Off-limits
| 12:35 UK time, Friday, 14 November 2008
There are few places in the world where the BBC is not welcome. While, officially, we're still banned in Zimbabwe, a number of brave colleagues have spent the past year working there undercover to report that country's political and economic turmoil. In the spring, we were prevented from reporting in both Tibet and Burma, with BBC reporters hunted down by the authorities. Today, there is a new place that is off-limits - Gaza.
At the best of times, reporting from that narrow strip of land is challenging - and these are not the best of times. Since my colleague Alan Johnston was kidnapped in Gaza in March 2007 (he was released after 114 days) his replacement, Aleem Maqbool, has been based in Ramallah. But for the past 18 months be has made regular trips to Gaza. Not this week. For the past six days, the BBC and other media organisations have been turned back by the Israeli authorities at the Erez crossing. We're in good company. The heads of a number of EU diplomatic missions have also been refused entry. No explanation has been given, despite repeated requests.
The security situation in the area is serious. Since 4 November, the Israeli authorities say more than 60 Kassam rockets and 20 mortar bombs have been fired from Gaza at Israel. Earlier this week, four members of the Palestinian militant group, Hamas, were killed in clashes with Israeli troops - the Israelis say the Palestinians were seen trying to plant explosives. But in order to tell the story for our audiences in the UK and around the world, the BBC needs access to Gaza.
In the past, the Israeli government has accused the media of being manipulated by Hamas - on one occasion, claiming that images of children holding candles were actually taken in broad daylight, in a room darkened by drawn curtains.
The best way we can report the facts - whether in Gaza, or elsewhere - is first hand, using our own BBC reporters. In order to do so, the Israeli government needs to facilitate access to Gaza. I hope they will soon do so.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
So the Israelis have turned you away, given the balance shown over the decades in the BBC’s previous reports I'm not really surprised.
Release the Balen Report.
Complain about this comment
Oh yeah, I'm sure that if you say you're "from the BBC and demand entry" (in typical British fashion), they'll just open up and let you in.
No explanation has been given you say, yet you also write that "Since 4 November, the Israeli authorities say more than 60 Kassam rockets and 20 mortar bombs have been fired from Gaza at Israel"
Don't suppose it has anything to do with that do you?
1 + 1 is what again?
Complain about this comment
Jon:
It is sad that the BBC is not able to go to certain places in the world...
But, safety is the first concern...
Complain about this comment
Don't you understand?
You are to see and speak no evil of Israel!
Otherwise you will be defamed and denied entry, along with the UN and other honest observers.
Complain about this comment
Keeping the reporters away from war crimes (collective punishment, in this case - refusing to allow aid convoys in to aid a starving population) is understandable, I suppose - what I fail to understand is the international community's failure to condemn these crimes while whining on about a democratically elected Hamas being 'terrorists'.
60 years ago, the terrorists were from Irgun and the Stern gang - now their descendants perpetrate war crimes with impunity.
Complain about this comment
Given how the BBC consistently has demonstrated that it will twist anything in the conflict to portray Israel in a bad light, and always try to justify the likes of Hamas, why on earth do you expect them to co-operate with you?
Get it through your heads that being objective does not mean abandoning basic morals, and Hamas is an affront to every facet of western culture, even of BBC wishy-washy liberal cultural (except, of course, it is an enemey of Israel and the USA, which of course is all you need to be viewed as a positive in the BBCs book).
The day BBC starts reporting truthfully, honestly, and in a fashion consistent with the principles you supposedly hold dear will be the day that hell freezes over, pigs fly, the lions sit down with the lambs, and the dead walk.
Complain about this comment
I would love to hear why the Hamas regime have started the rocket attacks - illegally targeted on civilians - yet again.
Why dont you hold them to account by phoning up and asking them?
Probable strategy: rockets at Israeli civilians > Israeli response > hamas call in their media supporters to denounce Israel
Why should Israel assist you in taking part in the Hamas war plan?
I think the Israelis are being very restrained by doing things like closing borders, cutting off fuel oil, preventing Hamas sympathisers (EU,UN,BBC) from coming and going etc as a response to lethal violence. Most countries would just see the rockets as an act of war and react accordingly.
As #1 above asks - when are you going to release the Balen report?
Complain about this comment
-Given how the BBC consistently has demonstrated that it will twist anything in the conflict to portray Israel in a bad light, and always try to justify the likes of Hamas, why on earth do you expect them to co-operate with you?-
Translation: (Israel) You don't agree with everything the Israeli government put out on press releases therefore you must be a Hamas terrorist. (US) 'If you ain't with us you are against us'.
-Get it through your heads that being objective does not mean abandoning basic morals-
Translation: Before reporting make sure your report fits with Israeli propoganda
-and Hamas is an affront to every facet of western culture, even of BBC wishy-washy liberal cultural-
Translation: People in Palestine voted for Hamas, which we don't like therefore we won't regard it as a democratic vote.
-(except, of course, it is an enemey of Israel and the USA, which of course is all you need to be viewed as a positive in the BBCs book).-
Translation: Anyone who disagrees with AIPAC is obviously Al Qaeda.
-The day BBC starts reporting truthfully, honestly, and in a fashion consistent with the principles you supposedly hold dear will be the day that hell freezes over, pigs fly, the lions sit down with the lambs, and the dead walk.-
Translation: We hate the fact that the BBC among many other news organisations insist on seeing and reporting both sides.
Translating for Israel really isn't that hard.
Complain about this comment
corrupt and undemocratic countries with things to hide will always turn away the media.
sadly the BBC has failed to remain neutral in many areas of reporting over the years and people will always react negitivly to biased reporting.
Complain about this comment
Sickofisrael 4.40pm
At least your post is a good deal more objective than many. All too often posts on this subject are full of aggressive comments like Jew Hater and Jew Basher - meant to intimidate the writers of any critical post about Israel.
If the BBC were so anti-Israel (code words for anti-
Jewish in current speak) it would reflect in the make up of their personnel.
From what I can see it might be more appropriate to call it the Israeli Broadcasting Company when it comes to who gets the starring roles in anything.
Complain about this comment
Just had a quick look at the mid east page on here. Headlines at top of page:
Blockaded Gaza faces disaster
Gaza shut to fuel and journalists
Guide: Gaza under blockade
Tried looking but can't find any like....
Hamas illegally target civilians
Israeli civilians hit by illegal rockets
Israel holds back from flattening Gaza
In fact I can't really remember any reports of the 60 rockets and 20 mortar rounds we are now being told about.
EU, UN, BBC etc are a crucial part of the Hamas war effort.
Why should Israel assist people who support Hamas?
Complain about this comment
impassive - it is one of the oldest tricks of anti-semitism to try and pretend a great Jewish conspiracy.
But by all means, if you support an organisation dedicated to genocide such that Hamas is, I suppose folks like you and sickofisrael have no problem with a little anti-semitism.
Complain about this comment
The polarised comments here make me very sad - both sides unwilling to be objective.
However #7 makes me saddest.
"I would love to hear why the Hamas regime have started the rocket attacks - illegally targeted on civilians - yet again"
The didn't - Israel broke the ceasefire first,as I'm sure the poster knows very well. Two wrongs don't make a right and I'm sure if you live in Siderot it's very difficult. But at least you have food and fuel, unlike the Gazans.
"Probable strategy: rockets at Israeli civilians > Israeli response > hamas call in their media supporters to denounce Israel"
What actually happened: Israeli army attacks Gaza > Hamas retaliates with rockets > Israel stops deliveries of fuel and food to Palestinian people = collective punishment = war crime under UN Charter.
I suggest this person reads
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7729886.stm
"Oxfam called on world leaders to do everything they could to break Israel's blockade of Gaza and urged Israel to resume supplies without delay.
"Israel has shut border crossings in response to rocket attacks from Palestinian militants in Gaza.
"Earlier Israel fired missiles at targets in northern Gaza."
(BBC and other news reports)
Complain about this comment
I've just been watching BBC World News and this subject has not even been mentioned never mind reported on.
May I ask the BBC World News editor why not?
Doesn't this situation count as news?
Complain about this comment
Stnylan. 00.29
You can always tell when a post hits a raw nerve - back comes the Bush style response of "If you're not with us, you're a terrorist supporter."
Absolute rubbish. It's equally ridiculous to suggest that someone who finds the actions of Hamas out of order is a supporter of Israel.
I do, and I am not, in that order.
Just as I recognise that the BBC can be a pain in the bum sometimes - but totally biased - not at all.
The ranting extremism that this subject brings out epitomises all that is bad about some of the comments that find their way into columns such as this. There is a middle way and in my opinion, the BBC usually does its best to find it.
Complain about this comment
Given the BBC's anti Israeli stance over the years, it's hardly surprising they turn correspondents away. The best way to deal with the terrorist enclave that is Gaza is total isolation and a total ban on Palestinian propaganda from the media.
Complain about this comment
Even if the BBC is anti-Israeli as some posters claim, and I doubt, Israel has no business limiting their reporting. The only acceptable way to fight propaganda is not by suppressing it, but rather with counter-propaganda. If the Israelis don't like the BBC's reporting, they can present their own case. But they should let the BBC and other news organisations carry on their work, biased or not.
Complain about this comment
#13
"What actually happened: Israeli army attacks Gaza > Hamas retaliates with rockets > Israel stops deliveries of fuel and food to Palestinian people = collective punishment = war crime under UN Charter."
"Hamas retaliates with rockets" - and how does that work exactly?
They are going to defeat Israel militarily with a few home made fireworks? Kill so many young men Israel can't fight anymore? Destroy Israel's means of war production? That does not sound very realistic.
I would suggest it works by the mechanism put forward in (#7) ...
rockets at israel > israel responds > hamas bring in their supporters (EU, UN, BBC) to hammer israel
The idea that the rockets are a military, rather than political, weapon is silly.
Hamas want the reporters in to show their 'suffering' and the 'evil israelis.' The BBC are upset because they wanted to participate and the israelis are not letting them.
As I said - why should Israel facilitate Hamas supporters and the Hamas war plan?
(This 'tit for tat' has been going on for decades - I make no claim to have a definitive version of who struck first, it's an ongoing war)
Complain about this comment
Interesting. And I don't just mean the blog.
Quote: "Boldly go where no man...."
And more power to your elbow.
I hope my personal Licence Fee is coming your way. :-)
Complain about this comment
impassive
Too right you hit a raw nerve
Why should I pay a bloody tax in the form of the license fee to have that organisation offer moral support to an organisation (Hamas) committed to genocide?
And I am sick to my bones of people like you who refuse to stand up for the principles you presumably believe in. Genocide. Think about that. If you are willing to tolerate Hamas, and excuse those who are, you are happy with support a genocidal organisation.
That you are blind to your believes is no surprise however. Halifax thought himself a reasonable man when he wanted to surrender to Hitler in 1940. So did the people in Oxford when they encouraged Hitler by voting not to fight for King in Country in the 1930s. You belong to a despised culture of appeasement and collaboration in British public life, a culture that now infects and poisons all the BBC does.
Complain about this comment
impassive (#15) - well said, and absolutely right.
What's more, if the BBC was truly as biased as people in the comments make out, the blogger/editor wouldn't have called Hamas Palestinian militant group, he would have referred to them as the "democratically elected party".
And I say that as someone who despises Hamas - although how ridiculous that I even need to add that disclaimer. I also say it as someone who has criticized the BBC on many an occasion, though always I hope grounded in fact rather than in any particular agenda.
The amount of distortion, hysteria, selective vision and opportunistic whining ("PC liberal blah blah licence fee blah blah...") that repeatedly finds its way into the comment areas of these editors blogs - and in particular, Have Your Say - beggars belief and is already being parodied across some quarters of the web. I can only admire the BBC for giving these prickly creatures a platform to air their predictable poison - licence fee aside, if only the likes of the Mail and other outlets were as tolerant of views critical of themselves, and willing to let them be published.
Complain about this comment
Oh look, over on the Sky News website right now...
"In an exclusive interview with Sky News, the leader of Hamas says he is ready to talk to Barack Obama..."
Can you imagine if instead that read "In an exclusive interview with the BBC"?
Yes, Sky News, that well-known liberal Hamas-supporting organisation owned by that extreme left-winger, Rupert Murdoch. This just goes to show how liberal biased it is, doesn't it?
And before anyone says it, no this point is not about the licence fee and accountability. It is about the selective way people - already armed with an agenda - have come to view the BBC.
Complain about this comment
The issue is not whether you like Hamas or not - they were democratically elected by the Palestinians, and the subsequent disengagement by Europe and the US has contributed greatly to the deterioration of the situation in Gaza.
Collective punishment, as the Israelis are currently carrying out by restricting fuel supplies and stopping aid convoys, is a war crime - surely someone in Europe or the US should be calling for sanctions against Israel at the very least (and we know they've got WMD, so why not go the whole hog and invade? No - wait - that hasn't helped the Iraqi people much, has it?).
Sure, some elements of Hamas have been firing rockets into Israel, but then again Israel has been carrying out extrajudicial assasinations of Hamas leaders using helicopter-fired missiles for years, and these have been mostly lauded by the West.
Support for Israel should never be unconditional - that leads to the Israeli leadership believing that they no longer have to live up to civilised norms, and can carry on smiting in their inimitable Old Testament fashion.
Complain about this comment
#22
"And before anyone says it, no this point is not about the licence fee and accountability. It is about the selective way people - already armed with an agenda - have come to view the BBC."
The media are an important weapon of war - ask Goebels (or Churchill) etc
Hamas know the western media are probably their most (only?) effective weapon.
The BBC need to ensure they are not the propaganda ministry for hamas.
Film of empty food shops, babies in a hospital with no electricity, old grannies sat in the dark etc - all strong images that the BBC are desperate to get on our screens.
This is part of the Hamas war effort and it is hardly surprising that the israelis are not going to support it.
Complain about this comment
"Sickofisrael 4.40pm
At least your post is a good deal more objective than many."
You're having a laugh surely. His name says it all.
