4 ms·

Al-Jazeera releases 1,600 internal documents of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations

35 points by davidchua 16y ago

jcr 16y ago
Exposing corruption is a very difficult and important task, but one can still hope there is no bloodshed caused by it.
wybo 16y ago
Speaking of a can of worms :) (and yes, transparency is a good thing in general, as long as no severe overriding concerns are present)
samuel1604 16y ago
I wonder if this is going to be biased or completely neutral like the way it should be.
- moxiemk1 16y ago
  In my experience, Al-Jazeera is remarkably neutral compared to most US news sources. They do tend to adopt a pro-Palestinian stance, but they're very professional about it.
  - xenophanes 16y ago
    In my experience, the opposite. THe reason you "experience" it that way is that you are interpreting according to your political biases. People who have different political views than you read the same article and find in it a lack of neutrality. You think it's neutral b/c you agree with it, not b/c it is actually neutral. I don't want to argue about who is right, I just want to point out you should be more careful not to make statements basically along the lines of mistaking your biases for neutrality. You call it experience but it is actually your political judgment.
    - moxiemk1 16y ago
      This is true if that's how you frame journalistic neutrality; the important thing to realize then is that there's no way to discuss the neutrality of a news source at all meaningfully. Perhaps a different term would be better, but when I say I think they're more neutral, it's because they use fewer "weasel words"/phrases, very clearly delineate between their core factual stories and their opinion/analysis pieces, and feature fewer sensationalist pieces without significant hard-fact backing. Again, what you say is reasonable, but doesn't apply in the context I was replying to the parent's statement in.
    - semanticist 16y ago
      The best way to tell if a news source really is neutral is if both sides accuse it of being biased against them. I've seen accusations from both sides of the conflict in Israel accuse the BBC of bias, for example, so I feel happy to trust their reporting.
      - MichaelSalib 16y ago
        That doesn't work in general; it might help some in cases where there are really only two sides that matter and that they're both equally well represented, but even then it would be iffy. I find this fetishization of neutrality to be bizarre: true neutrality is indistinguishable from ignorance. Why would anyone yearn to be ignorant? Is there not enough ignorance in the world?
        semanticist 16y ago
        I don't think that an impartial presentation of the facts by a news organisation can reasonably be equated to 'ignorance'. You, me, and my mother's cat can and should have opinions and biases, but I'd like my news organisations to at least make a serious and sincere attempt to avoid them in their reporting.
        MichaelSalib 16y ago
        So, news agencies should report "is the earth flat? opinions differ" and quote both flat earthers as well as round earthers in the most evenhanded way possible? I am reminded of a historian who studied the Holocaust and was mortified to discover that when she went on TV to discuss her latest book, she was paired up with an opposing viewpoint Holocaust denier. The TV network was nice and "neutral", they made a very sincere attempt to keep "bias" out of their reporting...and the result was moral bankruptcy. You seem to have switched from discussing neutrality to impartiality and to me those are very different concepts. I expect a judge to be impartial but not to be neutral: a neutral judge could never make a judgment. The whole point of analyzing evidence is to become non-neutral, to make a determination of the state of the world.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- Samuel_Michon 16y ago
