Middle East Conflict

You should see some of the BBC bashing on the numerous Tory threads on here.

Many liking your posts here are the worst for it ;-)

FWIW, I wasn’t BBC bashing, merely agreeing the Barrister in International law who apparently isn’t that much of an expert now so don’t I feel silly.
I thought the barrister was very good like I said. That doesn’t change the fact that there are contested issues where she has a professional opinion and other lawyers may disagree.

Yes seeing experts replaced with opinions / personalities is a frustration of modern day life. Trump, Johnson, Netanyahu etc.

My comment about the BBC was an observation about the wider thread. In addition, the lawyer shutting down debate as soon as the possibility of civilians being targeted was mentioned was skilful, but it didn’t reassure me.
 
Sorry if already posted... I enjoyed watching this clip today..


So a very brief bit of research on Natasha H. Her dad was Jewish but her mother was not. Both were Zionists. She studied at Oxford and Tel Aviv. And visited Israel every year as a child but lived in Britain. To quote Natasha in the Jewish Chronicle;
"I love being a barrister, but I feel especially blessed to be able to engage in Israel advocacy. It gives me a sense of purpose, it’s energising. When I defend Israel I am not just defending Zionism, the most important part of my Jewishness, I am defending liberal democracy and the truth"

Hardly impartial is it! I suppose the BBC could pull a Barrister out of Tehran to give his equally balanced view on the topic. Also when she spoke about Israel not having to supply water. She said to Hammas which is true. However deliberately cutting of water to a non-combatant civilian population it is.

Natasha is also a diplomat for the World Jewish Congress and she says;

WJC Jewish Diplomat Natasha Hausdorff described how in Western Europe, hatred of Israel is used to minimize the Holocaust."It is crucial to make it clear that there is no difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism and there must be a zero tolerance for this phenomenon."

So by those wise words you can actually be a non Zionist Jew and be an antisemite at the same time.
 
Advocating for the devil probably pays quite highly I'd imag

That's not her specialism. I've read her credentials. Have you?

She's a paid shill for Israel, she has less objectivity than Al Jazeera, who you were happy to make the same point about the other day.

It's obvious she's a shill, anyone arguing differently isn't being tr

1) She isn't an expert. 2) She's employed by Israel.

A masters in international law doesn't make someone an expert. I'm not sure she even has the qualifications to be a junior lecturer.

Maybe go find the the actual experts who work in the ICC or similar levels of courts if you want an actual expert.
As a neutral observer, can you give us all you're qualifications to lecture on the subject.
 
So a very brief bit of research on Natasha H. Her dad was Jewish but her mother was not. Both were Zionists. She studied at Oxford and Tel Aviv. And visited Israel every year as a child but lived in Britain. To quote Natasha in the Jewish Chronicle;
"I love being a barrister, but I feel especially blessed to be able to engage in Israel advocacy. It gives me a sense of purpose, it’s energising. When I defend Israel I am not just defending Zionism, the most important part of my Jewishness, I am defending liberal democracy and the truth"

Hardly impartial is it! I suppose the BBC could pull a Barrister out of Tehran to give his equally balanced view on the topic. Also when she spoke about Israel not having to supply water. She said to Hammas which is true. However deliberately cutting of water to a non-combatant civilian population it is.

Natasha is also a diplomat for the World Jewish Congress and she says;

WJC Jewish Diplomat Natasha Hausdorff described how in Western Europe, hatred of Israel is used to minimize the Holocaust."It is crucial to make it clear that there is no difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism and there must be a zero tolerance for this phenomenon."

So by those wise words you can actually be a non Zionist Jew and be an antisemite at the same time.
So the BBC should be criticised more for using a biased source without balance than anything else?
 
So a very brief bit of research on Natasha H. Her dad was Jewish but her mother was not. Both were Zionists. She studied at Oxford and Tel Aviv. And visited Israel every year as a child but lived in Britain. To quote Natasha in the Jewish Chronicle;
"I love being a barrister, but I feel especially blessed to be able to engage in Israel advocacy. It gives me a sense of purpose, it’s energising. When I defend Israel I am not just defending Zionism, the most important part of my Jewishness, I am defending liberal democracy and the truth"

Hardly impartial is it! I suppose the BBC could pull a Barrister out of Tehran to give his equally balanced view on the topic. Also when she spoke about Israel not having to supply water. She said to Hammas which is true. However deliberately cutting of water to a non-combatant civilian population it is.

Natasha is also a diplomat for the World Jewish Congress and she says;

WJC Jewish Diplomat Natasha Hausdorff described how in Western Europe, hatred of Israel is used to minimize the Holocaust."It is crucial to make it clear that there is no difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism and there must be a zero tolerance for this phenomenon."

So by those wise words you can actually be a non Zionist Jew and be an antisemite at the same time.
not sure if you are suggesting that she is a non Zionist Jew. As she isn’t Jewish unless she has converted the answer would be no.
 
Make no mistake however that what Corbyn and the other 300,000 people marching in our cities yesterday want to see is the destruction of Israel and for ergo the end of the Jewish people. They have always blamed the Jews for the failures of their own movement to wield any sort of power in the West. The anti-Israel movement is merely a front for them to express their anti-semitism in a more socially acceptable way.


I've read some shit on here but that takes the biscuit.
 
So the BBC should be criticised more for using a biased source without balance than anything else?
Any outlet should give experts the opportunity to state their case and if the narrative is closed, challenge the detail, evidence and motives, balancing the debate for both sides of the argument.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.