New Digital Project Highlights Palestinian Rock Throwing Violence, Calls for Action

[shira]

http://www.thetower.org/truth-about-palestinian-rockthrowing-project/

by TheTower.org Staff | 10.18.13 2:40 pm

The launch of a new website may reignite a smoldering media controversy over how Palestinian rock throwing – a common tactic directed at Israeli civilians and police forces – is portrayed. Last August the New York Times was blasted by media outlets and watchdog groups for what they described as the romanticization of Palestinians who target and kill Israelis with rocks. Today’s “Best Pictures of the Day” list at the Guardian includes a high-resolution shot of a Palestinian using “a sling to throw stones at Israeli soldiers” at a routine, weekly protest held in the West Bank.

The website, dubbed The Truth about Palestinian Rock Throwing, focuses both on specific cases – most recently an attack that severely injured 3 year old Adele Biton – as well as on broader dynamics.

Cornell Law Professor William Jacobson was effusive:

But there is an even more pernicious western media version of Pallywood, the outright bias and misleading characterization of acts of terror against Israel. These actions often are deliberate provocations set up by media and activists who side with the Palestinians, in which a phalanx of photographers and videographers waits to catch an Israeli soldier responding to a provocation. The use of children as provocateurs is a common tactic — nothing plays better in the media than the image of an Israeli soldier confronting a child. But those children often are engaged in violent behavior, particularly rock throwing. A “rock” can shatter a skull, or in where thrown at a moving vehicle, can cause a serious accident.

The site specifically calls attention to child-directed anti-Israel incitement conducted under the auspices of UN organizations, and urges readers to a sign a petition to withhold resources from those groups.

Media critics have accused outlets of being inconsistent on the issue. In 1990, after major injuries were caused by teenage boys tossing rocks onto the Capitol Beltway, the Washington Post editorialized that there was little difference “between assault with a deadly weapon – a shooting – and assault with rocks that hit cars at potentially lethal speeds.”

[Scootaloo]

1. And in the interest of clarity...

The Washington Free Beacon - far-right neocon editorial website posing as news. Wholly and openly owned by the Center for American Freedom

CAMERA - man, does anyone here not know about CAMERA?

Wordpress.org - open-content blog site. Yeah. The Tower is lavishing this attention upon a blog.

Speaking of...

The Tower - pure hasbara. Israel good, everyone else always bad. Like the Free Beacon, is actually a PR outlet for a right-wing think-tank, The Israel Project

Also, note my amusement at using a 23 year-old Washington Post editorial to shake a finger at New York Times editorial from last August. Really? Well, I guess once you believe that there's an Islamo-Leftist conspiracy that controls the world media, it makes sense...?

[shira]

3. see #2. n/t

[Scootaloo]

4. What attack, Shira?

The Washington Free Beacon and the Tower Magazine are both outlets of right-wing interest groups. They say so right on their own "about us" pages. Since most people probably don't explore the pages presented, I figure it's in the public interest to make clear what these sources are, who backs them, and provides for their content. The Israel Project and its outlet, The Tower are in fact pure hasbara.

interesting that you regard citing the ownership and nature of the content you choose to share with us is something you construe as an attack, Shira. One might almost come to the notion that you'd rather such facts be hidden away and unrecognized.

And even you certainly realize the sheer oddity of citing an editorial from one paper published twenty-three years ago, to criticize another editorial, from another paper and writer entirely, published last year, don't you? Can you imagine the Washington Post (for example) writing a 2000-word editorial praising someone's wordpress blog? One with two entries, seven outside links, and under three thousand hits?

You know, when a DU'er masturbates their own blog in such an obvious way as "TheTower.Org Staff" is doing, they're rightly called on it, and their thread often gets locked due to advertising. For that matter, didn't Lithos just recently shut down a thread that was just a PR release for someone?

[shira]

5. Logical fallacy. Argumentum ad hominem, attacking the messenger/source....

A feeble attempt to divert from the actual argument being made.