  The subtitle of AlJazeera's current feature story: "PA offered to concede almost all of East Jerusalem, an historic concession for which Israel offered nothing in return." East Jerusalem is not for the Palestinian Authority to give away, it was never their property [1]. This shows AlJazeera's bias in the matter. Also, when Tzipi Livni is quoted in the article, the reporter follows it with "That is the Israeli framing." -- quotes from PA spokesmen aren't followed by such comments. [1] East Jerusalem used to be part of the British Mandate, until 1948, when the UN proposed it would become a Corpus Separatum, administered by them. The Arab League turned down the offer, Jordan invaded it instead. In 1967, Israel took control of the area. At no point in time has East Jerusalem been under rule of the Palestinian Authority.
viggity 16y ago
Seriously, what the fuck is this doing on hacker news? I know the guidelines say not to comment that you flagged a story, but you need to realize that this has NOTHING to do with anything science, tech and startup. Someone who has been on HN for almost 500 days should know better. Leave this shit off of here.
- mcantelon 16y ago
  WikiLeaks, like the Pirate Party, is an organization in which the ideas of hackers are applied to politics. So there is a connection and related news is of interest to some hackers. EDIT: I'd previously misread that Wikileaks was the source of the leak, but that's incorrect.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    Was Wikieaks involved here?
    - mcantelon 16y ago
      Actually, I'm incorrect... I'd misread that Wikileaks was the source, but they actually aren't.
- Qz 16y ago
  Considering the is part of an ongoing phenomenon of releasing government documents on the internet, with many implications for the future of the internet and society as a whole, I think it fits on hacker news perfectly. As a side note, your profanity is unnecessary and only detracts from your point.
hieronymusN 16y ago
Basic question: where are the documents themselves? I see lots of 'analysis' and commentary, and some links to 'key documents' but where is the directory of 1,600 PDFs that this site alludes to? I'd like to make up my own mind.
- Samuel_Michon 16y ago
  Good question. As it turns out there are really only 16 PDF documents. Combined, there may be 1,600 pages in total, but to speak of 1,600 documents seems kind of misleading to me, especially since most of the PDFs are maps and peace talk minutes. http://www.ajtransparency.com/en/ http://www.ajtransparency.com/en/
  - forza 16y ago
    As it says that "Al Jazeera will release the documents between January 23-26th, 2011."[1] all of the documents probably haven't been released yet. [1] http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/201112214310263628.html http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122...
    - Samuel_Michon 16y ago
      Ah thanks, I missed that part. And from the same page: "There are nearly 1,700 files, thousands of pages of diplomatic correspondence detailing the inner workings of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process." That suggests we'll end up with more than 1,600 files, not just a few files totaling 1,600 pages.
yread 16y ago
What the documents really show is what sort of concessions from PA the Israeli state rejected. They offered to accept almost all settlements (unthinkable!) and they still said no, because they didn't accept all of them

