Category: Let's talk
Bob Simon from 60 Minutes has been under attack for running an accurate, thoughtful and critical look at the viability of the two-state solution.
Veteran journalist Bob Simon traveled the West Bank to assess the situation on the ground and clearly shows how the Israeli government’s years of support for the increasing presence of illegal Israeli settlements and settlers in the West Bank, Israeli policies on appropriating Palestinian homes at a whim, Israel’s imposition of arbitrary travel restriction and establishment of hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, and the creation of the separation barrier which appropriates even more Palestinian land, are adversely impacting the feasibility of two-state solution. The content of this piece touches on issues rarely raised in the US mainstream media and ADC believes it is important that 60 Minutes hears from you.
Watch it on-line at: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/23/60minutes/main4749723.s...
or: http://capwiz.com/adc/issues/alert/?alertid=12516621
I recommend that you get in touch with CBS and express your support of Bob simon's courage and honesty.
I'm so watching this, and expressing my support. Thanks as always for bringing this to our attention aazizi.
Cheers,
Simon
Who is attacking him? What is so different about these attacks to previous attacks on commentaries on current affairs in the US? Are the attacks just criticisms of the programme, or are they attempts to stop it being broadcast? I am as in favour of freedom of the press in this context (though this is television so not the press), as I am of freedom to criticise the content that is published or broadcast by the media. So if what is being suggested is that people shouldn't be able to criticise programmes, and if they do they are attacking press freedom even if the programme is on the television and not in the newspapers, then I disagree, for we should have as much freedom to be critical as we have to be supportive.
no, the criticism is on two levels. First for airing the segment in the first place. They claim that he should not have criticized Israel at a time when it has barely completed its military operations in Gaza. Of course those critics forgot that it was massacres that Israel did in Gaza. At the second level they are attacking it for pointing out israel's efforts of blocking potentials for peace with the Palestinians. He made the point that Israel pays lip service to the idea of the two state solution, while in reality it is supporting and financing the activities of the fanatic Jewish settlers to make irreversable changes on the ground that make the two state solution impossible. Unspoken but clear in the segment is that Israel is responsible for undermining the chances for peace in the Middle East. To those critics, No one should ever point out Israel's sins, and the spotlight should always be on the enemies of Israel.
To me, The most important aspect of this segment is that it highlights the point that the two state solution is becoming increasingly an empty slogan, making it clear that it is Israel's fault for this situation. He points out that The only other alternatives left would be: 1, an apartheid state, with a Jewish population, by 2020 will be a minority, ruling over an Arab majority. or - 2, a secular democratic state where Muslims, Christians, and Jews can live together in a progressive modern society. This second alternative would effectively mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. The first alternative would mean the perpetuation of conflict forever, and the second would upset the fanatic jews and their western supporters. Needless to say that I support the second alternative. I believe that Israel as a Jewish state must be dismantled, and with god's grace, it will be dismantled one day, the sooner the less suffering for everyone involved.