Gaza At Home and Abroad, Part 4

On January 8, 2009, Freedom Party leader Paul McKeever was a panelist on the CTS (Crossroads Television) program "On the Line" with host Christine Williams. The hour-long live broadcast focussed entirely on the matter of the conflict in Gaza, how it is being interpreted and spun, etc. The show has been broken up into several parts. This is part 4.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Jews
• Jewish
• media
• anti-Semitic
• anti-Semitism

[Kurtyoungblood]

Off topic, but the host Christine is so wonderfully curt and precise when the callers come in.

[PaulMcKeever]

I think she is trying to maximize the number of viewers who get a chance to put in their 2 cents. I suspect it is a must for a call-in show because, if she didn't keep up a quick pace and try to get to everyone, people might not bother trying anymore.

[NotThat3]

But the children! What about the children? Think of the children!

Maybe Hamas should think of the consequences of it's actions to palestinian children. Maybe the palestinians should think of the consequences of their own actions to their own children.

[chopsky]

Wow I hate it when people constantly invoke "dead children" in their emotional arguments. Either Palestinian children die, or the Israeli children do. It's that simple. Should America have held back on bombing Nazi Germany because of the innocent children there too? At least the Nazi's didn't literally use theirs as shields (not to give any undeserved points to the Nazis). Such foolishness.

[toofabulos]

all news channels run by jews dont let them fool you that man is jew and that lady too

[pilatech]

The fact that you would consider this a 'good job' leads me to believe you're simply being an idealogue on this point, you so happen to share his presupposition and thus consider his job 'good' and his co-panelists 'bad'. I offer this simply for your own reflection, even if Paul's thesis turns out to be well founded by valid argument from the evidence, he does not present that argument. Simply deeming good those arguments with whose conclusions you already agree is a poor truth seeking strategy

[pilatech]

When you carry out over 2300 air strikes in 2 weeks in a poorly fortified 139 sq mile area with almost 1.5 million people that you've complete fenced in, yeah I expect to see civilians die. I dunno the extent of Mr. McKeever's knowledge on the subject, I'm not saying he couldn't have presented an argument to better support his position, fact is he didn't get much time, basically all he gives is sound byte that states his position and offers minimal, if any valid, supporting argument. cont's

[pilatech]

According to PCHR the Palestinian's killed break down as follows: 960 civilians 239 police 235 fighters. According to the IDF: 900 combatants and 300 non-combatants. Still according to the IDF the Israel death toll is 13, 10 soldiers (4 from friendly fire) 3 civilians. I don't fully believe either sides figures but someone in the middle seems reasonable to me. So yeah, when by their own account they kill 100x the civilians I'm prone to expecting to see more Palestinians die... cont's

[pilatech]

Anti-Defamation League, The American Jewish Committee, AIPAC. I mean the article they are discussing is like meta propaganda or something (propaganda accusing one opponent of propaganda). I don't see how his point about there not being enough focus on friendly fire deaths on the Palestinian side even supports his position, friendly fire deaths are by definition unintentional. As for the focus on Palestinian deaths over Israeli ones let's consider the some numbers from both sides... cont's

[pilatech]

They both come across as fools, I would argue Paul more so in that his points clearly reflect of his own presupposed biases, quite disappointing for someone who so (correctly) insists upon appealing to evidence in economic matters. Just compare the scope of the organizations on both sides. The IDF to Hamas, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. Compare the Palestinian Center for Human Rights to... cont's

[zardozcs]

luckily, i noticed it did :-)

Good premises.

[chopsky]

I wasn't aware it required clarifying.

[zardozcs]

I don't think I did, I'm just clarifying it a bit, I think.

[chopsky]

Did you mis-interpret my comment? I have no idea what you're going on about.