Middle East Conflict

[Palerider]

Every single time you post it’s basically to tell everyone that Israel is just doing what Hamas does, as if copying the actions of Islamic terrorists that murder innocents and are despised around the world is the standard Israel should be keeping to.

Are Hamas despised around the world? There seemed to be a lot of chanting in the UK demonstration yesterday of 'from the river to sea, Palestine must be free'. And that's in the UK. Surely if you celebrated the massacre of innocent Jews then you must support Hamas.

 

[cucumberman]

It’s another symptom of the timeline going back probably to the Arab Revolt of 1936 against the British who were allowing increasing immigration of Jews from countries they were being kicked out from who were being attacked and killed when coming into Mandatory Palestine.

Since then it’s been a never ending to-and-fro of attacks, defences, plots, growth in extremism and nationalism that never gets better.

I don’t think either side have ever done things right at many points along the way. Nor have the outside influences.

And it’s not just one way. You have posted three videos there of Israel firing on Palestinians (abhorrent actions, indeed, there should be far more condemnation of Israel from its allies and more consequences put on them by the UN/their allies), yet you have failed to acknowledge anything coming the other way which is often what happens on this subject.

In March 2013 alone, there were 13,796 rockets and mortars fired from Gaza into Israel; in 11 days in May 2019 4,000 missiles were launched from Gaza into Israel. And this goes on all the time, and has going back to the Ben Yehuda Street Bombing in 1948. I think there has been less than one week of combined days this century that there hasn’t been a rocket hit Israel from Gaza.

And there are often things like this happening:

Memorial services held for murdered Israeli teenagers

Hundreds of mourners participate in separate services in three youths' home towns before joint funeral in Modiin

www.theguardian.com

It’s both sides, they’re both at it, they’re both to blame.

Israel are the ones who then go-in harder than they were hit and that’s what people seem to pay most attention to.

One thing that should be given more attention, also, is how Israeli Police arrest and torture Palestinian teenagers. Then there have been instances as using them as human shields when returning them, in operations to kill Jihadists. They seem to arrest innocent youngsters to enact their aims to take out people of concern.

Defense for Children: Israeli forces used 16-yr-old Palestinian girl as human shield in raid on Jenin

Israeli forces used Palestinian girl to shield themselves from incoming bullets, report says.

www.presstv.ir

Not politically I mean, because politics go back thousands of years.

I mean humanistically. Check the first video in that list for example. The second girl:

A young girl pulled and forced to the ground, followed by a rabbit punch to the back of that young girl’s head.

I’m only in amateur MMA in the early 2000s, but I still remember my training that In MMA, and in other contact sports, a rabbit punch is an instant disqualification. Because it can cause morbidity.

So I was wondering if a police officer, now having the power to ground from behind, are allowed to punch.

 

[inbetween]

These are OFCOM rules so if you have an issue with it write to your MP.

I doubt it, maybe you're confusing BBC editorial guidelines?

OFCOM rules apply to everyone so are Sky News and other news companies breaking OFCOM rules?

 

[Vic]

What is the definition of terrorist? Someone who causes terror?

Some use a definition that terrorism can only be by "subnational" groups (so states can't be terrorist) so blitzkrieg, shock and awe, obliterating cities isn't terrorism. A state can be frightfully oppressive and its population terrified by the state's power but if someone bombs a state facility (even with no risk to life so no-one to terrify) the state would label it terrorism.

The Wikipedia article on terrorism has umpteen examples of the problem (of definition) but the main difficulty is of labelling atrocities as terrorism because done by non-state actors but similar atrocities by a state are not so labelled.

Or (e.g.) the USA funds the Mujahaddin v the USSR in Afghanistan then they morph into Al Queda and the Taliban and do the same things against the USA and are now terrorists.

"Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism. For this and for political reasons, many news sources (such as Reuters) avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like 'bombers', 'militants', etc"

Frankly, I hadn't even noticed that the BBC were not using the term terrorist (though fairly sure they said the UK government described Hamas as a terrorist group) - not until people who don't like the BBC anyway made it an issue.

In the grand scheme of this horror show, it's a distraction - so it was touch and go whether even to post this.