Pretty lame, even by your standards.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

6. "A feeble attempt to divert from the actual argument being made. "

It was an observation about the political compass of your source material.

Out of curiosity would you post to Free Republic for information?

[Scootaloo]

7. You don't know what any of those terms mean, do you?

Argumentum ad hominem is when someone uses irrelevant facts about another person in an effort to refute the argument that that person is making.

"The article's claims about modern music are wrong because the writer is a balding man in his mid 40's!"

That's an ad hominem.

On the other hand, neither of these are ad hominem:

"The author of that article on modern music is 45 years old" - no refutation is being attempted.
and
"The author of that article works for the local Oldies station and admits on air to never listening to anything released after 1974" - the facts cited are relevant to the argument at hand.

In context of our posts here, that the media you site is little more than two PR outlets for two separate but equally right-wing interest groups would, in fact, be relevant to any argument against the article. But notice, I'm not making such an argument. Just making a presentation of sources

I'm not sure how you construe pointing out the affiliations of these outlets as being "shooting the messenger." And it's actually ironic that you do so, since the article you post, and both the blog it praises and the lobby outlet it cites, all "blame the media."

[shira]

8. You're not aware shooting the messenger is a subclass of ad-hominem, are you?

How embarassing for you.

Next you'll deny you're attacking the source/messenger.

You're also committing the logical fallacy of poisoning the well.

[Scootaloo]

9. Go back. Try again.

Also, after DKF getting bounced, I'd advise watching those Obama-bashing, ACA-attacking, Koch-supporting sources. I'd hate to lose my bestest best buddy Shira!

[shira]

10. How about poisoning the well? You don't believe you did that? n/t

[Scootaloo]

11. I believe you're reading off a shopping list now.

Now that you've discovered the magical world of logical fallacies, Shira, your project for today is to go back and read your post history as objectively as you possibly can, and apply your recent discoveries to that content.

if you'll excuse me, I have a beef brisket to tend to.

[shira]

12. Brisket recipe for you.... trust me on this one (appeal to Shira's authority)

http://allrecipes.com/recipe/jewish-grandmas-best-beef-brisket/

Ignore this recipe at your own peril.

Definitely ignore the logical fallacy I just made.

[shira]

2. Attacking the source is a lame response, if we can even call it a response. n/t

[bravenak]

13. Rocks VS. guns.

The guns always win.
I see you're still sensationalizing rock throwing as an act of terrorism.
But cluster bombs, those are a different story. Who could possibly feel terrorized by that?

Kids throwing rocks are kids throwing rocks, no more no less. Kids are irresponsible and don't think about safety issues when they're being oppressed by a superior military force.

Stone throwing is a natural response of people victimized by authority figures. Please stop trying to demonize an entire generation of Palestinian youths and make them into terrorists.


Let's make a list of people killed by kids throwing rocks at soldiers vs. unarmed kids killed by soldier.

I haven't even checked but I'm willing to bet that soldiers have killed more kids than kids have killed soldiers with rocks. I'm also willing to bet that more innocent bystanders were killed by solders bullets than innocent bystanders killed by kids rocks.

The lack of situational awareness is startling.

Don't worry, I'll be right here for you to help you along on your path of enlightenment.

[shira]

14. That you don't acknowledge throwing rocks at moving civilian vehicles is terror speaks volumes...

The kids throwing rocks are encouraged to become martyrs and child-militants...

Let me guess:

You don't have a problem with Arafat sacrificing other people's children?

[azurnoir]

15. another 30 second fav-o-rite of yours from which Rightwing source again?

without context and translated by an outfit that has been shown to be inaccurate to put it politely

[shira]

16. More deflection and denial. Got anything else? n/t

[azurnoir]

17. no deflection no denial you posted a cherry picked sound byte

from a Rightwing source

[shira]

18. LOL! n/t

[azurnoir]

19. yep that about sizes it up for me n/t