Complain about this comment
Until Israel accepts that there are many different points of view of what is and has happened in Gaza then it is hardly surprising that they continue to suppress "impartial" observation.
This is not a matter of points scoring with awards for bullets fired, mortars released, or bodies counted. All sides in this conflict are equally guilty of appalling acts of cowardice, and none of them has a right to criticise the others.
There are those of us who would like to see a resolution of the Middle East situation some day very soon and we do not see Israel helping that forward. As a supposedly responsible country Israel should be ashamed of itself.
Complain about this comment
Mr. Williams,
I am amazed that the Israelis even allow the BBC entry into the country, leave alone into Gaza. Your anti-Israel bias is set in stone. And your Aleem McBool is even more of a partisan propagandist than Alan Johnston, and he is difficult to better in that field. I followed Johnston's reporting closely on the World Service. It is not for nothing that he was described in glowing terms in the comments that poured into Have Your Say during his kidnapping as "a friend of the Palestinian people."
13. badgercourage,
Ease up on the propaganda. The Israelis didn't just suddenly decide that last week would be a good time to attack Gaza. They attacked because terrorists were excavating a tunnel specifically to enter Israel and kidnap Israeli soldiers. And they also attacked because they were planting explosives at the fence. The Kassam fire from Hamas was a response to the Israeli action which in turn was a response to the acts I've described. I suppose you think Israel should just allow the terrorists free rein to do whatever they like, not disturb them and pay attention to their "rights."
21. dotconnect,
What's more, if the BBC was truly as biased as people in the comments make out, the blogger/editor wouldn't have called Hamas Palestinian militant group…
Give us a break. You really think that shows lack of bias? They are terrorists, not militants. You might be happy with the BBC's mangling of the English language in order to portray terrorists in the best possible light. I'm not, and neither are many others who have seen through the BBC's game.
Complain about this comment
I'll tell you another place you are not welcome and that is in my house. I do not believe one word you say about Israel, the Palestinians, America or a lot of other topics. The Israelis should have kicked you out of Gaza a long time ago. If I were them, I'd kick you out of The West Bank and Israel as well. Too bad we can't kick your lying reporters out of America. I am sick and tired of my tax dollars going to subsidize you through contracts with NPR and whatever is left of your contracts with PBS. But I'm sure the American left will have no objections to your distortions and falsehoods being broadcast at American taxpayer expense all across our land into our homes and cars for a long time to come.
Complain about this comment
I will tell you what is also off limits, a certain topic BBC has put there. It is germaine to this blog entry but BBC does not want it discussed on its blog sites. I'll post it in my next entry and see if it is still off limits.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The claims that the BBC have an "anti-Israel" bias worry me deeply. About eighteen months ago a leading UK Jewish spokesperson came on Radio Five Live to complain that the BBC had not covered a failed suicide bomb attempt one Sunday morning. I witnessed a very early morning news bulletin where the incident was reported by the BBC on Five Live.
This incident was used as an example of anti-Israel bias, was dishonest and a deliberate attempt to gain air time for pro-Israel propaganda.
In the hope that what I say will one day register may I repeat that none of the sides in the Middle East conflict are any better than the others - they are all guilty of murdering civilians with absolutely no regard for their actions. I am sick of hearing how "right" one side in this conflict is - that is a complete and unadulterated lie and they know it too.
Complain about this comment
Re #30, BBC censors understand their job well. I wonder if they learned their trade from Radio Moscow and Pravda or developed it on their own.
Complain about this comment
@MarcusAureliusII - I don't particualrly want to come to your house, but it's a bit rich for you to complain about NPR and PBS 'subsidising' the BBC when the US government subsidises the war criminals in Tel-Aviv to the tune of 3 billion dollars a year, and protects them from the entirely justifiable censure of the UN Security Council by vetoing any resolution critical of these state terrorists. It's not just 3 billion dollars, either - subsidised military aid for Israel adds another 7 billion per year. The only president in living memory to stand up to these thugs (George Bush I) was subsequently voted out in favour of Billy Clintstone - coincidence?
One can only hope that Barack Obama has more sense than every President since Truman, and treats Israel fairly - fair in this context meaning sanctions and ostracism until the Israelis behave in a civilised manner.
Complain about this comment
#27
Your comments just illustrate the point I was making - that both "sides" of this argument are blinkered and will not listen to what the other side, or neutrals, say.
Correcting a factual inaccuracy is not "propaganda". The proximate trigger for the latest round of ceasefire-breaking was an Israeli incursion. News reports confirm this. Depending on who far back you selectively take the cause and effect argument, you can can get to the Intifada, the Wall / Separation Barrier, 6 Day War, the Stern Gang, the Holocaust or the Crusdades. "It's not my fault, he started it". None of this helps the ordinary Palestinian or Israelis.
And it's still true, whether you like it or not, that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Was Menachim Begin not originally a terrorist, who later became a mainstream politician and then won the Nobel Peace Prize? Depends if you think the cause is right. "History is propaganda written by the victors".
I will defend forever the right of all people, including Israelis, to genuine self-defence. But my point was that whatever the actions of Hamas, this does not excuse the collective punishment of ordinary women and children in Gaza, or make it necessary.
Complain about this comment
You Europeans are so trite and boorishly predictable. Most of you still cling to the scapegoating of Jews you've clung to for over a thousand years to explain the shortcomings of your pathetic civilization. How many secretly lamented the fact that Hitler did not finish them off and resent the US for not allowing the Arabs to finish the job? You can call the leaders of Israel war criminals, terrorists, or whatever else you like but from a British perspective so were George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Nathan Hale, and the rest of America's greatest patriots of the Revolutionary period so I take note of where your comments come from.
Does it irk you that even according to Sir Christopher Meyers own words, the man who was Britain's ambassador to the US for over 5 years, the US is by far closer to Israel than to any other nation including Britain. He said that in a BBC interview. IMO the so called special relation the UK has with the US is largely a myth invented by the UK's imagination.
In all likelihood the US will continue to give unrestricted support to Israel, even more so now that we understand that they have been on the front lines in the war on terror since their founding 60 years ago. Forced to choose between Europe and Israel, I'd say most Americans would stick by Israel.
aproposofwhat, it is ludicrous for anyone from the UK to talk about behaving in a civilized manner when the UK's history catalogues more crimes against humanity than anyone can count. BTW, most expert political observers in the US believe that Clinton defeated Bush I in the 1992 election because of the recession. The middle east had nothing to do with it. As I recall, the US sent Patriot missiles to Israel to intercept the Scuds the Iraqis were firing trying to persuade them not to enter the war and damage the coalition. Is that what you call standing up to the Israelis?
Don't worry Mr. Williams. If anything of note happens in Gaza, one way or another CNN will report it. They may not have as many people as BBC but they seem to have a penchant for being in the right place at the right time. On the roof of the el Rashid Hotel in January 1991 to cover the American bombing of Baghdad and in Baghdad when the civilians there with the help of an American tank pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein symbolizing the end of his rule. And where was BBC during all this? Nowhere to be found.
Complain about this comment
It seems that most of you are missing the point here, it's not just the BBC that have been banned, but other media organisations too.
That sounds like an Israeli black out of what's going on, is that not just a little suspicious.
No34, badegercourage offers one of the few balanced views on this blog, it's extremly easy to critisise both sides in this situation, and to find various points in time when either appears to have 'started it', this just doesen't help.
The BBC hating from the likes of Too True is actually reassuring, given that he/she equates being a friend of the Palestinian people with being a bad thing.
Finally Marcus (wouldn't it be great if the BBC moderators used MarcuAurelliusII as their trigger for censoring any posts....?).
I don't think it bothers very many British people that Israel has more in common with the US than they do. It's hardly surprising given the amount of real world testing Israel gives the US defence companies, is it? And shock, horror, CNN present at Planned US Military Manufactured news stories. Were they just as prompt for the friendly fire incidents or Abu Ghraib?
Complain about this comment
It is simplistic, but has been effective in the past: scream abuse in order to silence and intimidate.
Why should any land seek to bar reporters or other observers? The answer is obvious.
Israel has a long history of censorship, perhaps because it has done so much evil.
One Premier published a multi-volume memoir that included details of how his cabinet plotted and executed the murder of two Arab boys as a false-flag operation- the government sought to ban the book.
Uri Avnery was part of the operation that drove hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homes. He had orders to kill any who tried to return. The censorship would not allow him to publish the fact.
The need to cover up apparently continues.
However, there are Israeli organisations that expose and publish abuses by the Israeli regime- and they would like to have decent folk on their mailing lists. If anyone wants their names, speak up.
Complain about this comment
It should be a sobering thought to any and all who hate Jews and Israel that the Israeli government is among a handful of governments which can unilaterally bring an end to all human life on earth if it chooses to. Those who wish it would disappear are in fact flirting with thoughts of their own end as well.
Complain about this comment
The problem is not so much that the BBC needs to inject some objectivity into its coverage; the real problem for peace in the Middle East is that the BBC needs to exorcise its historical Judeophobic bias.
Both earlier posters and the BBC have declared Hamas a democratically elected authority in Gaza. This is not strictly true. A majority of Hamas representatives were elected but so were many Fatah members as well. Hamas has exercised an undemocratic coup against other parties and has exercised nothing less than dictatorial persecution against other Gaza factions and clans; including a purge of Fatah from the enclave.
Logically speaking if Scotland declares not only independence from England, but also makes it policy to annihilate England and then starts firing rockets over Hadrian’s Wall; what would be the response of the English? Now apply this analogy to Israel and Gaza.
Even if 100% of Gazans democratically support Hamas and its stated aim to destroy Israel, are they not also then culpable and responsible for the effects that this policy has when Israel defends itself attempts to survive?
The BBC should turn its attention to the fact that Jordan was originally intended as the ‘Palestinian State’. More Palestinians are held captive to the violent Dictatorship of the Hashemite King of Jordan than are in Gaza and the West Bank combined. In fact the UK will not deport convicted terrorists to Jordan for fear of the way they will be treated. Israel is the only democracy in the region and applies its own laws against itself in the treatment of Palestinians; which is against Israel’s military interest. Even the USA has a special Guantanamo prison to prevent combatants dedicated to the destruction of the USA benefiting from civil laws in the USA designed only for the protection of its own citizens and civil society. Israel has no Cuba.
Despite International agreement that Israel has a right to exist as the only (tiny) self-determining Jewish State; the BBC persists in peddling the ‘Israel is apartheid’ Sophism. The idea behind this lie is that if Israel cannot be destroyed militarily perhaps it can be swamped by massive numbers of Muslims so that de facto it ceases to be a Jewish State. This is perhaps one of the most insidious lies perpetrated by the BBC and ranks alongside the racist-transference that ‘Jews, Israelis or Zionists are the new Nazis’.
Further the BBC pushes the idea that Zionism (the Jewish movement for national self-determination) is racism. All the BBC does is presume in its articles that the United Nations is neutral, but it is not: A series of Judeophile proclamations and statements have been made by the United Nations General Assembly, which consists of a natural majority of Islamic States and their cronies. One of these declarations back in the 1970s was that Zionism equates to Racism. This is a direct attempt to deny Jews the reciprocal right of national self-determination and sovereignty. The BBC repeats this lie.
Seen in this light; the BBC is regarded as a Judeophobia propaganda tool dedicated to the destruction of Israel; but unlike Hamas only through non-violent means; but nevertheless using propaganda lies and half-truths against the legal Jewish State.
This is nothing new and carries the tradition set in WW2; when the BBC failed to demand the prevention of the holocaust by requesting the RAF to bomb the concentration camps. Further the BBC stood idly by while survivors of the holocaust were banned from entering pre-modern-Israeli borders, and sunk in refugee ships fleeing the continent of Europe.
The BBC has a lot to answer for in stoking up the idea in Muslim minds that Israel is illegitimate and that it is possible to destroy it. This in turn is a barrier to Muslim compromise and true peace in the Middle East.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, what's your point? Are you saying that people who disagree with Israel should keep quiet lest they are the target of nuclear weapons. Codswallop.
Zeneds, nice rant. BBC dedicated towards the destruction of Israel? Why, to waht end? The main thing your comment lacks is a rational explanation for such an approach by the BBC.
Complain about this comment
#38
How far can you take a variation on "it's my ball and I'll take it away if I want"?
Perhaps you are fortunate that the French gave you nuclear capability - perhaps you are not. Perhaps your fixation with CNN has a logical base - perhaps it does not. Perhaps there are "Jew-haters" on this blog - perhaps there are not. Perhaps the UK is jealous of the US relationship with Israel - perhaps it is not. Perhaps the Israelis will obliterate its "enemies" from the planet forever - perhaps it will not.
We can all deal in opinion disguised as polemic or propaganda and it must irk you greatly when facts you dislike are broadcast around the globe. The remedy is however in Israels hands - when it is brave enough and big enough to admit to its own crimes against humanity and sit down with its opponents to negotiate real settlements to real issues. Do YOU want that day to come?
Complain about this comment
# 40
Few people realise the extent of the religio-ethnic fanaticism animating Israel.
What is frequently referred to is the "Samson Option". Essentially, if the West does not come to the aid of Israel when needed, then Israel will provoke nuclear destruction of the World.
Not only is this promoted in Israel, but various pro-Israel posters on BBC blogs unveil it under paranoic stress.
It was introduced by such a poster on the BBC World Have Your Say, but the WHYS management, always editing with a strong pro-Israel bias, blocked any reference to its import.
Complain about this comment
#42, Wow xie_ming, so what you're saying is that MAII isn't the only person to who's scared into giving Israel whatever they want because of the nuclear threat?
Thanks also for describing the BBC as pro-Israel. Once again they are being dissed from both sides and no one seems to have a good explanation as to why they would persue bias (in either direction).
Curious.
Complain about this comment
*42. Xie Ming.
Never heard of this 'Samson option' as you call it but I know one thing, I'd rather take the risk than live under the rule of the kind of ranting lunatics that have taken over this thread.
