You realize that the Turks are the one who both took and published these photos, yes? Of course each country chooses to present the material which paints it in a positive light, that's what makes photos from the other side which back up your story all the more valuable.
There's tons more footage we haven't seen, and maybe never will. There were a number of journalists on the boat, Israeli forces seized the cameras and footage and have been disinclined to disclose them. They haven't released any footage of the initial approach, which implicitly supports the statements from the survivors, that the IDF started shooting before they even got on board. Journalists who tried to cover the story were barred from speaking to passengers. This combined with Israel's long history of human rights violations doesn't paint a pretty picture. Never mind the American citizen shot in the head several times at close range, etc. It's really amazing. This is probably the only country that could arbitrarily execute an American citizen with Washington's blessing.
Even if you don't buy the Israeli version completely, the photos at least show that initial coverage of the story was distorted.
They don't show much of anything, because nine-tenths of the footage and images are inaccessible. What's interesting, is the US media didn't even question this. They only got a fraction of highly edited material and they bought it hook, line, and sinker. These aren't stupid people, either. I can only chalk it up to a combination of deliberate dishonesty, or that they're so deeply committed to the official narrative that this kind of cognitive dissonance can happen.
This was my main point - that stories in the Middle East (or in any war-torn area, I imagine) are far more complex than what is presented in the media, and unless you're willing to do the research, your opinions just can't be well founded. Sadly, most of the posters on Solo don't seem to get this.
The Socratic method is universally the best approach. Question everything, I'd say that goes double for authority figures. Now, in my country, criticism of Israel is not only almost nonexistant in the mainstream media, but it's practically a hanging offense.
Also, while I understand that expertise has value, we wouldn't want amateurs performing neurosurgery, or tinkering with nuclear reactors, obviously. However, I dislike and am skeptical of the idea that these issues are the strict purview of a specialized class. I think anyone who can understand, say, domestic violence, can understand the basics of what's happening in Gaza. There's all sorts of historical data, and details and minutiae, but I don't think the central truths are sufficiently complicated or nebulous, almost anyone couldn't understand them.
So has Israel. Also, you can't seriously be suggesting that what's written in their charter doesn't count? If they're so interested in a peaceful solution, why won't they change the charter, which repeatedly says the opposite? Isn't that, like, the first step?
Why did Hamas win the election? (Which was free and democratic, btw.)
Israel imprisoned much of the elected govt., and the US tried to instigate a military coup. (Which, incidentally, shows the level of contempt for democracy.) How can anybody be surprised? The sections you mentioned WERE removed when Hamas ran for office.They have repeatedly stated they would absolutely accept peaceful coexistence along the 1967 guidelines. Israel has constantly rebuffed every attempt. Israel and the US, are essentially the only opposition to a global consensus. However, we are the new Rome, so we can do that.
Again, very complex issue, which you're trying to turn into black and white. The invasion, which I agree was very tragic and disproportionate, was the result of 7 years of rockets on the south of Israel, from the very same places which were evacuated by Israel in an attempt for peace.
That's not an accurate characterization. If Israel had any genuine interest in peace, they could have it. The greatest threat to Israel at the moment is itself. If it keeps building settlements, nevermind killing civilians and holding thousands of prisoners without charges, etc., a two-state solution will become impossible.
I'm going to have to take your word for it (if other networks are like Fox News, which I have seen, I would agree). However, as Moz fans know, America is not the world, and I am very very concerned with the one sided image of the events in the European press. Why can't journalists just do their job properly?
They aren't all as bad as Fox, thankully, but they stick to the official narrative. As I said, they were given just a tiny, highly edited handful of material and they were like; "Case closed." Again, either they're so heavily indoctrinated, or it's deliberate deception. It's universal.
There are some people who've provided some excellent reporting and analysis. Amy Goodman has done some fantastic pieces on
Democracy Now!, she's always been great, she has a long history of fantastic, no-nonsense reporting. Glen Greenwald, who writes for Salon, has done some good pieces on this subject. Also, while he isn't a journalist, Noam Chomsky has consistently provided about the best analysis of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for years, it's also a subject that has personal significance to him, he lived in Israel for some time. Norman Finkelstein, again, while not a journalist has also consistently been impressive with his breadth of knowledge and insightful analysis, in his books, and on his website, etc.