35 points by davidchua 16y ago

jcr 16y ago

Exposing corruption is a very difficult and important task, but one can still hope there is no bloodshed caused by it.

wybo 16y ago

Speaking of a can of worms :) (and yes, transparency is a good thing in general, as long as no severe overriding concerns are present)

samuel1604 16y ago

I wonder if this is going to be biased or completely neutral like the way it should be.

moxiemk1 16y ago
In my experience, Al-Jazeera is remarkably neutral compared to most US news sources. They do tend to adopt a pro-Palestinian stance, but they're very professional about it.
- xenophanes 16y ago
  In my experience, the opposite. THe reason you "experience" it that way is that you are interpreting according to your political biases. People who have different political views than you read the same article and find in it a lack of neutrality. You think it's neutral b/c you agree with it, not b/c it is actually neutral. I don't want to argue about who is right, I just want to point out you should be more careful not to make statements basically along the lines of mistaking your biases for neutrality. You call it experience but it is actually your political judgment.
  - moxiemk1 16y ago
    This is true if that's how you frame journalistic neutrality; the important thing to realize then is that there's no way to discuss the neutrality of a news source at all meaningfully. Perhaps a different term would be better, but when I say I think they're more neutral, it's because they use fewer "weasel words"/phrases, very clearly delineate between their core factual stories and their opinion/analysis pieces, and feature fewer sensationalist pieces without significant hard-fact backing. Again, what you say is reasonable, but doesn't apply in the context I was replying to the parent's statement in.
  - semanticist 16y ago
    The best way to tell if a news source really is neutral is if both sides accuse it of being biased against them. I've seen accusations from both sides of the conflict in Israel accuse the BBC of bias, for example, so I feel happy to trust their reporting.
    - MichaelSalib 16y ago
      That doesn't work in general; it might help some in cases where there are really only two sides that matter and that they're both equally well represented, but even then it would be iffy. I find this fetishization of neutrality to be bizarre: true neutrality is indistinguishable from ignorance. Why would anyone yearn to be ignorant? Is there not enough ignorance in the world?
      - semanticist 16y ago
        I don't think that an impartial presentation of the facts by a news organisation can reasonably be equated to 'ignorance'. You, me, and my mother's cat can and should have opinions and biases, but I'd like my news organisations to at least make a serious and sincere attempt to avoid them in their reporting.
        MichaelSalib 16y ago
        So, news agencies should report "is the earth flat? opinions differ" and quote both flat earthers as well as round earthers in the most evenhanded way possible? I am reminded of a historian who studied the Holocaust and was mortified to discover that when she went on TV to discuss her latest book, she was paired up with an opposing viewpoint Holocaust denier. The TV network was nice and "neutral", they made a very sincere attempt to keep "bias" out of their reporting...and the result was moral bankruptcy. You seem to have switched from discussing neutrality to impartiality and to me those are very different concepts. I expect a judge to be impartial but not to be neutral: a neutral judge could never make a judgment. The whole point of analyzing evidence is to become non-neutral, to make a determination of the state of the world.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
Samuel_Michon 16y ago
The subtitle of AlJazeera's current feature story: "PA offered to concede almost all of East Jerusalem, an historic concession for which Israel offered nothing in return." East Jerusalem is not for the Palestinian Authority to give away, it was never their property [1]. This shows AlJazeera's bias in the matter. Also, when Tzipi Livni is quoted in the article, the reporter follows it with "That is the Israeli framing." -- quotes from PA spokesmen aren't followed by such comments. [1] East Jerusalem used to be part of the British Mandate, until 1948, when the UN proposed it would become a Corpus Separatum, administered by them. The Arab League turned down the offer, Jordan invaded it instead. In 1967, Israel took control of the area. At no point in time has East Jerusalem been under rule of the Palestinian Authority.

viggity 16y ago

Seriously, what the fuck is this doing on hacker news? I know the guidelines say not to comment that you flagged a story, but you need to realize that this has NOTHING to do with anything science, tech and startup. Someone who has been on HN for almost 500 days should know better. Leave this shit off of here.

mcantelon 16y ago
WikiLeaks, like the Pirate Party, is an organization in which the ideas of hackers are applied to politics. So there is a connection and related news is of interest to some hackers. EDIT: I'd previously misread that Wikileaks was the source of the leak, but that's incorrect.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Was Wikieaks involved here?
  - mcantelon 16y ago
    Actually, I'm incorrect... I'd misread that Wikileaks was the source, but they actually aren't.
Qz 16y ago
Considering the is part of an ongoing phenomenon of releasing government documents on the internet, with many implications for the future of the internet and society as a whole, I think it fits on hacker news perfectly. As a side note, your profanity is unnecessary and only detracts from your point.

hieronymusN 16y ago

Basic question: where are the documents themselves? I see lots of 'analysis' and commentary, and some links to 'key documents' but where is the directory of 1,600 PDFs that this site alludes to? I'd like to make up my own mind.

Samuel_Michon 16y ago
Good question. As it turns out there are really only 16 PDF documents. Combined, there may be 1,600 pages in total, but to speak of 1,600 documents seems kind of misleading to me, especially since most of the PDFs are maps and peace talk minutes. http://www.ajtransparency.com/en/ http://www.ajtransparency.com/en/
- forza 16y ago
  As it says that "Al Jazeera will release the documents between January 23-26th, 2011."[1] all of the documents probably haven't been released yet. [1] http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/201112214310263628.html http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/2011122...
  - Samuel_Michon 16y ago
    Ah thanks, I missed that part. And from the same page: "There are nearly 1,700 files, thousands of pages of diplomatic correspondence detailing the inner workings of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process." That suggests we'll end up with more than 1,600 files, not just a few files totaling 1,600 pages.

yread 16y ago

What the documents really show is what sort of concessions from PA the Israeli state rejected. They offered to accept almost all settlements (unthinkable!) and they still said no, because they didn't accept all of them