There's absolutely no reason for the BBC to take the biased line that is being attributed to it and the fact that it is willing to allow such aggressive comments to be published in its own columns seems to demonstrate this.
I suppose it could be argued the BBC are applying some kind of reverse psychology ... but if that's the case, the extremists seem more than willing to contribute to it.
Hoist by their own petard, I would say, for it is this kind of agenda extremism that will turn those who would seek the middle road into 'anti'.
Complain about this comment
# 43
I did NOT describe the BBC as pro-Israel- I mentioned the management of one "program"- World Have Your Say (WHYS).
The management there engaged in serious departures from journalistic ethics.
The program also managed allow a special telephone number and email address to get into the hands of Zionist activists threatening violence.
Since there are allegations above concerning the BBC as a whole, I mention the WHYS program as a very contrary example (and have the documentation to establish the claim).
Complain about this comment
#45, fair enough Xie. Not going to ask for your evidence, but do you have a theory as to why the Beeb went that route for that particular WHYS? Was it a 'bad apple' or something more sinister?
Complain about this comment
paulcrosseyes you just don't see what is staring you in the face. If organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, the government of Iran, and others get their way and it appears Israel will cease to exist, so will everyone else including you and me. And what irony that the instruments of all of our destruction and the extinction of the intolerant human race, nuclear power and nuclear weapons was created largely by Jews like Oppenheimer, Fermi, Teller, and others and that if in one mode, say the launching of thermonuclear weapons at the oil fields of the middle east, the rocket science was developed by Nazis working first for Nazi Germany and then the US government. Poetic justice. So it doesn't come down to right or wrong, what's fair and what isn't, justice or injustice whichever side you are on, whichever way you see it. It comes down to whether or not your hatred for Jews is greater than your wish for yourself and those you love to go on living. It's actually the same issue facing the so called Palestinians when they or their children go out to fight armed Israelis with rocks or RPGs or shoot small home made rockets at them. In fact, anyone who has a nuclear reactor and a nuclear weapon or just a nuclear weapon and enough easy to acquire cobalt can create a device which will irradiate the entire surface of our planet with lethal radiation. So our survival depends on theirs. Now who is the insane one, me or you?
Complain about this comment
To zeneds, MAII, TrueToo
Please inject some of your objectivity...
Terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence.
To those accusing the BBC of bias, please post your legal definition of "terrorism". People can then do a point-by-point analysis of an extensive impartial legal definition and conclude what constitutes "terrorism" and who has carried it out.
In the absence of this definition you might not be qualified to declare what is or isn't impartial. Supplying a definition may give you more credibility.
To those posting claims that the BBC is anti-Israel, why do you think you are unable to supply this legal impartial definition?
Complain about this comment
# 46
I attribute it solely to the particular manager involved and to the employees who remained in that high-turnover unit under his direction.
Complain about this comment
Well Marcus Aurelius. your usual load of rubbish. If Israel ceases to exist, how does it follow that I will cease to exist? Does my whole existence depend on the existence of Israel? I don't think so, and neither do you, if as I suspect, you have a brain inside your head. Your comments regarding nuclear weapons are sub-infantile. The possession of a nuclear reactor does not empower a country to destroy the planet. Do you have any evidence to support that statement? No, I didn't think so. And can the whole world be held to ransom by, for instance, Finland? Get real, MA, and by the way, don't steal the name of someone who actually was capable of independent thought. What a clown.
Complain about this comment
# 50
You fail to appreciate what is within Israel called the "Samson Option" (he who brought the Temple down upon himself and his enemies).
The idea is that, if the West does not help Israel when it is threatened, then Israel will detonate nuclear devices in such a manner as to pollute the Earth's atmosphere and end life on Earth.
This idea is cherished among Zionist paranoid fanatics.
Complain about this comment
Response to Paulcrossleyii
At 07:13am #40 16th November: You wrote:
“BBC dedicated towards the destruction of Israel? Why, to waht [your mis-type] end? The main thing your comment lacks is a rational explanation for such an approach by the BBC.”
At 09:03am #43 you wrote:
“…no one seems to have a good explanation as to why they would persue [your spelling mistake] bias…”
Paul if you can find out why Jews were formally expelled from England between 1290 and 1655; why it was necessary for parliament to introduce the ‘Jew Bill of 1753; Why Britain enforced the ‘Alien Immigration Act in 1905’ to prevent Jews entering Britain to escape Russia persecution, (when it allowed for example Ugandan Asians into the country some three-quarters of a century later); Why a 1939 White Paper effectively outlawed the escape of Jews persecuted by Nazis to their ancestral home in pre-modern Israel; then you may begin to inch towards an understanding of the historical Judeophobia that is rife in British (and many other) societies.
This originated as a theological problem: Christianity and later Islam has a hard time promoting the idea that either religion speaks ‘the truth’ in religious terms when they are both carbon copies of a living and vibrant Judaism. Consequently both religions have sought to erase Judaism and its practitioners from history. Islam also seeks to erase Christianity from history for the same reason.
This has led to modern civil societies being corrupted by this historical and theological Judeophobia. Hence the German-Nazi use of industrial mass-murder to obliterate the Jews; and modern speech such as the Iran President’s desire to ‘wipe Israel off the map’ (ironically using very non-Islamic Jewish nuclear technology).
There are many tautologies in history caused by the fear of Jews by non-Jews. This is now a pathology displayed by the indoctrinated masses, including those who rely on the BBC and it statutory license fee for a living.
I hope this helps you understand the reality of the situation a little better; although I suspect you question was insincere.
Complain about this comment
Response to Xie_Ming
At 2:28pm you write:
“You fail to appreciate what is within Israel called the "Samson Option"… The idea is that, if the West does not help Israel when it is threatened, then Israel will detonate nuclear devices in such a manner as to pollute the Earth's atmosphere and end life on Earth. This idea is cherished among Zionist paranoid fanatics.”
Nonsense. One of this mistakes that Judeophobic Islamicists makes is to presume Israel cannot use nuclear weapons tactically in geographical areas around it due to the problem of the fall-out you claim they want to use to destroy the world.
If you (or the President of Iran) knew anything on this serious subject, then both of you would already understand the strategic implications of the difference between neutron and atom/hydrogen bombs.
Israel has no intention of destroying either the world or itself. It has neutron weapons, which effectively leave no radioactive fallout; they emit a gamma burst that is measurable to the meter. This means, for example, that they could annihilate Hezbollah in south Lebanon without risk to themselves (if they so desired).
The deterrent that Israel uses on the Islamic world that is baying for its destruction in every international forum where they can whine; is that if a single Weapon of Mass Destruction [WMD] is detonated in (or used against) Israel, then in consequence the entire Muslim world will be destroyed within twelve hours.
The so called ‘Samson’ Option (which you do not understand at a tactical, strategic or political level), is a secondary deterrent to people like the Russians, which effectively says: ‘The Islamics attacked us first with WMD, they had it coming (i.e. our response), if you now exploit our weakness (from the initial ‘Islamic’ attack against us), by attacking us at this moment, then you will get the same treatment (i.e. we will attack your entire country with neutron weapons and annihilate you).’
I hope you all now understand the nature of the Israeli defence that they have developed against the repeated and bloodthirsty efforts to destroy them. I suggest everyone leaves them alone: Talk to the Hashemite King in Jordan about democracy for his Palestinian population, before you attempt to eat any more of Israel.
Complain about this comment
Zeneds, clearly understood, thanks, a nation of a few million people thinks it has the god-given right to destroy the whole planet and 6000 million people for their own political ends. And our great leaders go along with this and support these abject scoundrels? What is going on here? And why?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
halfbrain, the detonation of a nuclear weapon inside of a nuclear reactor will send one hundred tons of enriched uranium into the stratosphere where it will circle the globe and fall on every part of the planet causing us to all be poisoned as it enters our food chain. In the 1940s and 1950s, the US and USSR tested several hundred nuclear weapons in remote areas, each having only about 20 pounds of enriched uranium or plutonium. The results were so devastating in the alarming rise of cancers around the world that despite their fear of each other and determination to build large nuclear arsenals, they agreed to ban the atmospheric testing of them in 1961.
The high energy physics lab web site which has a very good account of all aspects of nuclear weapons including who has what concluded ten years ago that Israel had about 200, many fusion boosted. By now they probably have about 400 and many may be full thermonuclear weapons. These can be used in many ways to destroy all human life on earth. A doomsday weapon such as one I described above or one jacketed with cobalt. Igniting all of the middle east's oil fields in fires that could never be extinguished giving us a hundred years of global warming in six months not to mention enormous atmospheric disruptions. BTW, their missiles can also reach most of the capitals of Europe in case anyone is interested. Perhaps when they go down, they'll take out some of the countries which persecuted their ancestors for a millenium or more just as a going away present. Yes, our survival depends on theirs and there is nothing anyone can do about it. In fact insofar as the US is concerned, there is nothing anyone wants to do about it. At least 30 million American evangelists believe that before Christ returns, there will be a nuclear war in the middle east and many are actually looking forward to it. I'm not one of them but with the developments in Iran, it could happen at any moment when either the US or Israel feels sufficiently threatened by the looming possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon. Short of intrusive unannounced on-site inspection, the only defense a nation has against being wiped out by a surprise nuclear attack by an adversary is a pre-emptive strike of its own. When push comes to shove, Isreal will strike if the US doesn't first.
Complain about this comment
Poor BBC, for once a democratic country has told you to bugger off, the amount of anti-Israeli rhetoric displayed by your reporters (e.g. Alan Johnson) makes me wonder why the Israelis did not refuse you permission to enter Gaza before.
Also, and what you have omitted is the fact that the BBC is not banned from Israeli, nor is it banned by Egypt both of which have border controls into Gaza.
Not for one moment do I think that Israel acts correctly all of the time, nor do I think that Hamas is anything less than a terrorist organisation.
The BBC can peddle all the pro-Hamas rubbish it wishes, however, until it releases the Balen report it has no authority whatsoever to complain about any country/individual who refuses to allow such an openly biased media outlet to operate in it's COUNTRY.
Complain about this comment
# 56
Adding to #56
Israel has three missile-carrying submarines.
These can go anywhere and are not planned for use in the Middle East.
There are a large number of fanatics in Israel. Many of them speak of the "Samson Option", and several Zionists have pushed the idea on BBC websites.
It took only one man to kill the Premier of Israel, because the latter wanted to make peace.
The killer was a top law law student, was and is quite sane, and maintains that the murder was justified by religious law.
[If you are familiar with such matters, he said that the Premier was a "rodef".]
Complain about this comment
The pattern of hurling insults and protests in order to silence facts is common behaviour among political Zionists.
Various forms of censorship have been a persistent behaviour of the Israeli state.
Of course, the regime wishes to conceal its crimes and religo-ethnic character, including the attempted genocide and continuing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
There are many organizations within Israel publicising these criminal activities. Anyone interested should get on their mailing lists.
Try gush-shalom, the otherisrael, physicians for human rights, rabbis for human rights, betselem, etc.
If anyone has difficulty finding the appropriate URLs, speak up and I will try to post them.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming
Israel has been in a perpetual state of war for its survival since its inception 60 years ago. It would be surprising if there were not many violations of what would be considered civil rights during normal times. That's just the nature of war. Until the war waged against it ends, it will go on and on and will likely get even worse. There has never been a war without atrocities on both sides, each side claiming the other is inhuman. In the US, the same thing has happened since 9-11 and will continue to happen. If the US slackens and returns to business as usual allowing potential threats to go unchecked, then after the next attack or two, things will change drastically. Depending on how severe the attack is, this could include overthrow of Constitutional government and imposition of a military dictatorship for real, not the imaginary one those who have opposed American actions against its current adversaries up to now have invented a perjorative political rhetoric. In this state, anyone and everyone who is even suspected of being subversive could be imprisoned without trial, even executed. The survival of the Republic will take precedence over survival of the Constitution because without the Republic, there will be no Constitution. BTW, if Obama or the Democrats stand in opposition to necessary security measures the Pentagon and CIA feel are necessary, they will be shoved aside or worse. Like all people everywhere, survival is the number one priority of most Americans even if it temporarily means under a dictatorship. Don't believe it? Just ask Americans of Japanese ancestry who experienced WWII in the US.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Response to Xie_Ming #59, 5:44pm
You regurgitate the tired old Judeophobic argument that Israel has committed genocide and ethnic cleansing. In 1948 almost the entire Jewish populations of every Islamic State were, in your words, ethnically cleansed and expelled to: guess where? Yes that is right: to Israel. There was a huge population exchange envisaged. This is not to mention the wandering survivors of the Holocaust in Europe.
More Jews were expelled from the Arab countries than there were Arabs who were forced to relocate from Israel.
Instead of absorbing the relatively small number of so-called Palestinians from what became Israel the Arab countries refused to integrate them, as they intended to use them as a political pawn in their never-ending war of destruction against Israel. The Arab countries created huge refugee camps for the Palestinians to ensure their on-going suffering and sense of displacement. This problem was worst in Jordan where the actual country that was meant to represent the Arab population of Trans-Jordan should have been established. Trans-Jordan was the land area that today makes up Israel, Jordan, The West-Bank and Gaza. Instead a Hashemite Dictatorship came to control Jordan, denying the local Arab population and refuges from Israel, all so-called Palestinians, from having their own country.
So today when you talk about displaced people from what became Israel you starkly and blatantly refuse to address the Jewish populations who were stripped of their land; their property, some of which had oil under it; and citizenship from ALL the Islamic countries including places as far away as Iran and Malaysia.
This is why you, and those who spout the same one-sided and twisted arguments like the BBC alongside you, come across logically as twisted, manipulative, racist Judeophobic haters.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, thanks for your response.While I don't think you're insane, I do think you are so misguided in certain areas that it often appears this way. You're probably beyond help, and I see you've shuffled the topic of your comments on to how brilliant the US is and its current "War on Terror".
Zeneds, you're obviously very familiar with anti-Jewish history (as well as pointing out spelling mistakes in a truly patronising manner) maybe you're a GCSE History Teacher?
