav Israel aanwezig.Hier is het 1400 slachtoffers per week.

'About 1,400 people are dying every week at the giant Manik Farm internment camp set up in Sri Lanka to detain Tamil refugees from the nation’s bloody civil war, senior international aid sources have told The Times.

The death toll will add to concerns that the Sri Lankan Government has failed to halt a humanitarian catastrophe after announcing victory over the Tamil Tiger terrorist organisation in May. It may also lend credence to allegations that the Government, which has termed the internment sites “welfare villages”, has actually constructed concentration camps to house 300,000 people.

Mangala Samaraweera, the former Foreign Minister and now an opposition MP, said: “There are allegations that the Government is attempting to change the ethnic balance of the area. Influential people close to the Government have argued for such a solution.”'
Ook hier het etnic cleansing argument.
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23021.htm

Media Lens: The Mainstream Media

Click here to view it online 20 September 2018 Guest Media Alert by John Pilger: 'Hold the front page. The reporters are mis...