U.S. Ranks 17th in Freedom of the Press 1367
reimero writes "According to this article on Yahoo! Germany the U.S. has experienced "serious restrictions" in freedom of the press, according to Reporters without borders' first worldwide press freedom index. Finland, Iceland, Norway and the Netherlands came in tops. An interesting study, to say the least."
Get yer English here.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What's the rest of the ranking? (Score:2, Informative)
Incase it gets
Rank Country 1 Finland - Iceland - Norway - Netherlands 5 Canada 6 Ireland 7 Germany - Portugal - Sweden 10 Denmark 11 France 12 Australia - Belgium 14 Slovenia 15 Costa Rica - Switzerland 17 United States 18 Hong Kong 19 Greece 20 Ecuador
Take Finland as an example (Score:5, Informative)
Re:¿que? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What's the rest of the ranking? (Score:2, Informative)
129 Lybia
130 Irak
131 Viet Nam
132 Eritrea
133 Laos
134 Cuba
135 Bhutan
136 Turkmenistan
137 Burma
138 China
139 North Korea
Not all that suprising.
Re:Canada is 5th? (Score:4, Informative)
Conrad Black? [honestreporting.com]
Pseudo-Mirror (Score:5, Informative)
---
The index
Rank Country Note
1 Finland 0,50
- Iceland 0,50
- Norway 0,50
- Netherlands 0,50
5 Canada 0,75
6 Ireland 1,00
7 Germany 1,50
- Portugal 1,50
- Sweden 1,50
10 Denmark 3,00
11 France 3,25
12 Australia 3,50
- Belgium 3,50
14 Slovenia 4,00
15 Costa Rica 4,25
- Switzerland 4,25
17 United States 4,75
18 Hong Kong 4,83
19 Greece 5,00
20 Ecuador 5,50
21 Benin 6,00
- United Kingdom 6,00
- Uruguay 6,00
24 Chili 6,50
- Hungary 6,50
26 South Africa 7,50
- Austria 7,50
- Japan 7,50
29 Spain 7,75
---truncated due to lameness filter---
130 Irak 79,00
131 Viet Nam 81,25
132 Eritrea 83,67
133 Laos 89,00
134 Cuba 90,25
135 Bhutan 90,75
136 Turkmenistan 91,50
137 Burma 96,83
138 China 97,00
139 North Korea 97,50
--
Reporters Without Borders is publishing the first worldwide press freedom index
The first worldwide index of press freedom has some surprises for Western democracies. The United States ranks below Costa Rica and Italy scores lower than Benin. The five countries with least press freedom are North Korea, China, Burma, Turkmenistan and Bhutan.
Surprises among Western democracies : US below Costa Rica and Italy below Benin
Reporters Without Borders is publishing for the first time a worldwide index of countries according to their respect for press freedom. It also shows that such freedom is under threat everywhere, with the 20 bottom-ranked countries drawn from Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe. The situation in especially bad in Asia, which contains the four worst offenders - North Korea, China, Burma, Turkmenistan and Bhutan.
The top end of the list shows that rich countries have no monopoly of press freedom. Costa and Benin are examples of how growth of a free press does not just depend on a country's material prosperity.
The index was drawn up by asking journalists, researchers and legal experts to answer 50 questions about the whole range of press freedom violations (such as murders or arrests of journalists, censorship, pressure, state monopolies in various fields, punishment of press law offences and regulation of the media). The final list includes 139 countries. The others were not included in the absence of reliable information.
In the worst-ranked countries, press freedom is a dead letter and independent newspapers do not exist. The only voice heard is of media tightly controlled or monitored by the government. The very few independent journalists are constantly harassed, imprisoned or forced into exile by the authorities. The foreign media is banned or allowed in very small doses, always closely monitored.
Right at the top of the list four countries share first place - Finland, Iceland, Norway and the Netherlands. These northern European states scrupulously respect press freedom in their own countries but also speak up for it elsewhere, for example recently in Eritrea and Zimbabwe. The highest-scoring country outside Europe is Canada, which comes fifth.
Some countries with democratically-elected governments are way down in the index - such as Colombia (114th) and Bangladesh (118th). In these countries, armed rebel movements, militias or political parties constantly endanger the lives of journalists. The state fails to do all it could to protect them and fight the immunity very often enjoyed by those responsible for such violence.
Costa Rica better placed than the United States
The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.