So despite the Pro-Israel stance of the BBC and the presence of a lot of Jews within the organisation (according to the other bloggers here), the Beeb continues to persue a historical persecution? Again, why?
Apologies for going back to the original post, but why is it that all organisations have been locked out of Gaza?
Complain about this comment
Response to Paulcrossleyii #63 at 9:12pm
I am sorry if you feel that it is patronising to point out spelling mistakes on a blog; but if you want to be taken seriously perhaps you should make the effort to at least spell correctly in your posts.
I attempted to answer your question about why the BBC is biased against Israel; you seem to not understand. I will give you another example, you bring up the subject of History teaching: Look at those areas of Britain where the history of the Holocaust (against predominantly Jews, where according to established historical record over 6 million Jews were murdered), has been removed from the teaching syllabus. The removal of parts of recent history about the largest mass murder in human history has been executed in parts of England for fear of offending Muslim students! No I am not a GCSE History teacher (is that your attempt at patronising?). This is akin to removing the teaching of Evolution in schools for fear of offending Creationists: Something most scientists and educated thinkers regard as retrograde and a degradation of modern education and culture.
To answer your second question about why the BBC has been stopped from entering Gaza from Israel this week: There is a war going on with the Gazans having fired up to 150 rockets from there at Southern Israel. The BBC and this blog take a rather egocentric view when it thinks the BBC alone has been barred. No one is going across the border, as it is physically too dangerous. That is why the border is closed. There are boats from Cyprus and a longer border with Egypt. Perhaps the BBC could whine at the Egyptians about why they have not allowed entry from their side. But no, the Judeophobes want to attack Israel, for anything, even at the risk of exposing their bias. The BBC should try to get into Gaza from Egypt; then you should be asking why has neither Israel nor Egypt allowed the BBC into Gaza? Then you can ask yourself; why has the EU and the USA determined Hamas to be a terrorist organisation?
Are you getting the picture yet? As the saying goes, you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
To say the BBC is pro-Israel is similar to saying that the Pope is not Catholic.
Complain about this comment
Zeneds, thank you for your apology, it is much appreciated. I do try to spell correctly, but tend to concentrate my efforts on ensuring that my posts are balanced and well reasoned.
I genuinely thought that you might be a history teacher, and that's certainly not meant as an insult (sorry for you if you took it that way). If you want to be patronised, I suggest you go elsewhere.
I fear that most people on these blogs will never take me seriously though, I find the general approach by most bloggers is that their view is correct; they are very rarely prepared to accept that two people can be confronted with the same facts or situation and come to two very different conclusions.
As I understand it, you think the BBC is anti-Israel, because in the past many other people have also been anti-Israel and ant-Jewish. So in your opinion how far does this go? (the UK Govt, the whole EU....) and why? To what ends? In my experience individuals tend to act out of hatred and fear, but Governments and the business' that control them to some degree usually have a monetary purpose behind their actions.
As to your explanation for the Gaza lock-down, please enlighten me further. Have there not been many other times when a similar level of danger existed in the area, wasn't it always up to the individual journalist whether they chose to go there?
The only people who have been marking the BBC down as a special case here are the various posters with an axe to grind. Jon Williams makes the point that there are few places the BBC are unwelcome - presumably to emphasise tha they are generall considered pretty unbiased. But he states that no media is been allowed in.
To say that the BBC is anti-Jewish is to say that bears don't deficate in the woods. There - we can all make meaningless statements, it really is very easy.
As the updated saying goes, you can lead an unblinkered horse to the tainted lop-sided drinking trough, but you can't make him drink.
Complain about this comment
We should not neglect facts in the smoke of diversionary spiels.
Do any decent and honest souls want references to the genocide of Palestinians that began in the final hours of the British Mandate?
To the slaughter of entire and untotally
unarmed Arab villages?
To the coordinated campaign designed to drive 500,000 Palestinians from their homes?
To the orders given to "kill any thet tried to return"?
This began as genocide and continues even today as ethnic cleansing.
The mouthings of political Zionists are but insincere propaganda.
Should any decent folk want references, just ask.
Complain about this comment
paulcrosseyes, if you mean by me being beyond help that I can never become a European, you are right. I've been that way since my personality was formed probably by the time I was five years old. I've had a lifetime of observing all kinds of people from all over the world including Europeans on their own turf and there is no doubt that I will never see the world through their eyes. If that makes me crazy in their opinion, well that is just too bad. The last time I left Europe was in February 1974 and I have no desire to ever return. I find that entire civilization repulsive beyond description. I reject it and everything it is now, ever was, or is likely to become.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
zeneds, I wasn't aware I was being sarcastic (well not much anyway). Were you being sarcastic too? If not can you tell me what it was I was imitating?
Unfortunately, as we all know, stating that the person you are arguing with has "nothing to say" and is "vacuous" is the worst form of argument. Until that point I thought maybe you had a reasoned argument to make, but you appear to have given up.
Marcus, don't worry too much, you can still become a European, there's always time, but, gosh! 1974, what a long time ago. I was under the impression that your authoritative views on we Euros were a little more up to date than that, we've all changed a lot since then (being born was a biggy for me). But never mind, unlike you I won't stamp my feet and tell you that you're not allowed to comment on people that you have either never lived amongst or at least not for 35 years.
Complain about this comment
paulcrosseyes, Europeans haven't changed much in 35 years. I've been meeting them, watching them, and I see that they say the same things, think the same thoughts, commit the same crimes, make the same blunders they did when I lived there. If I woke up one morning, looked in the mirror, and saw a European looking back at me, I'd pull the gun out of the drawer and blow my brains out without the slightest hesitation. I'd rather be dead than be like you.
Complain about this comment
Sparky: "I'd rather be dead than be like you".
While of course that statement demonstrates your obvious mental maturity (perhaps in the same way that an overly mature cheese is in reality mouldy and inedible), I am drawn to enquire what it is that most upsets you about me?
Do you not like my family (they're alright if you give them a chance), is it my choice in leisure persuits (I rather lke the idea of you rock climbing), or is it simply because you know I can't dance?
I, on the other hand, would love a chance to see the world through your eyes, call it morbid curiosity (so long as I am guaranteed to return to my own being).
Complain about this comment
The tiresome and shameful efforts of the political Zionists to obfuscate and conceal the evils of Israeli acts and policy are quite evident,
both in the postings here and in their actions in barring journalists and other observers, in this case making the BBC a special target.
In the case of Israel's rulers, the truth will hurt.
The remedy is utter evident: publish the truth!
Start with the Plan Dalet:
http://www.mideastweb.org/pland.htm
Complain about this comment
For reporting from and about Israel/Palestine, Uri Avnery is an extraordinarily good resource.
He is now 85 and has been a member of the Knesset, a war hero, and reporting for more than sixty years. His articles are searchable in either English or Hebrew. Here is one:
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/archive/1182406019
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
34. At 01:03am on 16 Nov 2008, badgercourage,
There are degrees, even of terrorism. Study the King David Hotel attack, site of the British military headquarters and before which three warnings to evacuate were issued, one to the British - who responding by saying, "We do not take orders from Jews." Consider the fact that the British were doing everything they could to arm and encourage the Arabs and strangle the nascent Jewish state - which they had been mandated to help establish.
Then compare that, for example, to terrorist Sami Kuntar - who infiltrated Israel from Lebanon and bashed a little Jewish girl's head in against a rock with his rifle butt, having just murdered her father in front of her.
And you are being disingenous about who started what. The current round was started by Hamas - though you'd never know that if you get your news from the BBC.
36, paulcrossleyiii,
I don't hate the BBC. And I didn't say being a friend of the Palestinians was a bad thing. But when a "journalists" allows his friendship to affect his reporting, as Johnston continually did, that is a bad thing. Why do you lefties always read ten times more into a simple statement than that which is intended?
Complain about this comment
Today BBC news reported that following a court ruling in Israel, that an Arab family was evicted for illegally residing in a house in what BBC calls "Arab East Jerusalem" and it is now occupied by "Israeli settlers." There was nothing about the details of this ruling except that the Arab family had lived in the house for 50 years. Show me even ONE comparable example of BBC reporting an eviction legal or otherwise of a Jewish family from their home in a Moslem country or in fact in a European country. BBC is clearly still very much biased against Jews, Israel and America. BBC is a hostile alien presence in both the United States and Israel. I see no reason why its reporters and other employees should be allowed to remain in either of those countries. I for one would not mind them being told to pack up and get out of America lock, stock, and barrel.
Complain about this comment
"66. At 11:00pm on 16 Nov 2008, Xie_Ming wrote:
Do any decent and honest souls want references to the genocide of Palestinians that began in the final hours of the British Mandate?"
Perhaps you should report it in context with the slaughter of all Jews in haifa in 1927 and the comments by the Grand Muftee of Jerusalem druing the 40's that the Arabs should follow Hitlers example and exterminate all Jews.
BOTH sides in the arab-israeli conflict are as bad as each other. Neither has shown any real inclination to compromise and both are equally happy to slaughter each other.
Choosing one isolated slaughter to prove your point merely shows how partisan you are. There are no 'good' or 'bad' guys in that part of the world.
Complain about this comment
#8 I'm amazed I'm even debating this with someones tag is 'sick of israel' but your point
"Translation: People in Palestine voted for Hamas, which we don't like therefore we won't regard it as a democratic vote."
Is totally wrong. I think the election of Hamas was totally democratic. Now, rather than being a minority terror group they have a mandate to represent the people of Palestine and every Hamas rocket that lands in Israel lands with the blessing of the Palestinian people... and the Palestinian people have to bear the consequences of their democracy.
If Al Qu'eda hold all Brits responsible for Blairs war in Iraq because we voted for him then I don't see why the situation shouldn't be reversed. The German people voted in Hitler and they were certainly made to pay for their choice.
Complain about this comment
If understand MA2 and zeneds correctly Israel already rules the world....
No wonder he USA is in so much disarray then...
Complain about this comment
# 79
Yes. Part of the ideology is that Jews everywhere form a nation. An Orthodox corollory is that other than in Israel they are living in "exile" (galut).
This will help to explain the Fifth Column activity so evident in America and on this board.
Complain about this comment
Response to MeACoalPit 12:20 #79
You most certainly do not understand; all we are saying is that Israel has a very convincing nuclear deterrent to prevent people like the Iranians thinking they can destroy Israel without consequence. It also means that anyone who thinks of imposing another Holocaust on Jews may well find themselves annihilated in a matter of seconds. Self-defence is both a legal right amongst sovereign states, and a legal obligation owed by every government of a state to its people.
Response to Xie_Ming 12:37 #80
It is not fifth column activity to point out your or the BBC’s solitary critical focus on Israel in marked contrast to your and the BBC’s failure to ever criticise the Arab current attempt at Genocide of all the Jews in the world. This is a debate not military action. A fifth column is what Quaeda has in Britain when they seek to explode more bombs on civilian targets. You Judeophobia has made you berserk.
Complain about this comment
#78
Can you explain what "sin" the Palestinians committed to be displaced to make way for Israel?
And as "Israel" did not exist prior to 1948 and its creation involved serious terrorist activity against others including British soldiers does that not also invite "terrorism" as a means to gaining (or recovering) territory even in a 21st Century world?
Complain about this comment
#81 zeneds
Oh I understand far better than you do.
Nuclear deterrence has been a topic for over half a century in the heads of political academics and most sane people know that it will take just one "hot head" to deliver "Armageddon". That you claim that Israel is guaranteeing "Armageddon" lock, stock and barrel rather disposes any hope on my part that Israel has political balance at any level.
Complain about this comment
Response to MeACoalPit 12:58 #82
Israel existed in the same location several times in history; Babylonians, Romans and Islam have destroyed it in turn. Each time it was destroyed Jews rebuilt it. The 1948 incarnation is perhaps the third or fourth re-birth of Israel, depending on how you count. So yes is did exist before. It existed at a time before Islam, Christianity and when most Europeans were living in caves and the only people living in North America were indigenous tribes like the Apache. The only reason Israel did not exist in a modern form until 1948 was that Islam, through the Ottoman Empire, forcibly enslaved the Jews there and converted many to Islam; they even went so far as to expel all Jews from the Capital city and build the dome on the most holy of Jewish sites; Solomons Temple.
All territory captured by Israel was obtained in defensive wars; in an attempt to prevent the Arab armies over-running Israel in their Genocidal wars against the Jews both before but mainly after 1948.
There was no ‘sin’ committed; as the State of Jordan is an Arab country designed to be home for the Palestinians as Israel was for the millions of Jews displaced from Arab and Islamic countries at the same time. It is not a fault of the Jews that Palestinians are not free to represent themselves in Jordan.
You need to learn to appreciate the difference between true terrorists like Al Quaeda (who hijack and then fly civilian aircraft into civilian buildings with no objective other than to create havoc, destruction and fear), from those military organisations in history like the partisans in France and freedom fighters in Israel, (who sought to recapture historical homelands from occupying foreign dictators, with the purpose of establishing freedom loving democracies rules by law).
Complain about this comment
#75
"There are degrees, even of terrorism"
I reiterate that it depends on your point of view. Saying "our" terrorism isn't as bad as "theirs"as it is in a noble cause, we are more civilised about it, they started it, or whatever, is just special pleading.
The circumstances leading up to King David are still contested. And the dead are just as dead whether a warning was given or not, and whether they are jews, arabs or neutrals.
I'm not being disingenuous (is that really what you mean?), just honest. Something both sides of this debate refuse to be.
The only people whose "side" I am on is that of the ordinary people: the Palestinian women and children who are being subject to collective punishment and their Israeli counterparts who fear the Hamas rockets.
However, the fact remains that Israel is the "Occupying Power". Logically it must therefore be for Israel to make the first move towards a breakthrough, as the Palestinians have not got the means to do so even if they want to and have no effective government.
I would imagine this means committing publicly to moving back to something close to the pre-1967 borders, with maybe some adjustments reflecting the reality of settlement blocks.