 

[Bluemoon_420]

 

[lust overlord]

Would it be too much for the Israeli hostages to be freed? Or would that have no impact on the current situation?

Hamas have the power here to stop this, yet they are seemingly bent on hell happening to their own people.

We can hope they are freed.
Think it's gone too far to have any impact though.
The leaders of Hamas are scum,blinded by hate so won't do the right thing.

 

[blueparrot]

I'm sorry but I read 3 lines of that post by John Simpson and it's just utterly moronic and actually bizarre.

"Terrorism is a loaded word, which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally. It's simply not the BBC's job to tell people who to support and who to condemn - who are the good guys and who are the bad guys."

This is not true because you cannot approve of terrorists. In the eyes of the law Hamas is a proscribed terrorist organisation, it would be completely factually correct for the UK state broadcaster to refer to them as such. What Hamas did last week was a terrorist attack by terrorists, there is no room for opinion because it's fact.

If the BBC lends an open opinion that Hamas are either good or bad then that is potentially unlawful because in UK law it is illegal to hold any view that agrees with or supports Hamas. There are therefore no 'good guys' when solely talking about Hamas.

Why did the BBC call the Manchester Arena bombing a terrorist attack?

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.

 

[MouldensChippy]

Every single time you post it’s basically to tell everyone that Israel is just doing what Hamas does, as if copying the actions of Islamic terrorists that murder innocents and are despised around the world is the standard Israel should be keeping to.

You got that a bit arse about face didn't you. I responded to someone saying that the Israelis were a disgrace for sponsoring a message about loving children. Whilst the Palestinian state broadcasts hate messages to recruit through children's TV programming.

Add to that, they are being taught the same hate through the (supposedly) UN school system !

 

[mackenzie]

We can hope they are freed.
Think it's gone too far to have any impact though.
The leaders of Hamas are scum,blinded by hate so won't do the right thing.

It's just that you can see the devastation on both sides. A man in Gaza, having lost all his family, refusing to say goodbye to his 9 months old son whose dead body lies in a shroud against him.
And also the Israeli whose wife and two little daughters have been snatched by Hamas.
It's horrendous, but we all know that.

These two men are just two individuals whose lives have already been ripped apart.

I've no idea how I'd carry on after that

 

[Palerider]

What is the definition of terrorist? Someone who causes terror?

Some use a definition that terrorism can only be by "subnational" groups (so states can't be terrorist) so blitzkrieg, shock and awe, obliterating cities isn't terrorism. A state can be frightfully oppressive and its population terrified by the state's power but if someone bombs a state facility (even with no risk to life so no-one to terrify) the state would label it terrorism.

The Wikipedia article on terrorism has umpteen examples of the problem (of definition) but the main difficulty is of labelling atrocities as terrorism because done by non-state actors but similar atrocities by a state are not so labelled.

Or (e.g.) the USA funds the Mujahaddin v the USSR in Afghanistan then they morph into Al Queda and the Taliban and do the same things against the USA and are now terrorists.

"Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization 'terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism. For this and for political reasons, many news sources (such as Reuters) avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like 'bombers', 'militants', etc"

Frankly, I hadn't even noticed that the BBC were not using the term terrorist (though fairly sure they said the UK government described Hamas as a terrorist group) - not until people who don't like the BBC anyway made it an issue.

In the grand scheme of this horror show, it's a distraction - so it was touch and go whether even to post this.

I think what you say is very fair. If you believe in a cause then it seems anything can be justified, even massacre, in your own head. I've read much of this thread and the massacre of Israeli innocents is just brushed over because the contributor ultimately believes in the Palestinian cause more than the Israeli cause. I like reading history and one of the amazing facts after the fall of the Nazis is that all those innocent Germans didn't know about the holocaust, none of them! Hitler's best mate, Albert Speer actually made millions from his tales of 'not knowing a thing about the holocaust' after he escaped the noose at the Nuremborg trials. For me, the Jews seem to be hated by the far left, the far right and the self proclaimed intellegentsia progressives which as far as i can see is a pretty unique achievement. They have every right to be paranoid with that lot all gunning for them.