The highest-ranked country of the South is Costa Rica, in 15th position. This Central American nation is traditionally the continent's best performer in terms of press freedom. In February 2002, it ceased to be one of the 17 Latin American states that still give prison sentences to those found guilty of "insulting" public officials. The murder in July 2001 year of journalist Parmenio Medina was an exception in the history of the Costa Rican media.
Cuba, the last dictatorship in Latin America, came 134th and is the only country in the region where there is no diversity of news and journalists are routinely imprisoned. In Haiti (106th), journalists are targeted by informal militias whose actions are covered by the government.
Italy gets bad marks in Europe
The 15 member-countries of the European Union (EU) all score well except for Italy (40th), where news diversity is under serious threat. Prime minister Silvio Berlusconi is turning up the pressure on the state-owned television stations, has named his henchmen to help run them and continues to combine his job as head of government with being boss of a privately-owned media group. The imprisonment of journalist Stefano Surace, convicted of press offences from 30 years ago, as well as the monitoring of journalists, searches, unjustified legal summonses and confiscation of equipment, are all responsible for the country's low ranking.
France, in 11th place overall, comes only 8th among EU countries because of several disturbing measures endangering the protection of journalists' sources and because of police interrogation of a number of journalists in recent months.
Among those states hoping to join the EU, Turkey (99th) is very poorly placed. Despite the reform efforts of its government, aimed at easing entry into the EU, many journalists are still being given prison sentences and the media is regularly censored. Press freedom is especially under siege in the southeastern part of the country.
Elsewhere in Europe, such as Belarus (124th), Russia (121st) and the former Soviet republics, it is still difficult to work as a journalist and several have been murdered or imprisoned. Grigory Pasko, jailed since December 2001 in the Vladivostok region of Russia, was given a four-year sentence for publishing pictures of the Russian Navy pouring liquid radioactive waste into the Sea of Japan.
The Middle East and Israel's ambivalent position
No Arab country is among the top 50. Lebanon only makes 56th place and the press freedom situation in the region is not encouraging. In Iraq (130th) and Syria (126th), the state uses every means to control the media and stifle any dissenting voice. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein especially has set his country's media the sole task of relaying his regime's propaganda. In Libya (129th) and Tunisia (128th), no criticism of Col Muammar Kadhafi or President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali is tolerated.
The political weakening of the Palestinian Authority (82nd) means it has made few assaults on press freedom. However, Islamic fundamentalist opposition media have been closed, several attempts made to intimidate and attack local and foreign journalists and many subjects remain taboo. The aim is to convey a united image of the Palestinian people and to conceal aspects such a demonstrations of support for attacks on Israel.
The attitude of Israel (92nd) towards press freedom is ambivalent. Despite strong pressure on state-owned TV and radio, the government respects the local media's freedom of expression. However, in the West Bank and Gaza, Reporters Without Borders has recorded a large number of violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which guarantees press freedom and which Israel has signed. Since the start of the Israeli army's incursions into Palestinian towns and cities in March 2002, very many journalists have been roughed up, threatened, arrested, banned from moving around, targeted by gunfire, wounded or injured, had their press cards withdrawn or been deported.
Good and bad examples in Africa
Eritrea (132nd) and Zimbabwe (122nd) are the most repressive countries of sub-Saharan Africa. The entire privately-owned press in Eritrea was banned by the government in September 2001 and 18 journalists are currently imprisoned there. Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe is notable for his especially harsh attitude to the foreign and opposition media.
At the other end of the spectrum, Benin is in 21st place despite being classified by the UN Development Programme as one of the world 15 poorest countries. Other African states, such as South Africa (26th), Mali (43rd), Namibia (31st) and Senegal (47th), have genuine press freedom too.
English/ BBC Version (Score:4, Informative)
It's also at At the BBC BBC [bbc.co.uk]
(Where it's not slashdotted)
Re:how scary is it ... (translation) (Score:4, Informative)
The United States stood at 17 in a world-wide index of the journalist organization "reporter without borders" [press release]. "serious restrictions on the freedom of the press" were registered however on each continent, communicated the [rights organization] on Wednesday in Berlin. Among the 20 countries with the "roughest offences" were European countries former Soviet republics, African, asiatic and Latin American states. Italy was the worst European candidate with a rank 40. Germany fared quite well in the rankings. European Union hopeful Turkey placed 99'th.