But I have just read in the paper that Ehud Barak has recently approved 400 more housing units for "settlers" in the occupied West Bank. How is that going to help?
Maybe it's true as a young Israeli told me that they don't want peace, they just want the land.
Complain about this comment
#82. My granddad recieved fairly serious burns in the King David bombing so please don't lecture me about Jewish terrorism.
'Israel' may not have existed pre-1948, but neither did an independent country called Palestine. Nor was Gaza a palestinian territory (it was part of Egypt) nor was the west bank (it was part of Jordan until 1967). Egypt and Jordan are strangely quiet about wanting their land back, presumably because the current inhabitants are more trouble than the land is worth.
Please explain what could possible justify randomly killing the grandchildren of those who first settled in Israel in 48 too? They didn't blow anyone up. By your argument because my great-uncle bombed Dresden that mean an East German has the right to petrol bomb my house in reprisal!
The problem is that people like you continue to choose sides and sympathise with random acts of murder based on very hazy historical 'justification', rather than do what is needed and smack the heads together of both parties and tell them ENOUGH!
We managed to overcome 400 years of hatred in Ireland. It can be done in the mid east too.
Complain about this comment
Response to MeACoalPit 1:02pm #83
Not only do you fail to understand; your post demonstrates that you have not bothered to read or understand the posts in this thread; which is lazy. Armageddon is commonly understood to be the end of all human life on Earth; no one is silly enough to suggest that Israel will deliver this cataclysm, except the most ardent anti-Israel posters. Only Russia, China and America have this ability.
You are also wrong to think that one hot head, as you call them, in Israel, could launch a nuclear attack. The democracies have strict command and control procedures on the use of nuclear weapons. However in Iran a theocratic dictatorship, a single hot head might be able to launch a nuclear strike; this is one reason why the modern democracies are absolutely determined to prevent archaic theocratic dictatorships from obtaining nuclear weapons.
As with many posts that attack Israel your one-sided arguments betray your disability that we recognise as the psychological disease of Judeophobia.
Complain about this comment
#84. Actually there is no legal difference between the French Resistance and Al Qu'eda.
Under the geneva convention you can shoot any partisan on the spot quite happily. Thats why very few Germans ever faced trial for shooting resistance fighters.
Its a simple case of one mans terrorist being anothers freedom fighter and is the mistake that most people on this board are making: choosing sides and putting positive spin on 'their' terrorists actions while condemning the other side for doing exactly the same.
The US, USSR, China etc do exactly the same so I suppose I shouldn't expect more sense from individuals either.
Complain about this comment
Reply to badgercourage posted 00:46am #13.
You post is grossly mistaken, probably intentionally. The rocket attacks were a result of an Israeli military action to prevent Hamas digging under the Israeli border in a new attempt to kidnap Israelis in Israel. This tunnelling was the initiating cease-fire breach.
Interesting that you and none of the posters against Israel here mention Galit who was kidnapped by Hamas in Israel and is still held prisoner. You are all such caring humanists; until it comes to having compassion for Jews when you are found wantonly lacking.
Complain about this comment
zeneds #84
"You need to learn to appreciate the difference between true terrorists"
Please furnish everyone with an impartial legal definition of terrorism as I requested in post #48. People can then do a point-by-point analysis of an extensive impartial legal definition and conclude what constitutes "terrorism" and who has carried it out.
Why haven't you engaged with post #48?
Complain about this comment
Reply to Peter_Sym 1:33pm #88
If you cannot distinguish the ethical difference between French Partisans in world war two and al Quaeda now; then you have truly lost all ability to reason in a sane manner and should not post on a blog for you have no judgement left at all: All you can do is frighten and confuse small children.
Complain about this comment
#91. I didn't say ethical- I said legal.
Legally the French resistance were terrorist.
Ethically it depends on whether your allegiances lie with the nazi's or not. The french resistance (or rather resistances as there were many diffferent groups with different politics) were quite capable of kidnapping German soldiers and threating to execute them (usually with fairly medieval methods) unless their demands were met. The french resistance planted bombs in cafe's used by German soldiers and normally killed more Frenchmen in the process.
Do those tactics remind you of any other group?
While I quite sympathise with the French using any means neccessary to get their country back I can appreciate that the Stern gang and Hamas probably think the same way and doubtless justify murder in the same easy way.
The 'confused' children are those on the board that think killing Jewish kids = good & killing Arab kids = bad or vice versa.
Complain about this comment
#90
Yes please, can we have a watertight legal definition of terrorism from someone?
#91
I partially agree with you here: French partisans cannot be equated with al-Qaeda, who are not fighting in defence of their country.
But the original blog is about Gaza, and we have all been drawn of the point, me included.
Armed resistance in defence your land and home is a continuum, and where do you draw the line? When does that become terrorism in the eyes of the netural?
And #88 was not saying he equated the two, merely that international law treats both the same.
Simply abusing someone who you disagree with does not advance the debate.
Complain about this comment
Reply to _Marko 1:44pm #90 aka #48
_Marko I am only responding to you as you are begging for attention:
You and everyone here are aware of the impossibility of a universal agreement on the term terrorist, unless you propose a new law of though-crime. Even a United Nations conference could not begin to agree a definition. The best we can hope for is a moral or ethical relativism, a sensible balanced judgement on the subject at hand. You declare that only with a legal definition of terrorism can people demonstrate BBC bias against Israel. However you do not ask those attacking Israel to stop their platitudes. Again you represent the one-sided: The side against Israel that is.
By demanding impossible agreement on the definition of terrorism, you try to take the debate up an intellectual cul de sac. It is simply your attempt to impose a self-defeating circular argument on those who believe that the BBC is indeed biased against Israel.
To illustrate what I mean I could say to you: Define the Palestinian nation. Then I could say: Until you can define the Palestinian Nation, you cannot argue that Israel is squashing anyone’s national aspirations. Arabs are free to leave Israel, the only Jewish state on the planet, for any number of Islamic countries. However my argument like yours before it would be fatuous.
This is why I, and no one else, has engaged post #48, as it contributes nothing to this debate about the bias of the BBC. Post #48 simply seeks to derail proponents of one side of the argument and not the other.
Complain about this comment
A terrorist does is not legally employed by a sovereign nation. He does not fight in uniform and they use acts of violence against primarily civilian or other soft targets to force political change by non-democratic means.
Al Qu'eda think (or at least claim) they are fighting in self defence of their homeland. They believe that all Islamic land should be united and want 4 things: A return to the Caliphate with the abolition of borders and state governments in the mid-east, the west out of the middle east, the Palestinians running Israel (not that that word would be around for long) and the house of Saud specifically deposed.
Where the borders of the Caliphate would end are pretty debatable because a few who sign up for the franchise would view Bradford as Islamic land and their right to speak for any Palestinian is pretty debatable seeing as Hamas have told them to stay out of it.
What isn't debatable is that Al Qu'eda members think they're fighting for a just (to them) cause. In their heads they're not killing for the fun of it.
Complain about this comment
Reply to badgercourage posted 2:14pm #93.
It is not a surprise that you too want the impossible to be provided (a definition of terrorism) before allowing anyone to attack the BBC for bias, as post #48 attempts; and as I have explained away as an attempt to derail one side of the argument.
You too need to read the posts and to be sensible.
Jordan is the so-called Palestinian State. Go and whine at the Hashemite King who is Dictator of that country about Palestinian rights before you ask Israel to either dissolve itself or leave itself territorially indefensible against genocidal barbarians.
Hamas in Gaza are not defending their territory as you disingenuously claim. They are on the contrary openly and explicitly engaged in a war of annihilation against Israel. Israel left Gaza and only defends the air space and sea borders to prevent more unwarranted and illegal attacks on itself and its territory.
The land of Gaza is not legally occupied, although many Judeophobes peddle this misnomer. The land of the West Bank and Gaza are legally disputed. This is not my opinion but the legal position in international law. To call Gaza occupied when it is disputed is the mark of a Judeophobic. It is like telling me black is white or up is down, or that the Holocaust never happened. This is just another simple act of self-deception by minds that are full of hate for Jews.
How can you expect any agreement when you misrepresent the truth?
Complain about this comment
Reply to Peter_Sym 2:30pm #95
Peter you must be very please with yourself to be arguing for Al Quaeda on a BBC website in light of what they did on 9/11.
Do not satiate yourself with Sophism. Al Quaeda uses an extreme interpretation of Islam that determines all non-Islamic land as ‘the state of war’. That is a place in perpetual Jihad awaiting conversion (including you). There is no conception of reciprocity, equality or social justice in their minds or policy.
This is what separates them from French Partisans or those who fought for independence in the USA and Israel. The Israelis, Americans and French all recognise the right of the other, the foreigner to exist.
This is developed from a critical pillar of the international community: Sovereignty is strictly reciprocal. You cannot receive it if you do not give it. This principle was established in the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. The Caliphate that you attempt to argue Al Quaeda seeks to set up would not recognise sovereignty of any other territorial entity outside its own borders. This would be a denial of all the established norms of international society; as such all other non-Islamic peoples would be free to enter a state of perpetual war against it. A type of war fought before 1648; a war of complete religious annihilation. For before 1648 genocidal wars were the norm.
Whether you think it is foolish or not; your last post is absurd, surreal and quite ignorant: Now you really are scaring the children.
Complain about this comment
zeneds: You are totally blinded by your own predjudice. My point is that to a Frenchman the French resistance were heroes. To a German conscript soldier they were terrorists. To a person in the twin towers Al Qu'eda were terrorists. To a Saudi who's living in poverty in the shadow of a Royal palace they're heroes.
Do you understand that whether someone is a terrorist or a hero depends totally on ones point of view? MY point of view is that Al Qu'eda are terrorists, not least because I'm the sort of person they'd be targetting for my shameless habit of using the right to free speech.
What I most certainly was not doing was defending Al Qu'eda. What I am attempting to do is bludgeon into the brains of the terminally stupid that both sides in the mid-east think that they are right and that both sides will use this to justify more killing.
Oh... if we're digging up the treaty of Westphalia it also specifically prohibits war for regime change. Al Que'da aren't the only ones to ignore that little point. However rather than consider this you'll doubtless resort to more personal abuse about confused kids.
Complain about this comment
To zeneds #94:
How will your impartial legal definition derail only one side of the argument (if you agree that terrorism is enacted by both sides)?
I conclude that you're just lobbying for israelis and have no interest in impartiality.
Complain about this comment
#96
Read what I wrote.
I did say that branding someone or some group as "terrorist" when you can't say what a terrorist is not logical, except as an act of political spin.
I did not say that Gaza was occupied; it clearly is not. But it is blockaded, and ordinary women and children are suffering as a result.
I did not say that Palestine is a state; it clearly is not. Whether it should be is a whole different argument. And Israel IS the Occupying Power (under the Fourth Geneva Convention and various UN resolutions, if you're interested) in both the West Bank and Gaza (the latter by virtue of the blockade of air and sea space, as I understand it). This brings responsibilites as well as rights.
All I have been asking for is that both sides of this argument step back and listen to the other side's point of view. You clearly are not interested in doing that as you sure you are in the right and no other opinion is worthy considering.
And attacking me as a Judophobe is despicable and cowardly as you know nothing of my ethnicity or religion. Still, avoids having to address the issues, I suppose.
I did not comment on this blog to be accused of this and if it's the best you can do I pity you.
I withdraw and leave you the field. Enjoy your victory!
Complain about this comment
It is necessary to recognize that the Orthodox are taught that living outside of "Greater Israel" is to live in "exile".
Members of the faithful so doing are expected to act as sympathisers (sayanim)
and pursue the interests of Israel in prefence to theose of the land that harbours them.
This may serve to explain some of the more bizarre postings to which decent folk have herein been exposed.
The motive for silencing reporters (in Gaza, not just the BBC, but all reporters) is quite simple the regime and its sympathisers have much to hide!
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1149931512
Complain about this comment
# 99
Your conclusion is mild, but correct.
Complain about this comment
Reply to Peter_Sym 3:04pm #98
One can either presume all violent political movements are ethically equal or one can attempt the difficult task of judging which are good and which are bad. Clearly you prefer to take the first most obvious and easiest option; all violence is equal. All group violence without uniforms is terrorism, whether it is French Resistance to Vichy or Al Quaeda resistance to the USA.
I prefer to attempt to distinguish between good and bad. It is not an easy thing to do and I do not expect those who enter the debate with a bias to be convinced.
When it comes to the latest insult; you made it talking about the terminally stupid. I will not respond, as you patronise everyone who disagrees with you with this statement.
Ultimately I do not think your argument that all violence directed at Israel and all Israeli responses to that violence are equal seems true to anyone who seeks a balanced view. However the point of this blog is to point out to BBC editors that they sit on your side of the argument: They attempt to degenerate and disparage Israeli self-defence into your definition of evil terror while simultaneously attempting to elevate the frankly evil genocidal terrorist nihilism of Hamas into some form of respectable worthy and good freedom fighting. You and they spew Judeophobic nonsense.
Reply to _Marko 3:07pm #99
Your latest post is confused. I am not lobbying for anyone, I do however believe you, many posters here and the BBC are Judeophobic. I am simply ashamed to belong to a species that bullies the minority, in this case Jews, at every level.
Response to Xie_Ming 12:37 #101
You are starting to sound like a broken record. By the way before you start accusing me of anything: You regurgitate a mantra of Jewish Orthodox exiles and quotes from Israelis; I am neither. This makes you sound extremely Judeophobic to me and reinforces my point. I simply think the BBC, you and many posters here are all bias against Israel.
Sick puppies.
Complain about this comment
Those seeking facts are again referred to the Israeli gush-shalom search function:
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1149931512
Complain about this comment
#103. Yup.. I take the first option. You know why? It makes no difference whatsoever how just or evil the cause is if I'm being blown to bits in the pursuit of it.
