These have been seen by the world press. This is not Arab lies.
You miss the point. The point is not that you got all these claims are from Arab sources, but that Arabs propaganda had been experts in manipulating the world press. The "Jenin Massacre" was widely reported everywhere as fact, including many non-Arabs papers, but was nevertheless an Arab propaganda lie.
Israel kept the press out of Jenin
Are you suggesting that there
was a "Jenin massacre"? If so, we part ways, since it shows that you're, quite simply, a sucker.
Anyway, "seeing with his own eyes" is not proof one cannot be manipulated. There is a state-run museums in North Korea where you can "see with your own eyes" how the evil imperialist Americans attacked the peace-loving country for no reason, but that hardly makes it the most realiable reports. The point is not whether there is bomb damage--of course there is--but whether it is an attempt to destroy Lebanon or indiscriminate bombming of civilians.
Seeing "with your own eyes" that a bomb was in fact dropped on a building doesn't answer the question of whether or not it was used by Hizbullah, for example.
Let us wait?
Israel is STILL bombing Lebanon.
So you're going to believe anything bad about it "as long as israel is still bombing Lebanon"? Suppose tomorrow the Hizbullah claims israel killed 100,000 Lebanese babies. Would you support that claim as credible, at least tentatively, "as long as israel is still bombing Lebanon"?
I fail to see the relation between the fact that "israel is still bombing Lebanon" and whether or not the claims made about it in the world press are true or credible. As Tolstoy put it in a totally different context, "even in the valley of the shadow of death, two and two do not make six."
Besides, Hizbullah is still bombing israel, but that hardly means you'd believe me if I claimed Nasrallah drank the blood of jewish babies this morning, would it--or that the fact that Hizbullah is "still bombing israel" is in itself any evidence for that claim?
I don't know what they tell you in Israel, but these are not regarded as lies in Britain.
Naturalisch; the "chatteting classes" in Britian are, almost to a man, viciously anti-israeli for various reasons, and likely to believe everything they're told about it.
But whether or not they're "regarded as lies in Britian", they're obvious and crude lies deliberately spread by Palestinian propaganda. It's no evidence for propagana's truth that it was successful.
All the world's press is either anti-semitic or conned or controlled by Arabs?
Anti-semitic--not necessarily, conned by Arabs--closer to the truth; the Arabs are very good at manipulating the press with made-up horror stories, and the press is very good at "if it bleeds, it leads" pictures.
This, however, is more in the realm of my educated guess as to explaining
why newspapers report inaccurately about israel. Even if my guess here is wrong, it doesn't deny the
fact that they do.
Once more, numerous newspapers--
from Ireland to Australia.
--had also reported numerous
other lies about israel, from the "Jenin massacre" to the "murder" of Rachel Corrie, but that hardly makes them true. I fail to see why you consider these reports more credible.
The question is not the
quantity of the reports, but their
quality which is in question. I could just as easily find you articles, "form Ireland to Australia", which claim UFOs abduct people and Sylvia Browne is really psychic.