Re:I don't understand this.... (Score:2, Informative)
5th place for Canada is bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
At least one local paper in virtually every major city, including Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa, and Halifax, is owned by the CanWest Global [canwestglobal.com]. The same organization owns the National Post [nationalpost.com], one of the two national papers, and Global TV [globaltv.com], one of three national broadcasters. CanWest Global is owned by Izzy Asper, who is an open supporter of the ruling Liberal party and is chummy with the Prime Minister. (In most cities, the only other paper is owned by the Sun group, which publishes tabloid-quality news at best.)
CanWest Global has ordered every member paper to run unsigned national editorial, and not to publish local editorials that contradict the national line. Within the past few months, Russell Mills [tripod.com], the editor of the Ottawa Citizen, was fired by the parent company for publishing an article suggesting that the Prime Minister had been involved in a conflict of interest.
Fifth place, my ass.
Re:Canada is 5th? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think so. In Germany, the intertwined nature of the mainstream press is not transparent. Most of the ties are publicly documented, but they are usually only used (if they are used at all) to quietly control who happens to own a press. Such information is not available in most countries which were surveyed, so it wouldn't be fair to take it into account in the study for countries with a more transparent press.
Re:UK worse than US? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Rumors also have... (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.te
Re:Politics, politics, politics. (Score:5, Informative)
I don't really feel like anyone who hasn't experienced or seen this phenomenon first-hand is going to have a real sense of what a "security line" entails, or how arbitrary they can be. Three weeks ago when I was in Washington DC, I watched about ten journalists get arrested for being on the wrong side of a police line - including Colin Powell's personal photographer. At this event (a political protest that the journalists were covering) the police made well over 500 illegal arrests, and ALL of which that have come to trial so far have been thrown out. I myself was arrested for providing medical care to protestors, while breaking no laws - my charge, and the charge of the reporters, "failure to obey an order to disperse", is one that dozens of arrestees have gotten thrown out on the premise that no such order was ever given - which the Metro PD doesn't deny at trial.
Were journalists intentionally targetted as journalists? Probably not. However, the arbitrary use of arrest as a tool to silence freedom of expression affected their ability to get an article to press - just ask the Washington Post reporter, the UMaryland journalists, or any of the other members of the press who spent the night in jail in the name of a "security line". No wonder the U.S. ranks 17th in this study.
Translation Notes- & Opinion (Score:2, Informative)
The data for the report was provided by a worldwide group of journalists, researchers and legal experts.
1. The reasoning for the relatively poor showing of the United States is attributed to increased control/restriction of information availble to journalists since the 9-11 attacks.
2. Also notable is that Costa Rica placed 15th.
3. Austria, South Africa and Japan are tied in 26th place.
4. Italy ranks 40th.
(my opinion now) My beef with this report is that it does not give us any substantive information as to EXACTLY which criteria were applied to generate the rankings list. I lived overseas for 8.5 years (in europe) and noticed a strong tendancy to portray one's own country as better than the others... Sort of the same behaviour Americans tend to exhibit towards the rest of the world.
Freedom as applied to the press or as applied to individuals is a very subjective thing indeed. It is nearly impossible to objectively quantify things that are largely subjective in nature.
Re:Canada is 5th? (Score:4, Informative)
Adam Smith supposedly said that big business is effectively the same as big government. His 'Free Market' refered to a free market of multiple small businesses.
Re:how scary is it ... (Score:4, Informative)
In germany the freedom of press is regarded almost as valueable as the human rights.
And we dont live in the 1940th anymore, mind you.
Re:Surely Nazi? or dead gladiators? (Score:2, Informative)
No, Hitler nicked the salute from the Romans.
The swastika was stolen from the Indians. To this day, Indians still use swastikas as decoration, as they have done for thousands of years.
There are two types of swastika: a past-facing one and a future-facing one. IIRC, he used the future-facing one. In German, it is called a Hakenkreuz (hooked cross).
But that's enough about the Nazis. For further reading, see 'Hitler' - a 2-part biography (Can't remember who wrote it and can't be bothered rummaging around to find it...).
-Malcolm.
What's behind Germany's dealing with Nazis & C (Score:3, Informative)
The Nazi Thing:
In Germany offering 'Mein Kampf', saying 'Heil Hitler!' wearing Nazi Symbols, denying the Holocaust, calling Auschwitz a lie - aka 'the Auschwitz lie' and discriminating etnic groups or religions can get you a serious legal ass-chewing faster than going topless on a south-eastern US beach (SCNR
As an american pupil, I heard scottish pupils call me "Nazikid" just for the fact that I came to Scottland from Germany. Any german pupil in midgrades or higher would risk being chucked out of school almost instantly donig something like that.