What REALLY scares me (and presumably your children are confused because they only read Tom Clancy) is that you think the world should judge GOOD & BAD according to your ethics. You appear not to understand that Hamas etc view the world differently and are equally convinced they are right. We've tried your approach: its called the war on terror and all it seems to be doing is breeding more terrorists.
My suggestion is to copy the Irish solution, draw a line under the past and beat out a mutually acceptable peace without trying to resolve 400 years of who did what to whom first.
Oh just to confuse you further do you know that Stalin threatened to turn France in 1945 into a second Gaza by unleashing the communist resistance against us if we continued to be difficult about Poland? Where would the French resistance have stood then?
The geneva convention says anyone who fights outside of uniform is a terrorist and I'm not arguing with that document. Its done O.K for us so far.
If you're wondering why I'm so passionate about this its because I had 4 months in Croatia in 1997.... it really didn't matter who started it or who was right because it was regular people regardless of their ethnicity who bled and died as a result.
What I will really rip you apart over is your claim that I spew Judeophobic anything. Please quote one single sentence I have uttered that is Judeophobic. If you bother to read my past posts, especially on the Newsnight blogs you will find me violently attacking the anti-semites who lurk there.
Complain about this comment
# 105
Truth and facts are nothing to a political Zionist.
The only tactic that is different here is the absence of scatology- an almost universal tactic among political Zionists
probably rooted in cultural images of colacal defilement and purity.
Ad hominemism is inevitable when fact are embarrasing.
Complain about this comment
The motive for silencing reporters
(in Gaza, not just the BBC, but all reporters)
is quite simple: the regime and its sympathisers have much to hide!
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1149931512
Complain about this comment
To zeneds #103
"I do not expect those who enter the debate with a bias to be convinced." (including yourself!)
"I do however believe you, many posters here and the BBC are Judeophobic" (quite offensive to everyone!)
When invited to inject some objectivity you refuse to engage.
In the absence of defining terrorism, please display some rationale:
1) What do you then hope to achieve with all your posts?
2) Can you express what your neutral or central political reference point is (list the rules or characteristics you have to follow to be neutral) and link to a source that you believe expresses the centre ground, or the best politically central source.
3) What is your method of analysis in determining BBC bias? (a reproducible method you can describe to someone to carry out which leads to the same conclusions and maybe measures bias over time)
Complain about this comment
Reply to Peter_Sym 4:31pm #105
For a man who concerns himself enough to tell others not to throw insults, you certainly throw enough insults of your own. This makes you seem like a hypocrite. Talking of ripping apart and violent attacks reinforces the view that you are unbalanced and slightly psychotic.
In this forum concerning BBC bias towards Israel you have persistently sought to equate Israeli defence with Hamas attack; that contributes to Judeophobic propaganda and imperils the lives of those in Israel.
Whether you like it or not; the brand of Whabist Jihad now being propagated against mainly secular states in the West, is a war. Whether you call it the War on Terror, the Third World War, the 21st Century Wars of Extermination, or the Great Jihadist Wars matter not to me. On one side are peace-loving democracies that at worst fight for resources to power their economies. On the other side are backward theocratic dictatorships and terrorist movements that at best fight for the annihilation of all cultures on the planet save their own. I know which side I am on.
In terms of resolution: The only thing that Israelis can do to resolve themselves with Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Whabists is to die quietly without defending themselves. The Islamicists are not close to being like the IRA in Ireland. To think that they are means that your level of analysis is too simplistic to be of any use to anyone, except Judeophobes baying for the annihilation of three million Jews in Israel.
In your post #77 you say both sides in the Israeli Arab conflict are as bad as each other; an effectively Judeophobic comment: For one side it is a war of survival for the other side a war of extermination.
Although it is difficult, you need to push yourself to actually make a value judgement: Or would you sit with your great Uncle-Uncle who you say fire-bombed Dresden and say to his face that his violence was morally and ethically the same as the German guards who were simultaneously imposing the Holocaust on an earlier generation of Jews? I am sure you Great Uncle would not appreciate your words and he would probably slap you in the chops for saying it: You would deserve the rebuke.
So enough of your holier-than-though attitude please. We are all grown ups here, self-righteousness does not cut it.
Complain about this comment
Response to Xie_Ming 4:58 and 5:00pm 12:37 #106 and #107
You talk of Zionist scatology and colacal [your typing mistake] defilement (which should not have got past the moderators). However you did make me laugh with your typing error; I think you meant to type cloacal instead of colacal. Trying to be too clever by half and coming off looking like a fool who is drunk in charge of a Thesaurus.
Xie you are spamming the same message now and referring to the other side of the argument with medical references to bottoms and poo. I think you should be quiet now and stop drinking.
Thank you again for being so funny though.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
109. The point is that Israels 'defence' against HAMAS rocket attacks is to fire 155mm howitzer shells back at the vague location the rockets came from. Both sides end up hitting innocents and I'm not going to claim a dead palestinian child is more or less of a victim than a dead israeli one.
I will actively support any legit. Israeli self defence. The problem the Israelis have is that they 'defend' out of all proportion and will use weapons of totally excessive power to attempt to take out terrorists knowing full well that it will cause civillian deaths too. The shrapnel from a 2000lb bomb dropped by an F16 can kill at a mile. Hamas also know this which is why they do it. Every dead arab kid = another volunteer and more great anti-Israeli propagada.
The difference between my great uncle (who is long dead) and the players in the mid-east is that he represented a country that was legally engaged in a war with another country, he wore a uniform and complied with the geneva convention as it was in 1945 (bombing cities was only oulawed in 1949). He at least TRIED to hit military targets (the Carl Zeiss optics works) and he certainly didn't complain of bias when the Germans shot back.
Your own bias springs forth: you describe this as a forum to discuss BBC bias against Israel... funny as its described as a forum to discuss areas of the world the BBC aren't allowed to report from.
Regarding the insults: theres a saying in the army that if you can't take it you shouldn't give it out.
Complain about this comment
#111. You don't need to fly to pakistan to join Al Qu'eda. It would seem that Leeds or Brixton would do. Quite how you're planning on defeating terror there with howitzer fire I wait for with baited breath.
Complain about this comment
Reply to Peter_Sym 5:33pm #112
There you go again: Simply lying to fill the Judeophobes with false hope. The Israelis do not drop two tonne bombs on Gaza; otherwise their problems would have been solved many years ago. Arguing that the Israelis use in your words, weapons of totally, excessive power, at vague locations, demonstrates that whatever military skills you were taught have now evaporated. Anyone with a basic military training and knowledge of Israeli operations knows that a majority of potential Israeli strikes are called off precisely because they fear causing civilian casualties. You are simply lying to yourself, and to others, when you make these ludicrous claims.
The Israelis are also engaged in legal defence of their country; to say they are not is another lie. To argue that your uncle TRIED [your cap lock is stuck on] to hit military targets implies the Israelis do the opposite: Another misrepresentation of facts.
Your entire argument in post 112 is absurd. If the Israelis really took the gloves off to give Hamas a taste of the genocide they want to hand the Israelis, two well-placed neutron bombs would solve the problem for Israel once and for all. The population there voted for the destruction of Israel and handed out sweats when the twin towers were attacked. However the Israelis act very differently from the way you describe.
The BBC displays the same bias, half-truth and full on lies that you do. Your self-righteousness and egocentric moralisation lead you to become Judeophobic. Although I grant you that this is a different type of Judeophobia than Hamas and Hezbollah display. They are more honest and consistent about their hate of Jews. A review of your posts shows you to be a flip-flopper.
As you are quoting army sayings, and judging by your misrepresentations and hyperbole, we would call you a ‘Walt’.
Complain about this comment
To zeneds #111,
Your failure to reply to the three questions in post #108 speaks volumes about your objectivity.
Your accusations in post #111 do not add credibility to your posts.
and I am not sure your posts take any step closer towards any solution in the Middle East, or address the question of media manipulation mentioned in the blog post.
Complain about this comment
Reply to _Marko 6:02pm #115
Marko, you are unable and unwilling to see answers before you repeat questions. Then you say the questions have not been answered. If you do not understand it the first time you certainly will not understand it the second. I am not interested in what a hater like you thinks; you are not consistent or truthful with yourself let alone me.
I am addressing the very deep hatred that people like you display that is the very causality behind BBC bias. One thing is for sure; your feigned questions about definitions mask a deep bias that is obvious.
If you think I have nothing to say, do not force me to respond by inane comments and attempts at diverting the argument with meaningless searches for impossible definitional agreement.
________________________________
To Marko, Peter_Sym and Xie_Ming, sorry but I have to go out now. I am sure you will keep posting lies, half truths and your overt distortions, but I cannot play with you for an hour or two. I will check back later and see what additional bunkum you have innovated here. Peter will you be telling us next that the Israelis carpet-bomb Gaza next?
Complain about this comment
No the Israelis do not carpet bomb gaza although the fact that you think 2 tonne (actually 1 tonne 2000 lbs is 1000 kilos) would 'solve their problems' says all we need to know about your politics.
Ironic when you justify your stance saying 'Israel is fighting for its life and faces genocide'... not that that has been the case since 1973, but don't let minor details deter you.
My point is simple. While HAMAS etc would dearly love to kill every Jew in Israel they are not going to accomplish it with supercharged fireworks. They might just accomplish it politically and the way to achieve that is by provoking Israeli overreaction (like their foolish invasion of Lebanon).
Ask yourself this: if every time the IRA bombed the UK we'd sent a destroyer to shell Dublin do you think NORAID would have collected more or less money for the boys?
I said my great uncle TRIED to hit a military target because I read his log. The fact that Dresden was entirely flattened and that landing a bomb within 5 miles was considered a hit then rather suggests he & his mates failed.
The worst thing is that your stupid attacks on me are actually alienating someone who might basically agree with you (rather like the Israelis). The IDF wear uniform and belong to a UN recognised nation. HAMAS do not. In my definition the Israelis are an Army and Hamas terrorists but you'e chosen to ignore that and pick a fight instead.
Complain about this comment
To zeneds #116
Where are your answers to the questions I posed in #108?
(repeated below)
1) What do you then hope to achieve with all your posts?
2) Can you express what your neutral or central political reference point is (list the rules or characteristics you have to follow to be neutral) and link to a source that you believe expresses the centre ground, or the best politically central source.
3) What is your method of analysis in determining BBC bias? (a reproducible method you can describe to someone to carry out which leads to the same conclusions and maybe measures bias over time)
And to anyone, please link to where I have shown hatred, Judeophobia, lies, half truths, overt distortions etc. as accused by zeneds.
I am happy to be accused of persistence and trying to encourage reasoned and objective arguments.
Complain about this comment
Reply to Peter_Sym 6:57 #117. I offer my apologies to other readers for the length of this requested reply.
Peter you claim Israelis used 2 tonne bombs in an earlier post; one of several direct lies. The Israeli’s have a problem with a population dedicated to their destruction; based on your false accusations that the Israelis are using the type of ordinance needed for tank battles, I stated the logical point that the population of Gaza would be dead if your accusations were true. You now attempt to manipulate my analysis of your lies by suggesting that I would support the large-scale use of two tonne bombs on Gaza, which I would not.
You say Israel has not been fighting for its survival since 1973, another lie. The President of the Republic of Iran that the West (including the country you live in) believes is developing nuclear weapons has a President and ex-President who both talk of wiping Israel from the face of the Earth. No other member of the United Nations faces such an existential threat. Further you claim military heritage and background but you are clearly oblivious to the new strategic threat posed by the new Hezbollah run but Iranian owned missile guidance installations in mount Sannine (Lebanon). You fail to mention or acknowledge the huge military build up by Hezbollah. You fail to mention that the Syrians were caught with a North Korean Plutonium factory, which Israel destroyed, not even twenty-four months ago. It seems that you are the one missing the details and skipping to ludicrous conclusions. The question is whether you are twisting reality out of ignorance or intentionally. You sound pathetic in this regard.
Your point is simple and also incorrect; if either Hamas or Hezbollah receives a weapon of mass destruction [WMD] from Iran they will in your words, happily, use it. Do I take from you use of the word happy, that this is how you would feel about such a deployment of a WMD? You seem at ease twisting my language to make it incorrectly seem I would support use of anti-tank ordinance in Gaza.
You refer to Israeli action in Lebanon as foolish, again you are wrong. It was a strategic victory for Israel as NATO troops now patrol the other side of their Northern border. Hezbollah and their sugar daddy Iran will have to take on NATO as well as Israel if they decide to make trouble from there again.
As I explained to you before, comparing Ireland to Israel is naive misleading and in your words, stupid: It is like comparing apples and pears mate.
You say that I am attacking you. In fact I am pointing out your natural bias and lying that it seems you are oblivious to. You are rather immature and unconfident if you suggest you would change sides through alienation (not agree with me) because I point out the lies, obfuscation and hyperbole in your comments. It is you who picked a fight by bleating lies about the Israelis and talking nonsense in this forum. Your credibility is shot through by the lies I have demonstrated in your last two posts. You are thereby helping Israel’s nihilist enemies, the enemies of peace and democracy, the enemies of the country that gives you security and the allies of ancient theocratic determinism.
Frankly with enemies like al Quaeda and Hamas, no one needs a friend like you. Further you are completely off topic now, you Walt. Unless you have something to say about how your bias is shared by the BBC, effecting their news coverage and consequential lack of access to Gaza; there is little point in responding to your random, tangential and Sophist bluster.
Complain about this comment
Response to Marko 6:58 #118. I offer my apologies to other readers for the length of this requested reply.
Marko. For the last time:
1) What I hope to achieve with my posts, is that people who write lies and half-truths and manipulations in the name of righteousness are seen in the true light of their bias (as with Sym). I hope that seeing these shortcomings, those in the BBC might recognise their own failures of judgement and make fairer news coverage in future. I have said this three times to you before and you keep missing it.
2) The best neutral or central political reference you request is the difference between terrorist action taken by the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah to fight a war of genocide against Israel on the one hand; and the attempt of the Israeli military to defend against the genocidal attacks against their people on the other. This would equate to any genocidal war such as the one in Sudan.
