Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (55812)	11/5/2002 12:26:25 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Economist is pretty clear and is by no means a confusing source. "Roads" and "territorial reach" are not incomprehensible words/phrases, imho. No, I think it's quite unclear. Are you talking about the footprint of the road alone? That's one measure. Or are you talking about some piece of land that the road "cuts off" from some other piece of land? That's a very different measure. In that case, there could be lots of Arab-owned or Arab occupied land that gets counted as "under the control" of the settlements, because of the position of the roads. I think they are talking about the second measure; that's why I need to see a photograph. "Sources unfriendly to the settlers"? Are you talking about The Economist, here? I did not realize The Economist was Palestine-friendly and settler-unfriendly. Can you explain? The Economist has never been friendly to Zionism, not for the last fifty years and more. It's a slant that runs through all its writing. The Economist is a more responsible publication than, say, the Independent, so it doesn't reprint propaganda, but the slant is always there. I would say that uncritically repeating the "42% control" figure, without explaining what it means or having any clarification from pro-settler groups to balance it, is a slant. Also, the perpetual use of the active voice for Israeli actions but not Palestinian actions makes it clear by implication that the Israelis alone are the responsible party. (This is similar to the constant editorial line that Israeli government changes hurt chances for Mideast peace, but never Palestinian government changes, or the lack thereof) The Palestinians are very rarely treated as grownups who make political choices; their choices are written up in the passive voice, e.g. "violence broke out". Here is an example of such a writeup & my explanation: Message 18194541 Of course, the Economist's coverage looks different if you are mostly comparing it to Le Monde Diplomatique, which is more overtly pro-Palestinian.