Middle East Conflict

[inbetween]

It wasn’t a post or opinion by John Simpson it was an article stating BBC policy as facts. If they broke that policy once report it, if you don’t like the policy then thats something for somebody to try and change but the policy is the policy .
The BBC can describe an attack as Manchester a terrorist attack, without describing an organisation as a terrorist organisation.Subtle difference.

And yet the UK government makes that distinction as does most of the rest of the world (and most normal, sane people). I was under the impression that the BBC reported facts but clearly not if their guidelines prevent such a thing from happening.

I can however understand the ambiguity, I mean this is the definition of a terrorist which obviously makes it extremely difficult.

Terrorist - a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Maybe we should call Hamas an organisation of terrorist persons instead? The BBC would have to be okay with that.

 

[Palerider]

In previous conflicts there comes a tipping point where the collective will of world comes down on Israel to halt the chain of violence, the problem for Israel is they quickly lose the sympathy of the world with the massive disproportionate responses, governments start getting a bit tetchy

Hamas needs to be dealt with of course, but by going in over the top it’s just acting as a recruiting Sargent

Some kind of face saving climb down is needed to save both sides from destroying themselves

How could the Israelis possibly trust a Palestine with Hamas as their leaders? Who do Israel and indeed the world negotiate with on the Palestinian side?

 

[Ducado]

How could the Israelis possibly trust a Palestine with Hamas as their leaders? Who do Israel and indeed the world negotiate with on the Palestinian side?

“Anyone who wants to foil the establishment of a Palestinian state needs to support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of funds to Hamas.” (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a Likud faction meeting in March 2019, as quoted in Haaretz)

 

[trueblue1972]

“Anyone who wants to foil the establishment of a Palestinian state needs to support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of funds to Hamas.” (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a Likud faction meeting in March 2019, as quoted in Haaretz)

I can guarantee those won't be his words now

 

[Palerider]

“Anyone who wants to foil the establishment of a Palestinian state needs to support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of funds to Hamas.” (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a Likud faction meeting in March 2019, as quoted in Haaretz)

Irrelevant after last Saturday's massacre. Things have changed. Chamberlain waved a peace message from Hitler assuring the peace. Events change opinions.

 

[inbetween]

“Anyone who wants to foil the establishment of a Palestinian state needs to support the strengthening of Hamas and the transfer of funds to Hamas.” (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at a Likud faction meeting in March 2019, as quoted in Haaretz)

And yet here we are, Israel are eliminating Hamas?

 

[Ducado]

Irrelevant after last Saturday's massacre. Things have changed. Chamberlain waved a peace message from Hitler assuring the peace. Events change opinions.

Well as the Americans found out monsters have a habit of turning on their creators, it’s a mess of a situation, that’s not going to solved by more killing I can guarantee that

The route problem needs to be sorted out first, a strong democratic and reasonably prosperous Palestinian state could deal with its Islamists, in the way normal states do

 

[mexico1970]

"Judean Peoples Front..."

It's the People's Front of Judea!

Get a room you big nosed buggers.

 

[mexico1970]

And yet the UK government makes that distinction as does most of the rest of the world (and most normal, sane people). I was under the impression that the BBC reported facts but clearly not if their guidelines prevent such a thing from happening.

I can however understand the ambiguity, I mean this is the definition of a terrorist which obviously makes it extremely difficult.

Terrorist - a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Maybe we should call Hamas an organisation of terrorist persons instead? The BBC would have to be okay with that.

I'd hate to believe that some broadcasters in this country don't consider Hamas a terrorist organisation, even worse that a small section might even support them.

 

[inbetween]

Well as the Americans found out monsters have a habit of turning on their creators, it’s a mess of a situation, that’s not going to solved by more killing I can guarantee that

The route problem needs to be sorted out first, a strong democratic and reasonably prosperous Palestinian state could deal with its Islamists, in the way normal states do

Israel are currently fighting attacks on 3 fronts, if they don't respond then what do you want them to do? Relinquish their country? This is what Hamas wanted. It has resulted in an uprising and energisation of people against Israel.

It has also energised the Israeli people against Hamas and obviously they will want Israel to defend itself.

I really do worry that this will turn ugly. The forces against Israel cannot fight Israel alone and that could result in a larger scale conflict because otherwise it will only go one way, it's why the Americans are moving military assets into the region.

Let's also not forget that Israel is a nuclear armed country.

 

[blueparrot]

And yet the UK government makes that distinction as does most of the rest of the world (and most normal, sane people). I was under the impression that the BBC reported facts but clearly not if their guidelines prevent such a thing from happening.

I can however understand the ambiguity, I mean this is the definition of a terrorist which obviously makes it extremely difficult.

Terrorist - a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Maybe we should call Hamas an organisation of terrorist persons instead? The BBC would have to be okay with that.

The government, and you and I are and can be political and make decisions on who we say are and aren’t terrorists. Was Mandela a terrorist? were Adams and McGuiness? I’d say no and yes others would disagree that’s fine. If somebody plants a bomb at a Russian munitions factory a terrorist?
The BBC can’t do that and don’t need to.
They can tell us who the government or other governments call terrorist organisations which they do, they can describe attacks as terrorist attacks which they do. What they can’t do is decide who is a terrorist and who isn’t, this has never been the case and never bothered anyone before this week why does it suddenly bother anyone this week ?