Interestingly the BBC seems much more interested in reporting the Israeli’s military action and characterising it as genocide, a complete transference of reality; rather than reporting the genocidal war waged by Whabists in Sudan against Black Africans. The latter is a war supported by Saudi Arabia and China and is more threatening to more life and more stability than the Israeli defence of their pathetically small area of real estate. I have answered this before as well. This leads to the third question.
3) A simple measure of the BBC bias is to draw a graph of the number of deaths in any conflict against the number of words written on BBC publications and or minutes of television coverage, or budget spent on production crews covering the story. One soon discovers that the BBC is obsessed with Israel and attempt to only cover the Israeli aggression triggered by the Arab genocidal attacks on that country. The BBC singularly refuses to blame the troubles on the Arabs for failing to absorb refugees in 1948 and of repeatedly attacking Israel ever since. Further the BBC refuse to deal with the theocratic routes of the conflict and the characterisation of Jews by Islam; which is also a theological pre-requisite of the conflict.
Your Judeophobia comes in the guise of your obsession with Israel as opposed to a natural concern with all genocide. This coupled with your transference to the Israelis the false guilt of perpetrators of genocide as opposed to the reality that they have and potentially will be again victims of a level of genocide not experienced by any other ethnic minority on the planet. One thee out of five Jews in the entire world were killed by the Holocaust in living memory. Three out of five Jews are threatened with annihilation by Iran today. This is unprecedented. If the Israelis were going to fight a genocidal war against the Palestinians there would already be no Arab populations in Gaza, the West Bank or half the Middle East.
The relevance of what I am saying is that you display the same subtle and well-hidden Judeophobia that the self-righteous BBC displays, to those sensitive enough to comprehend it. There are those of us who recognise it and those of you who obfuscate and attempt to hide it behind stupid circular arguments; such as where you started. As you attempted to argue in this forum: You stated that if you cannot define terrorism you cannot accuse the BBC of bias, your post #48 and #90. Your argument remains complete tripe. You certainly do not deserve the attention I have given you responding to you a second time.
However as I have explained to you before the Gaza border is closed at the moment as it is simply too dangerous to operate it with clear and present threats to those who have to work there in the open air (Israelis); not just the journalists who pass through there in armoured vehicles. Besides, any journalist in Gaza who does not broadcast stories favourable to Hamas gets the kidnapping treatment. Hence why would Israel risk their people to allow a bias news crew into Gaza when everyone knows that even if they wanted to, they cannot risk broadcasting a story that is unfavourable to the Hamas regime?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Truth and facts are nothing to a political Zionist.
The motive for silencing reporters
(all reporters in Gaza, not just the BBC)
is quite simple: the regime and its sympathizers have much to hide!
For facts, use the search function on the left of the following site:
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1149931512
Complain about this comment
If one would speak of "Judeophobia" then one should face up to the anti-gentilism of the Orthodox, the Talmud, SHAS, etc.
Israel is a religio/ethnic state that began in terrorism, shifted to genocide and then continued with ethnic cleansing.
Having turned Gaza into a prison camp, it then pretended it to have a certain sovereignty (because, otherwise, it had legal obligations to care for the 1.5 million enclosed).
Since they were enclosed, the Israeli regime has been attempting ethnic cleansing to force them out of Palestine.
It is this activity that the Israelis wish to prevent the rest of the World from knowing about.
The anti-gentile terrorism of Jewish Defence League in America (that, even after 9/11 had its leaders jailed for trying to blow up the offices of a US Congressman) etc., etc.
Facts can be very briefly expressed. Obfuscation requires much verbiage.
Israel has much to hide. That is why the reporters are not being allowed in.
Complain about this comment
#86, 87 et seq
According to the logic demonstrated by these pro-Israel writers it would have been okay for the indigenous Indians of North America to conduct 9/11 but not Al-Quaeda. Terrorism IS terrorism and it is fanaticism which drives anyone to say it is not.
And an attack on Russia, or China, or even lowly India, would almost certainly guarantee a chain reaction leading to a nuclear winter.
And isn't it so rich how, at the first sign of discomfort, you resort to the usual anti-Israel insults? I really would like "peace on Earth" and it would seem fundamental to me that Israel needs to start behaving itself rather better than it has been for the past five decades if we are to achieve peace in the Middle East. It may also give some of the more trigger happy regimes on this planet less excuses to mix up their thirst for fuel with a misplaced belief in being a good police person.
Complain about this comment
Haha Xie_Emperor_Ming is back to spam us;
You are copying and pasting the same comments again and again.
The moderator should not allow the old Ctrl+C Ctrl+V boogie.
What now? You are saying Jews are trying to kill US Congressmen?
You need to put down whatever it is that you are smoking; it is way too strong for you. You are tripping out mate.
No right-minded court in the world would demand a person defend someone who is openly trying to kill them; you are seriously nuts. However you are fun too :)
Complain about this comment
Aww.
MeACoalPit, silly name but hey; you had promised to crawl back in to your toad hole earlier. Not good for your word either.
I am waiting for you to be moderated to see what bile you are going to spew now.
Complain about this comment
MeACoalPit; pathetic comment sorry. Also off topic.
How Israel has behaved for five decades? What? You would prefer they lost a war and were annihilated.
I was right about you.
How can you be surprised when people call you Judeophobic when you attack Israel and not the Arab regimes who have attacked it?
You fruitcake. It is not worth replying to you either.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#86
Thank you for explaining your earlier remarks, but why attack me? I simply ask questions that beg explanation in the current context of Gaza. I have no interest in the survival of Israel's military might anymore than I want armed personnel of the USA or of a "red" army walking down any street near me soon.
My simple observation is that the nuclear superiority enjoyed by Israel is a big fly in a particularly ineffective ointment that has been applied to the festering boil of the Middle East.
It serves no one any good to apply double standards where it is okay for one power to have something but not okay for another (eg Iran) to develop capability.
And please do not deliver the old chestnuts about "democracy". We have observed in this century just how conveniently democracy can be ignored when it suits even a major power.
Complain about this comment
#127
So when the insults don't work you switch to the old "off topic"? Israel are the ones denying access to "friendly" journalists - that was the initial subject we were debating.....
Complain about this comment
85. Badgercourage
No, it doesn't depend on one's point of view. It is quite possible to evaluate terrorism objectively. The problem is mainly one of moral equivalence. The BBC sees no difference between Israelis who make every effort to avoid civilian casualties and Palestinians who make every effort to inflict civilian casualties.
Actually the BBC leans far more in sympathy towards those who inflict the casualties. It has lost its moral compass, if it ever had one.
Now I appreciate your reasonable, civil attitude to the debate. I guess "disingenuous" was the wrong word, so I'm sorry about that. You didn't know that Hamas started the current round because you presumably got the news from the BBC and it has this nasty habit of going through extraordinary contortions to make Hamas appear as blameless as possible.
The BBC is in fact engaged in an insidious form of brainwashing and nowhere is it more evident (to those who have come to recognize its style) than in the Israeli-Arab conflict.
48_marko,
You're asking us to supply a definition of terrorism and in the same breath telling us that we wont?
Here's mine:
The murder or threat of murder of civilians by armed groups in order to sow fear and chaos for political and/or religious ends.
Have a look at how the BBC covered Israel's war with Hezbollah in 1996 to get a handle on its bias. It was a real eye-opener.
52. zeneds,
That's a fine rebuttal, but it’ll probably go over people's heads here.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#131
The problem with evaluating terrorism is that it requires a common agreement of what the conflict is. In the case of Israel and her perceived enemies there is no common agreement as to what the issues are. In Israel's eyes the Arab world want her gone, and yet, in Arab eyes, there appears to be a wish to have a level playing field where the same rules apply on both sides.
Words are twisted on both sides to suit their propaganda interests. I have Jewish friends with whom it is impossible to debate Israel, whilst other Jewish friends freely admit that the conflict is much deeper and dangerous because of Israeli action. I sense that many Jews are hyper-sensitive and defensive and I really do not understand why.
My Arab friends will freely debate the issues and do not deny the fanaticism that exists in some of their quarters. However they do point to the unevenness of the UN in dealing with Middle East problems and of pro-Israel bias in the USA which is not going to lie down any time soon.
The experience on these blogs is similar to any debate where Jews are involved - they appear entrenched in arguments that are less than worthy of consideration if history is important. In Germany Jews were moved around at the convenience of the Nazis - the parallels in Gaza may not appear to be that subtle if you happen to be on the wrong side.
We should - all of us - be very frightened of any regime which claims to be "right" all of the time.
Complain about this comment
#132
"Israel has a very convincing nuclear deterrent to prevent people like the Iranians thinking they can destroy Israel without consequence. It also means that anyone who thinks of imposing another Holocaust on Jews may well find themselves annihilated in a matter of seconds."
So what you are really saying is this. Imagine I lived just across the road from a lovely community established over many centuries. One of the residents is a lovely person with rich stories of wisdom and modesty and I share many an hour with them.
One day you come along with your inquisitors and take this lovely person and their family away and then descend on every person who has shared time with them for cross examination. As such a person I am accused of complicity to endanger you and your kind.
Kind of rings a bell about something that happened sixty odd years ago.
Now do you get it?
Complain about this comment
117. Peter Sym, you said,
Ironic when you justify your stance saying 'Israel is fighting for its life and faces genocide'... not that that has been the case since 1973, but don't let minor details deter you.
To add to the points already made by zeneds demonstrating that Israelis undoubtedly face genocide, you obviously missed the post-1973 wave of PLO terror that came in from Lebanon and the so-called First Intifada and Second Intifada. Men, women and children were singled out and slaughtered by Palestinian terrorists. The Israeli death toll during the Second Intifada alone, which began at the end of 2000, was well over 1000 people.
Let me put this in the mildest way possible: you need to study up on this conflict. The intent of genocide is demonstrated on a daily basis by the actions of Palestinian terrorists, as it is demonstrated throughout the Arab and Muslim world. There is no doubt whatsoever that, if the Palestinians and terror groups like Hezbollah and the terrorist leaders of Iran had the weapons, and if Israel were not so effective in thwarting terror, they would conduct genocide on the Jews to rival that of the Nazis.
MeACoalPit 133, 134,
I see that you are now hinting at the comparison of the actions of the Nazis with that of the Israelis. You might like to know that particular comparison has been used repetitively for decades by the most foul of anti-Semites who cast around for the deepest insult they can find with which to demonise the Jews. (And yes, I know it has also been used by ignorant left-wing Jews who have sold out to those who would destroy Israel.) But its overuse has not diminished the insult.
You should understand whose company you are keeping. But perhaps you don't mind the company.
Complain about this comment
#119. Doubtless if HAMAS had Daleks they'd use them too... but they don't. Intent to commit genocide only matters when the other side have the ability to commit it.
So far they're using fireworks that have killed less israelis in the past few years than one disgruntled Palestinian in a bulldozer managed in 2 minutes. He was stopped by a single 9mm bullet to the head.
In 1973 Israel was nearly wiped out by the combined armies of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan & Iraq. In 2008 Egypt helps israel with the Gaza blocade, Jordan wants a quiet life, Lebanon is a failed state, Iraq is full of americans and even Syria isn't stupid enough to give the US an excuse to attack.
Iran MIGHT by mad enough to lauch a nuke if they manage to get one, but they'll get a dozen or more back in return.
Funnily enough I have no bias whatsoever. I dislike both Israel and the Arabs.
If you want the ultimate example why take that silly invasion of Lebanon. Israel lost a load of tanks to US made TOW missiles israel sold to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war which Iran then passed back to hezbollah. ALL the parties in that region are silly, vicious, shortsighted and none are prepared to offer any compromise because all parties think they can win everything by force.
So far Israels military tactics aren't working. The most practical thing they ever did was build that wall. That saved more Israeli lives than any number of militray strikes.
Only 1 nation on earth has a history of winning counter insurgency warfare. Britain.
We didn't do it with airpower- we do it with small squads of infantry. Take Gibraltar- 4 SAS men took out all the IRA terrorists with handguns and no civillian casualties. Rather than use weapons designed to stop the Red army in Europe Israel would have far more success against the rocket crews with snipers dug in for weeks if need be.
Complain about this comment
"You refer to Israeli action in Lebanon as foolish, again you are wrong. It was a strategic victory for Israel as NATO troops now patrol the other side of their Northern border"
And you accuse me of being a military incompetent....
Israel lost one soldier and took a few rocket hits. It deployed its entire army at amazing cost, lost far more men, gave Hezbollah a chance to show their anti-tank weapons work really rather nicely and created so much bad PR for Israel that even president Tony got a little bit cross. Then just in case they hadn't shot themselves in the foot enough in a fit of spite they cluster bomb half of Southern lebanon for no military gain whatsoever.
Israels mobilisation in '67 was 100% justified. The invasion of Lebanon was just plain pointless. Doubtless you reckon Stalingrad was a 'strategic victory' for Germany because Russia took more casualties.
Complain about this comment
Seeing as this debate has ceased to be a debate and has instead descended into calling anyone who disagrees with you 'biased' I think its time to leave you to your bickering.
I will however propose a solution to the mid-east: we make 'general' zeneds a special envoy to the UN and we can work out policy based on his arbitary and black & white vision of who the 'goodies' and 'baddies' are.
I'm sure peace will follow in weeks.
Complain about this comment
Moderator
Please close this debate.
Complain about this comment
# 125
Those who are interested should look into the history of the Jewish Defense League in America (JDL).
Started by Meir Kahane in Brooklyn, it bombed embassies and other targets. Kahane then went to Israel and started similar efforts. He is survived by the party "Kahane Lives" then got representation in the Knesset.
After 9/11, leaders of the JDL, based then in San Franciscio, were arrested by the FBI when they were attempting to blow up the office of a US Congressman.
Both died in jail.
____
This degree of ignorance and misinformation manifested above signals the need for more facts to be presented here.