Today germans in general show no sense of humor what so ever when dealing with anything that has even the faintest impression of being fashitoid or Nazi-like. That has even trippled since Mölln and Rostock/Lichtenhagen. And comparing someone with anything like that is the severest of possible insults. You may have noticed that Herta Däubler-Gmelin resigned from her position two days after she had mentioned George Bush and 'Adolf Nazi' in the same sentence.
You say one wrong word, or just even make the impression you where going to say it - and there goes your political career.
The CoS Thing:
Aside from the fact that, in germany, all religious and etnic groups are equaly protected under the german constitution, Scientology has officially been disqualified as a religious group and has the official status of a 'revenue orientated society' and has a set of sidenotes stuck on the fact that it poses a threat to democracy and the german constitution. Especially as total world domination (TM) is an official central goal of the CoS (sic!).
And think what you will about the german 'Federal Bureau for Protection of the Constitution' (Bundesverfassungsschutz), it isn't that they officially anounce they're putting an organization under observation every odd month. Like they did with the CoS. Usually only sympathisants of groups that fly planes into skyscrapers get that sort of attention. That's all one needs to know about the CoS to know enough.
And speaking of religious freedom: German Hare-Krishnas have officially applied for room and curriculum-time for religious classes (which are attended voluntarily of course) in Schools throughout Berlin jurisdiction. It was granted. Do you have that kind of freedom in the U.S.?
So, don't jump to conclusions before you know the whole story.
Bottom Line: If you want to know what trouble feels like, go to Berlin, stand at the 'Brandenburger Tor' wearing a CoS T-Shirt and yell 'Heil Hitler!'
Re:Canada Kicks Ass Again (Score:3, Informative)
No word yet on whether the guide actually said "Our village, numbnuts! Where the f*ck do you think?"
Re:France is not free.... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Europe? (Score:3, Informative)
Either that, or you're illiterate or deliberately ignorant. US media has pundits as diverse as Fareed Zakaria, William Safire, Thomas Friedman, Bill Clinton (who's been known to pen an op-ed column occasionally), the Aryan Nation freaks (who, in the US, _are_ largely allowed to speak ) and the head of B'nai Brith. Or, for that matter, Meir Kahane (before his assassination).
Report from a free country... (Score:2, Informative)
The media companies seem to have virtually no self discipline and no system of chacks and balances. Here, the journalists' and the editors union hav agree upon a set of rules, the "be carful poster". This is an actual poster, found in every media desk with some self-imposed rules that we have to follow. Breaches can be brough in before the review board by anyone for free. The review board consits of thre journalists, three editors and thre members of the public. A critisism from the board is very serious for a jounalist, roughly the same as a kick in the nuts. This makes sure the media is always aware of the moral boundries.
Even more dangerous than the seemingly loos morals in the media desks, is the ownership conflict. It seems that USAian media have a hard time being objective when in comes to their own mother companies. Here we have NRK (www.nrk.no), a goverment own system of TV-stations, radiostations and internet sites. They are so aware of their own doing, that they rank as #1 in giving NRK harsh critisism. Only then can they be legitimate in the eyes of the public.
The constitution in Norway grants the press very, very, very wide liberties. There are a few restrictions such as the penal code 135A that prohibits racial and homophobic threats. But this is considered to be libery ensuring not hindering. Why? Because they right to be something is also an expression, as in homosexuality. Any threats to this is considered counter-active to liberty. The same apply to religion. We also have some arcane laws that protects that King, but not from critisism.
So, it may look like there's a clean up waiting in the US.
Re:Ok.. I'm norwegian (Score:4, Informative)
The Hvit Valgallianse case was very, very special. The Supreme court was split into two camps;
1)Allow the statements because it is a political party and they have the freedom to express their political opinions no matter how disgusting they are. Banning the political program from being printed would be an effective ban on the party.
2)Deny the HV to print the program because it is not only racist, it is directly threating and in breach with the European Human Rights convention.
The party program was banned accoring to Norwegian civil penal code. I agree to this. Simply because it would limit the freedom and safety of a LARGE group, and violate their personal freedom.
Anyhoo, the power os the press here are wide. The goverment is actually obligated to assist the press in inquires and give the press effective tools to conduct investigations. One such tool is the postal journal of every goverment office. All that pass in or out of the office must be registered, and the press can access these journals via the net. Effective goverment control.