 

[Palerider]

Well as the Americans found out monsters have a habit of turning on their creators, it’s a mess of a situation, that’s not going to solved by more killing I can guarantee that

The route problem needs to be sorted out first, a strong democratic and reasonably prosperous Palestinian state could deal with its Islamists, in the way normal states do

I think I can agree with that!

 

[flook]

The route problem needs to be sorted out first, a strong democratic and reasonably prosperous Palestinian state could deal with its Islamists, in the way normal states do

Not whilst Hamas are the power in Palestine. Long term however it is, and has been for decades, the only possible solution to the problem. It's never even been close however, and is farther away now then any other time in recent history

 

[inbetween]

The government, and you and I are and can be political and make decisions on who we say are and aren’t terrorists. Was Mandela a terrorist? were Adams and McGuiness? I’d say no and yes others would disagree that’s fine. If somebody plants a bomb at a Russian munitions factory a terrorist?
The BBC can’t do that and don’t need to.
They can tell us who the government or other governments call terrorist organisations which they do, they can describe attacks as terrorist attacks which they do. What they can’t do is decide who is a terrorist and who isn’t, this has never been the case and never bothered anyone before this week why does it suddenly bother anyone this week ?

I'm sorry mate but I'm struggling because I don't think it's difficult. This isn't political, there is no such thing as impartiality when dealing with facts and I thought that was the BBC's mission but clearly not.

What Hamas did last weekend fully meets the criteria to call them terrorists.

I don't care about the political spectrum or cause because it isn't relevant. If the guidelines prevent this fact then they're not fit for purpose. They set out to murder innocent people for a political cause, they ARE terrorists. If you disagree then feel free to explain but good luck.

 

[domalino]

You don't comprehend too well do you. Seem, you just want an echo chamber !

Hamas actively recruits through children's TV.

The UNRWA teach the hatred in the school's.

The video you posted may not even be real, but that is of no interest to you when it's an opportunity to have a go at Israel is it ?

It is real.

So I guess that blows your only defence of it out of the window?

Again all you can say is “yeah but we’re just doing what Hamas does” as if that’s OK.

 

[blueparrot]

I'm sorry mate but I'm struggling because I don't think it's difficult. This isn't political, there is no such thing as impartiality when dealing with facts and I thought that was the BBC's mission but clearly not.

What Hamas did last weekend fully meets the criteria to call them terrorists.

I don't care about the political spectrum or cause because it isn't relevant. If the guidelines prevent this fact then they're not fit for purpose. They set out to murder innocent people for a political cause, they ARE terrorists. If you disagree then feel free to explain but good luck.

You don’t seem to understand, whether I ,you or anyone else disagree has not the slightest relevance to this,chances are you me most of us agree, but it still a matter of opinion and we can all have different opinions even if 90% or even 99% of us agree.
The BBC are not allowed an opinion, it’s worked for the last 100 years why should it change now. Apparently many international news organisations try and follow the same policy. You say it isn’t fit for purpose, what purpose reporting the facts or pushing an opinion?We have the printed media and independent news channels doing that,that is more than enough opinions as far as I’m concerned.
Many said the ANC were a terrorist group, should the BBC have described them as such ?

 

[The blue phantom]

Israel getting praised for turning the Water on in Southern Gaza. That's nice of them.

 

[kaz7]

Israel getting praised for turning the Water on in Southern Gaza. That's nice of them.

Shocking isnt it , what they have done so far is a blant war crime , turning off the water, stopping meds getting in and turning off the elec is against the innocent people , as is ordering the hosp to close down . They are embarrassed about their world class intelligence agency fucked up

 

[goalmole]

Kaufman was as close to a Jewish anti-semite as you can get. I've got no issue with his sympathetic views on the Palestinians or his extremely unsympathetic views of the Israeli government. He's not alone in those, even in the Jewish community.

But it it wasn't those views that rendered him antisemitic. He made some specifically anti-Jewish comments, including against his fellow Labour MP Louise Ellman, for which he had to apologise, plus he denounced 'Jewish money' flowing into the Conservative party. Even Corbyn was shocked and said that was completely unacceptable (and you can only imagine the reaction if those words had come out of Corbyn's mouth).

Kaufman deep concern for Palestinians didn't extend to Iraqis though, as he supported the Iraq invasion in the Commons.

Why is a Jewish person, who criticises Israel immediately branded an antisemite yet the Israeli government and military can't be called Nazis even when their actions are fascist?
Anyway, here's another moderate Jew for you to label.

 

[inbetween]

You don’t seem to understand, whether I ,you or anyone else disagree has not the slightest relevance to this,chances are you me most of us agree, but it still a matter of opinion and we can all have different opinions even if 90% or even 99% of us agree.
The BBC are not allowed an opinion, it’s worked for the last 100 years why should it change now. Apparently many international news organisations try and follow the same policy. You say it isn’t fit for purpose, what purpose reporting the facts or pushing an opinion?We have the printed media and independent news channels doing that,that is more than enough opinions as far as I’m concerned.
Many said the ANC were a terrorist group, should the BBC have described them as such ?

It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree, why is opinion relevant? The BBC indeed cannot offer opinion however it doesn't matter because opinion is irrelevant to events.

Hamas murdered over 1000 innocent people in the name of a political cause, it happened, it meets the definition of a terrorist so how are they not terrorists?

Why can this not be reported as fact when it is a fact? Anything else I'm sorry is utterly moronic. The only defence of this is to enable the people who disagree that they're terrorists, IE the people who support Hamas terrorism.