Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

brooklyn13, LOL Your whataboutisms are becoming more irrational every day. My initial reaction to your Sydney Uni. Student Council vote was to think of course a small group of politically active students would be as outraged about Netanyahu's as much of the world is. I agree it is unfortunate they could not also have condemned the violence of Hamas, as we have done here. Too bad debate on that in the meeting failed, but obviously the bigger picture position prevailed. Regretfully to the extent it apparently did, still more understandably than not.

Anyway, my 2nd thought was to get some context for that student union decision, it is exactly as expected.

University of Sydney statement regarding SRC meeting 8 August 2024

The University of Sydney today released a statement following the Student Representative Council's Student General Meeting last night, which included a vote on two motions related to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

The full statement is below:

"The University of Sydney unequivocally condemns violence, terrorism, and any violations of human rights.

"Since the onset of the conflict in the Middle East, we have made it abundantly clear to our community that we do not tolerate any pro-terrorist statements or commentary, including support for Hamas - and any demonstration of support will result in disciplinary action and other possible legal consequences.

"Less than one percent of our student population attended the SRC meeting yesterday - student representative and student-led groups are independent of the University and certainly don’t represent our institutional position nor do they represent the majority of our student body. Their members are required to abide by our policies and codes of conduct and we don’t hesitate to take action if there has been a breach.? Our Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education) has written again today to the SRC president reminding them of their obligations - and the University is investigating reports of inappropriate conduct at the meeting, and has sought police advice on the legality of certain material used to promote the event. Central to democracy is the freedom for individuals to express diverse and differing opinions and any attempt to intimidate, silence or exclude views is contrary to who we are as a university.

"We know there are deep and complex divisions evident across broader society, and the reverberations of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East have been deeply distressing for many.

"There is also no doubt these last few months have been incredibly difficult times for our community: our utmost priority is that our students and staff feel safe on campus. Every member of our diverse student community must feel included and have equal opportunities to participate in all facets of our vibrant campus life.

"This is why we introduced the Campus Access Policy 2024 (PDF 234) which provides clearer information about our expectations and requirements of conduct on campus. We’re also commissioning an external review to ensure our processes and policies are appropriate to balance our commitment to freedom of speech and academic freedom with our legislative obligations to protect the health and safety of our community, and to do our best to prevent both psychological and physical harm."

https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2024/08/08/university-of-sydney-statement-regarding-src-meeting.html

Of course the SRC decision has attracted international attention as they should have (perhaps they did) anticipated it would. The right jumped on it worldwide as you did. A position of a small number of SRC politically active students. Deary me. Geepers creepers.

As to your repeated mention of Arab countries banning Al Jazeera, have you forgotten we've done that. Yawn, see, yawn, again:

brooklyn13, I don't judge an outfit's credibility by what some others say about them. Why does
Trump label the American media as "fake press." You are as much a water glider as conix.

Q&A: Why some countries are trying to muzzle Al-Jazeera

By AYA BATRAWY
Updated 1:54 AM GMT+10, August 9, 2017

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The Al-Jazeera global news network has once again become the subject of the news.

The Israeli government called this week for the Qatar-based company’s Jerusalem bureau to be closed, its journalists’ press credentials revoked and its transmission blocked.

The move follows a decision by Saudi Arabia and Jordan to shutter the network’s local offices. Its websites and channels were also blocked in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Egypt has banned Al-Jazeera since 2013, when the military there took power.

These countries accuse Al-Jazeera of inciting violence. Al-Jazeera says the moves are an attempt by governments to suppress freedom of expression.

Here’s a look at what’s at play.
___

WHAT IS AL-JAZEERA’S STORY?

Al-Jazeera is based in Qatar and has grown to become one of the most widely seen Arabic news channels in the world. The network says its channels reach 100 countries and 310 million homes worldwide.

Since its inception in 1996, the station has been one of the few to present views that contrast with traditional, state-censored Arabic press. It was the first Arab-owned news outlet to host Israeli officials and commentators, which some analysts note coincided with Qatar’s ties with Israel at the time.

While Al-Jazeera maintains that it operates independently of the Qatari government, critics say its coverage reflects Qatar’s foreign policy.

Al-Jazeera has said the measures to close it in Saudi Arabia are unjustified, and that Israel’s accusations of unfair coverage are “odd” and unsubstantiated.
___

WHY IS AL-JAZEERA BEING TARGETED?

In early June, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain launched a diplomatic assault on Qatar, cutting diplomatic and transport links with the small, energy-rich Gulf country due to its foreign policy. They also took aim at Al-Jazeera and other Qatari-funded media outlets for allegedly seditious and provocative coverage.

The four countries accuse Qatar of backing terror groups and want it to curb its ties with Iran. They also accuse Qatar of backing the Muslim Brotherhood group and its offshoots, which Egypt and UAE see as a top threat.

Qatar says the measures against it are politically motivated and an attempt to strong-arm Qatar into falling in lockstep with Saudi Arabia.

Israeli officials — seeing an opportunity in the Arab quartet’s blockade of Al-Jazeera — criticized the station’s coverage of renewed tensions at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and accused it of presenting unprofessional journalism before proposing to block it altogether.
___

WHAT IS QATAR’S ROLE?

Al-Jazeera and Qatar have been intertwined since the network was launched, with financial backing from the ruling emir at the time, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani.