Also, we live in a small society. It is clearly more ttransparent than the US, and secrets can't be kept very effectively. Only a few goverment secrets have been sucessfully kept, like the surveilance of left wing radicals in the mid to late last century.
Furthermore, there is very little corruption in Norway. Largely due to the transparency factor. There's always some, but very little in comparison to similar (western countries). This also ensures that the press is more neutral, as they refuse to bribe persons for stories and deny bribes themselves.
The media is very independant from the commercial enteties. Examples have been given in this discussion, of media companies hindering their employees in making critical stories due to the outside pressure. This is totally absent here. A journalist student in Great Brittan (a friend and colleauge of mine) said that they were taught the rule of bribery: One day, the editor would approach you and instruct you to write a flattering article about a company or something similar. The teacher that that you then would have to "bite your teeth together and do it, if you want to keep your job".
This kinda frightened me, because now I can't trust commercial English media again. When I said to him that it would be unheard of to do something like that here, he was kinda surprised but in a positive way.
Disclaimer: IAALSAAWJIALMC (I am a law student and a working journalist in a large media company).
Gaute: Ikke sant at det suger når man ser på ZTV, og så er musikkvideoene sensurert? Aargh! ;)
US freedom of press (Score:5, Informative)
One incident in recent times, There were large protests against Bush's war on terror in San Francisco and New York with 20,000+ protestors each a few weekends ago. There was a 400,000 person protest in england with many many important people speaking thier minds against the war at each of these events. Not one word about this was mentioned in any of the mainstream US media. Tim Robbins (actor) spoke out against the war in the New York protest and he didn't get any coverage. Where as CNN covered Spielberg and Tom Curise who were pro-war.
I it is hilarious when the name of a cat rescued by a firefighter is mentioned on CNN but the name of a person who pulled out three people to safety from a minivan that crashed into the ocean is unmentioned.
Why a a cat rescue is news worthy? Why do events from the rest of the world hardly ever get a mention? It seems as if there is nothing happening in the rest of the world when you live in the US. A major train collison in say China/ India is less newsworthy than a cat stuck in a tree!!!!
I have lived in the middle east in Kuwait and oman. We used to get BBC world and CNN in Oman. It is very blatantly obvious how sensationalized and ridiculous the news is in the US. Even countries that are placed lowest on the list have a news around the world section. I live in the US for the past 6 years.
Most Americans are ignorant about the rest of the world. It is very evident in the colleges of this country where time and again I have been asked stupid and ignorant questions about India and the Middle East by so called educated people.
Additional References to the Curious (Score:3, Informative)
Thank you.
Not that our woefully ignornant, foul mouthed, anonymous cowardly juvinile is likely to bother, but I've included some additional references on the off chance that you, and others who likewise may value reason over corporate rhetoric and dogma, might wish to satisfy their curiosity.
Whether or not the book the person references is real,
Into the Buzzsaw , edited by Kristina Borjesson
ISBN 1-57392-972-7
http://www.prometheusbooks.com [prometheusbooks.com]
whether the research the reporters did was accurate, whether you are right or not, whether growth horomone does anything or it's all just silly panic, and whether a full grown person drinking monsanto pesticides on one occation with no visible immediate effects has anything to do with the long-term health effects on a child of ingesting large quantities over extended periods of time of milk affected by monsato growth horomone.
To be fair, I have no strong opinion on the milk case per se, except that I've seen enough other behavior by Monsanto (including the pre-meditated poisoning of the ground water in a Southern US state that led to human deaths, for which a "smoking gun" memo was found
The reporter in question is Jane Akre, who worked at Fox affiliate WTVT in Tampa, Florida.
The fact that they won their lawsuit against FOX News after being fired for refusing to rewrite their Monsanto milk story is a matter of public court record, though if check Fox News' account you'll find they spun the story as a "Vindication" of Fox News (go figure).
As to whether those children's health concerns were a result of Monsanto modified milk, or whether it was merely a statistical fluke (lighting can strike the same random spot a thousand times in a row, it just isn't very likely. Ditto in this case), is a judgement I'll leave to anyone who bothers to actually research and read up on the case.
Re:Why are all the US people so upset? (Score:5, Informative)
You have a very good point. Here in America ("The Land of the Free [totse.com]") we do have a higher percentage of the population incarcerated [prisonactivist.org] than in any other country in the world.
Don't take the freedoms in your country for granted. We did here in the US, and look what happened to us!
Re:Rumors also have... (Score:5, Informative)
I totally agree with you here, it's important to get a variety of viewpoints, on BOTH or ALL sides of the issue. If you don't like Israel, it's at least important to read Israeli news to get their viewpoint, try here [haaretzdaily.com] for a relatively unbiased Israeli news source.
About 2 years ago (note - before 9/11) I was consistently reading both Western news sources, as well as Israeli and Arab news sources. (Try this [arabicnews.com] for example). But the discrepencies were overwhelming. Comparing to what I consider a mostly unbiased site (BBC), the US and Israeli sources did have biases, but they almost always mentioned the other sides of the issues, and quoted people on the other side (Yes, Israeli papers often quote Palestinians). Recently, I've heard Saudi Arabia being really miffed at aljazeera for interviewing an occasional Israeli every now and then to get the Israeli point of view.
However, I was both disgusted and horrified at the reporting of the Arab news. If you do find relatively unbiased Arab news site, please let me know. The above site, and also www.arabnews.com, would typically only report crimes committed against Arabs or Muslims, and barely mention similar crimes committed by Muslims. Suicide bombings in Israel and attacks of India's Hindus were not mentioned, although corresponding attacks against Muslims by Israelis or Hindus were reported daily. It really made US news look totally unbiased and factual.
I am frankly sick of watching Israel do some very fucked up things "in retaliation" of the bombings. Why don't they just move their people out of occupied territories and quit fucking with Palestine? Seems like that would be a start.
Firstly, I'm a Jew that doesn't think you're an anti-Semite for the views you've expressed.
Secondly, I agree with Israel responding with too much force for bombings, and not following diplomatic paths to peace instead.
However, there are several dozen other countries doing things far worse than Israel (Sudan for instance, 2 million dead in ongoing civil war, slavery of black Christians, etc), but nobody seems to give a shit about these atrocities. Why is Israel singled out by nearly all countries for most of the evil going on in the world? I think it's because it provides an easy scapegoat. The problems within the entire Arab League can be blamed on Israel, even 9/11 is being blamed on Israel because bin laden claimed he was fighting for the oppressed Palestinians, etc. Of course there are far more oppressed peoples within the Arab Leaque itself, but since they're not oppressed by Israel their story doesn't make it out (Iraqi Kurds, Sudanese Christians, etc).
Secondly, you are either too young or have only a short-term memory. Before there was any occupied territories, there was terror, attacks, and outright war launched at the state of Israel. And even before Israel was a country, there was terror and attacks on the Jews living in the land now called Israel/Palestine. I think Israeli's hearts have hardened, after having fallen prey to Russian pogroms, the Holocaust, and centuries of other European anti-semitism. Golda Meir basically summed it up by saying (rougly) "We'd rather have people not be happy with us than be pitied and dead."
I don't agree with Israel's heavy response to terror, and I don't agree with the occupation. But when people claim that the terror would magically stop when Israel pulls out of the territories, they're disillusional. Hint, hamas and hizbollah do not accept any Jewish state in the region, and only refer to Israel as "the zionist entity". Luckily, most Palestinians don't share these views.
Finally, people like to criticise Israel and read off a memorized list of some dozen-odd UN security resolutions against Israel. Firstly, nearly all of these have provisions that the Palestinians too must adhere too, which they aren't. So it's BOTH Israel and Palestine in violation. Secondly, the entire Arab League is unilaterally unified against Israel (it was created strictly in opposition to the creation of Israel, but now it seems to be a valid entity), and have a significant block of power at the UN. To a lesser extent, the OIC (Organization of Islamic Countries) is nearly organized against Israel, and this is a block of about 50 votes in the 200-odd votes at the UN. So when people complain about Israel not following UN resolutions, it's important to keep in mind that a good block of the UN is specifically biased against Israel itself.
Re:Their methods are suspect... (Score:2, Informative)
Israel is currently a democracy in the "all people are equal, but some are more equal than others" way. I mean would USA use army helicopter attacks on DC if it turnes out that the serial sniper is a pro Bin Laden domestic terrorist? I think/hope not. Israel and the Palestinians both need new, fresh leadership with a desire for peace and no personal animosity against each other before things can start working out over there.
Re:Rumors also have... (Score:2, Informative)
Ummmm...Bill Maher, not Bill Moyer.
italy worst in europe? (Score:2, Informative)
so is romania (45th) not considered part of europe anymore?