Throughout its existence, the station has received funding from Qatar’s leadership. Its chairman is a member of Qatar’s ruling Al Thani family.

The network generates some revenue from advertisers, though details of its finances and ownership are not made publicly available as it is not a listed company.

Qatari Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani has outright rejected demands the country shut down Al-Jazeera. He told The Associated Press in June that Qatar’s foreign policy does not dictate Al-Jazeera’s coverage.
___

HOW WILL AL-JAZEERA BE AFFECTED?

Even before this diplomatic spat, the network was shrinking some of its global operations after years of ambitious expansion. It has laid off hundreds of employees in recent years and now has about 4,000 staff. The network in 2016 pulled the plug on its Al-Jazeera America channel less than three years after its launch to compete with U.S. cable news broadcasters.

It’s unclear how effective the bans will be in keeping Al-Jazeera from reaching its viewers. Across the region and in Israel, many Arab citizens watch Al-Jazeera through private satellite dishes rather than traditional cable transmission. The channels also livestream on YouTube.
___

WHAT IS AL-JAZEERA’S COVERAGE LIKE?

American viewers became familiar with Al-Jazeera after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, when its golden-hued Arabic logo became synonymous with video messages by America’s then-most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden. The channel aired the messages it received, sparking frequent complaints by then-President George W. Bush’s White House. The station defended its policy, saying the messages were newsworthy.

Critics say in past years, Al-Jazeera — particularly its flagship Arabic channel — has reflected Qatari policy by promoting Islamist movements. Many of the region’s Arab rulers, particularly in Egypt and the UAE, see the Muslim Brotherhood group and its offshoots as a top threat.

Israel has long been irked by Al-Jazeera’s coverage of the conflict there. During past wars in the Gaza Strip, Al-Jazeera has carried unflinchingly raw images of Palestinian women and children killed by Israeli airstrikes. Its reporters refer to Israel as an occupying force and to east Jerusalem as Occupied Jerusalem.

However, Al-Jazeera’s English and Arabic channels, as well as its news websites and its popular online AJ+ videos, do not mirror one another in style and target different audiences.
___

WHAT ARE OTHERS SAYING?

Reporters Without Borders says Al-Jazeera has become a “collateral victim” in the diplomatic offensive against Qatar. The group says closing the station’s bureaus is a political decision that amounts to censorship of a TV broadcaster.

The Committee to Protect Journalists has criticized Israel’s moves against Al-Jazeera. The CPJ said closing Al-Jazeera’s offices “would put Israel firmly in the camp of some of the region’s worst enemies of press freedom.” It called on Israel to allow all journalists to report freely from the country and areas it occupies.

More - https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174770504

I don't know about Al Jazeera's alleged support of Islamist movements, that i wouldn't support. I do know most all of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudi Arabians, and that Saudi Arabia murdered Jamal Khashoggi

Jamal Khashoggi: All you need to know about Saudi journalist's death
25 February 2021
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45812399

Yet you apparently feel more favorably toward Saudi Arabia than you do to Qatar. American presidents have other political considerations for their ME positions toward different countries there. Your only consideration seems to be defense of Israeli killing Palestinians and stealing their land.

I also know Al Jazeera's coverage of Netanyahu's over reactive war against all Palestinians has been broadly consistent with that of other more generally respected outfits, such as Foreign Policy .. https://foreignpolicy.com/ , the New York Times, The Washington Post and the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

Analysis | It's Now Clear: Netanyahu Prefers Hostages in Body Bags Over Risking His Own Political Life
Retrieving dead hostages is the Israeli government's choice: It avoids concessions and prevents the hostages from revealing details about their captivity or over the state's abandonment ¦ Netanyahu, firm on retaining control of key Gaza routes and resuming fighting, signaled to Hamas leader Sinwar: No deal
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-08-20/ty-article/.premium/its-now-clear-netanyahu-prefers-hostages-in-body-bags-over-risking-his-political-life/00000191-707e-d180-a5f5-707fc4490000

I also learned long ago you are more attracted to attacking the messenger than you are dealing factually with the issues. Evidence there is that don't tend to reply to my non-Al Jazeera posts such as Haaretz or others on the war, yet you barely miss an Al Jazeera post.

A couple in evidence of that:

Blinken says Netanyahu has accepted the latest Gaza peace proposal .. https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/blinken-says-netanyahu-accepts-latest-us-proposal-on-deal-now-hamas-must-do-the-same/ , yet Netanyahu has not said so publicly. Note that Times is the right-wing paper in Israel.
How does the latest proposal differ from the one Netanyahu rejected in July.
If Netanyahu has accepted the latest deal why isn't he saying so openly.
"2013 - Israeli settlers: Patriots or invaders? | Head to Head"
Middle East crisis: Netanyahu’s office says meeting with Blinken was ‘positive’ – as it happened
No reply - https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174949458

LOLOL You jumped to the bait here .. And Haaretz isn't Al Jazeera is it. Come in brooklyn's spinner who has missed a couple lately.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174924349

I remember clearly thinking you likely would not reply to this one:

Israeli Opinion | Welcome to Hell: B'Tselem's Ignored Abuse Report Shows Israel's True Face
No reply - https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174896886

LOL It was only in thinking of you that i inserted the red italicized Israeli in front of the word Opinion.

You didn't disappoint. You didn't reply very likely simply because it was an Haaretz article. There are many others like it you ignored.