Those who are interested should save some of the postings for future reference,
particularly the URLs to ongoing sources of facts.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The Other Israel is a good source for current events within Israel and Palestine, with links to other sites:
Examples contained in the following show a continuum of Israeli censorship, so the recent blocking of observers from Gaza is nothing new. It also contains an interesting an interesting history of the Zionist enterprise in Palestine from an Israeli point of view:
http://toibillboard.info/ed137_138.htm
Those interested in the subject should be sure to download and save this history.
Complain about this comment
Xie Ming, does your source also report all of the rocket attacks launched by the "palestinians" and whose homes in Israel they hit, how many people they kill? Does it document the life and short career of each suicide bomber, how many people they murdered, how many women and children died as a result of their action, how much money their families got from Iraq and Saudi Arabia as rewards for their "martyrdom?" Dies it show public portraits of them as heroes, their faces painted on the outsides of buildings? This is a criminal society we are talking about. I watch the reports of "palestinian suffering" differently than is usually intended. For me, I feel like I am watching "The Justice Channel."
Complain about this comment
Perhaps someone should present a parody on the recent call in talk show where the BBC gave voice to the Taleban to present its side of things. I think it should be a mock interview with a top Nazi official explaining the justification of bombing London, the attacks on France and Poland, the plans to take over Britain. He could explain the reason for the extermination of the Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Slavs, and other untermenchen. He could give the Nazi side of the story. Now wouldn't that be fair? After all, BBC says that this is what journalism is about, presenting both sides of a story. I'd be especially interested in the parts where the V1 and V2 rockets which struck Britain indescriminately were justified. I wonder what kind of case they could make for it. I also wonder how even handed BBC reporters would be presenting it.
Complain about this comment
#141 "Hebron Settlers attack Palestinian Home - as revenge for their eviction by Israeli police"
so in effect you're saying the forces of the israeli state backed the palestinians in this situation and a handful of israeli settlers decided to act like swine in reprisal.
Your point that the Israeli no 2 uses the word 'apartheid' is equally self-defeating.
Many israelis are not happy with the current situation and will happily condemn it to anyone who'll listen. You'll be hard pressed to find any Arab who'll do the same.
Complain about this comment
# 145
The point is that one should note the URL as the source of the facts. The editorialisms are another matter.
Examples contained in the following show a continuum of Israeli censorship, so the recent blocking of observers from Gaza is nothing new. It also contains an interesting an interesting history of the Zionist enterprise in Palestine from an Israeli point of view:
toibillboard.info/ed137_138
Those interested in the subject should be sure to download and save this history.
Complain about this comment
To the foregogoing URL, one must add the usual prefix and suffix.
Here is an almost daily source for the abuses of the Palestinians by the Israeli forces:
http://www.btselem.org/English/
Complain about this comment
Given the Israeli censorship and the blocking of correspondents, one should also be aware of this organization:
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Again, download and save these addresses for future use!l
Complain about this comment
# 148
With Israeli censorship and blocking of reporters, I am not quite sure why the moderators should be concerned with a reference to the index for The Other Israel website (above).
Here is a truncated version of it:
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Again, this is a way to become informed in spite of official censorship!
Complain about this comment
Response to Xie_Ming Spam posts: 104, 106, 107, 122, 123, 140, 141, 142, 146, 147, 148 and 149:
Hi people, I just thought I would drop in at lunch time to see how you are all doing: Well Xie_Emperor_Ming is off in a world all of his own; he keeps copying and pasting pervious messages and links without even bothering to pretend to look as if he is either responding to other people’s posts or responding to the original point of the blog.
For any of you interested in learning what it is to be ignorant of other people’s views Xi_Emperor_Ming is a great teacher. The BBC weakens the idea that it is sincere about asking people what they think when they allow such repeated and repetitive spamming by one person. It is as if they give this forum for sensible people to comment and debate, then lock the door, throw away the key and never read any comments again.
The least the moderators can do is make an attempt to prevent repetition, but they cannot be bothered. Ming you reinforce the view that anyone of your mindset is fascistic and quite a dangerous sociopath. You have spectacularly failed to answer any question put to you. Do you work for the Revolutionary Guard of Iran?
The more you spam the less likely anyone will click on any of your propaganda links; I certainly have not (click on site and save for future use; haha you make me laugh). You prove the point many have been making against you and the BBC; both of you focus solely on Israel mistakes without a single mention of criminality from the other side. Case closed.
134 Coal: I am flattered that you copy my analogy-style, but the story you tell in post 134 makes no sense unless one is talking about the Catholic inquisition; in which case it still makes no sense. Paul_Sym is correct about you; you regurgitate the worst Judeophobic arguments.
137 Peter: The point I was trying to make Peter is that before the so-called second Lebanese war it was Israel versus Hezbollah and their sugar daddy Iran. Now it is Israel and NATO versus Hezbollah and their sugar daddy Iran. This is a serious strategic turn around for Israel. In the event that Hezbollah start firing rockets into Israel, it is NATO troops are tasked to stop them. Further, Hezbollah will find it hard to even get to the Israeli border without detection by NATO. In effect the border area has been demilitarised by first Israeli military action and secondly by NATO occupation. The proof of the pudding? No Israeli has to hide in bomb shelters in the North due to Hezbollah rocket fire since the war ended. This was a success for Israel. Further, Israel has great experience of fighting Hezbollah and has changed their tactics accordingly. As you know, no one comes away from a fight without some blood being spilt on his or her side. Remember, if under extreme duress, a decision could be taken to use neutron weapons on Hezbollah positions; these can have a burst radius as small as 100 metres.
Complain about this comment
My post 150 was against Xie_Emperor_Ming for spaming. I am quite happy to have my comment 150 moderated on the basis that Emperor_Ming's previous propaganda is also removed from this forum; which the BBC seems to be now taking seriously.
Complain about this comment
#144. Actually I'd support that sort of thing because it might educate people. Justifying the handful of V1s and V2 that were hitting England would be relatively simple in light of what we were doing to German cities at the same time. Equally the rise of the nazis was created by British and Frances stupid punitive actions at Versailles and total failure to intervene when Hitler was stoppable
This has been the whole point of my posts- that the world operates on grey scale not black & white and that our enemies aren't our enemies because they're evil bond-style villains carrying out super-evil plans for the joy of being evil but because they BELIEVE that we have wronged them (whether we have or not). This is why basically decent people like Rommel went along with Hitler and how our enemies can be defeated. We reason with the reasonable and fragment the organisation as we did with the IRA.
They wanted a united ireland and brits out of Ulster but paying off Adams and McGuiness with a bit of personal power was enough to fragment the IRA into virtually useless splinter groups. The question is who in HAMAS can be paid off?
Complain about this comment
My post 150 – My Reference to 137: So sorry Paul I mistyped you as Peter. My mistake. Got to go back to work soon; maybe see you later.
Complain about this comment
# 148 #149
There seems to be a terrible reluctance on the part of the moderators to allow the address of The Other Israel to be published.
Anyone who finds it on his own can obtain links to other sources of news concerning censorec and blocked Gaza.
Complain about this comment
153# Gah ignore me it is Peter :(
Sorry peeps; never post if you are rushing out of the door. Sorry again.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Emperor_Ming: Buck Rogers is going to get you!!
The only reluctance the BBC has is to go along with your one sided fascism.
Complain about this comment
#154 This post is an attempt to circumvent moderation.
Complain about this comment
#137. Couldn't Israel have asked for some help? Israels problem is that it has a publically stated position of having no allies only neutrals and enemies. As such it puts everyones back up.
A request for peacekeeping troops would have been met very favourably by Blair who's desperate to save his image. Even Turkish troops might have been a nice compromise.
ideas like using neutron weapons are the sort of madness Israel might just do.... how much 'propaganda' for people like Xie-Ming do they want?
if you want my solution to the problem its dead simple: Israel offers the west bank back to Jordan and Gaza back to Egypt. Both are moderate countries who can't afford war with Israel anymore and have more than enough problem with islamic extremists themselves. Egypt & Jordan either have to take on the problem themselves or publically refuse to support the Palestinians. It totally bypasses Hamas, complies with all UN resolutions and puts the Arabs totally on the wrong foot.
Heads Israel wins, tails the Arabs lose. If Hamas continue firing rockets its an act of war by Jordan/Egypt who would be proving they couldn't control their own borders and Israel can start using the UN to its own advantage for a change and start demanding peacekeeping troops be deployed on arab land.
The only people who suffer are the settlers and they're a bigger problem for israel than anyone else. If Syria wants the Golan back it can negotiate like a civilised country,
Complain about this comment
lol
Work those moderators guys :)
Complain about this comment
One can see illustrated here the compulsion of the guilty to silence exposure of their deeds. The censorship of Gaza is no accident.
Another way to get past the news blockade imposed by the Israelis is to get on the free mailing list of Physicians for Human Rights.
These people try to do what they can for the people dying of cancer, birth complications, etc. at Israeli checkpoints. The also have photos of Palestinian hospitals closed by the invading Israelis.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
They are fully aware of the ethnic discrim ination practiced by Israeli authorities.
Complain about this comment
It is obvious above that the criticism of the BBC is designed to silence and intimidate it concerning the evil activities of Israel.
The solution for honest folk is to avoid the charactertic attempts at character assassination and diversion and concentrate on the facts.
Several URLs have been offered for sources of such information from within Israel.
There are also Palestinian sources for such information, but only Israeli sources have been mentioned here.
The BBC Mid East news site offers Palestinian links.
Complain about this comment
#160. So the Palestinians voted in a democratic election for an organisation thats only stated policy aim is the total destruction of Israel.... and then they expect to have their cancers treated in Israeli hospitals?
Do you perhaps see why I have little time for the arabs and their bizarre world view too? Every chance they've been given at a peaceful two state solution they've rejected because they truly believe they can win the lot... quite how HAMAS intends to provide health care once they've driven the Jews into the sea doesn't seem to have been considered yet.
Complain about this comment
# 160
All we seek are facts, here, rather than editorialisms.
Is there some reason why the moderators should be frightened by a reference to the non-profit Israeli organization called
Physicians for Human Rights?
After all, it is they who see much of the efforts at ethnic cleaning indulged in by the Israelis-
the sort of fact that barring correspondents is supposed to keep hidden.
It is unfortunate if the moderators are being intimidated.
Perhaps the usual Zionist tactics are working.
Complain about this comment
# 163
Posting # 163 is speculation and editorialism, rather than fact.
The facts include
(1) the closure of Palestinian hospitals by the Israelis as collective punishment (also serving ethnic cleansing)
(2) the denial of electricty and medical shipments to hospitals (toward the same end)
It is too bad that the moderators do not wish to allow people to know the URL for Physicians for Human Rights, who try to deal with these matters daily.
Complain about this comment
#164- I don't know how you have the nerve to complain about the mods given your lightning fast approval of all these repetitive posts.
I'll repeat my original comment: why should Israel provide electricity, medical supplies etc to people who voted for a political party demanding the total destruction of Israel?
You might as well complain that the Israelis aren't providing enough rocket fuel !!
Equally if you claim the BBC are silencing sources of criticism of Israel on the same page that the BBC is being accused of anti-Israeli bias I'd say the BBC are probably calling it about right.
Complain about this comment
To TrueToo #131
"You're asking us to supply a definition of terrorism and in the same breath telling us that we wont?"
Yes that's true, it was totally unreasonable and I knew it was a difficult question!
By arriving at that definition, would you then be forced to acknowledge that terrorism has been committed by all sides? and maybe conclude that If you are unable to acknowledge this then you may not be able to judge news media bias?
To Zeneds #120
Thank you for directly answering my questions. I am assuming the link missing from question 2) about the most impartial news source is http://www.jpost.com/ :)
In post #158 Peter_Sym offers a solution. What is your comment about this? And what is your solution?
And more generally,
RE: News media manipulation and propaganda
What would be the symptoms of someone trying to hi-jack or manipulate a media outlet?
(zeneds, I'm not accusing you of this, just seeing if people can agree on some principles)
Declarations of bias without posting specific evidence or evidence that their view may represent the majority UK or World opinion.
Inability to express what a neutral or central political reference point is.
Continuously directing abuse at people that disagree with their point of view.
Having no method of analysis.
Disregarding facts, logic, expressing opinions as facts, linking to opinion blogs as factual evidence, making simple uncontroversial factual errors, repeating allegations as facts constantly no matter how frequently and comprehensively they are disproved, or at least shown as unproven, repeatedly proposing arguments that have been shown to be flawed.
Concede nothing positive about their opponents.
Become hysterical.
Attack rather than defend.
When challenged, avoid fully engaging with coherent arguments.
Complain about this comment
#166. A definition of terrorism is easy: I posted it before:
A terrorist does is not legally employed by a sovereign nation. He does not fight in uniform and they use acts of violence against primarily civilian or other soft targets to force political change by non-democratic means.
If anyone can find any holes in it let me know. It covers everyone from animal rights activists to Al Que'da.
Israeli troops intentionally firing at aid workers (and I'm not claiming that happens although many do) would be war criminals not terrorists. A CIA agent planting a bomb on a plane (again.... ) would be covered by the laws regarding spies (and spies generally end up hung) and the actual bombing would be an act of war by the USA, not an act of terrorism.
There's no need to make up new laws when perfectly good ones exist for most situations.
Complain about this comment
# 164
Is factual and self-explanatory. The hospitals are blocaded and convoys of relief materials are denied.
Even the admission of water filters required a court order to get through and was delayed several weeks.
Oral polemics cannot obfuscate these, but the Zionists here certainly try every trick to block the knowledge from reaching the public.
______________________________
Uri Avnery reports on the 1947-1949 ethnic cleansing:
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1210454063/
"Throughout the war I wrote up my experiences. My reports appeared in the newspapers at the time and were later collected in a book entitled "In the Fields of the Philistines, 1948" ..
The military censors did not allow me to dwell on the negative sides, so immediately after the war I wrote a second book called "The Other Side of the Coin", disguised as a literary work, so I did not have to submit it to censorship.
There I reported, inter alia, that we had received orders to kill every Arab who tried to return home."
Note that the Israeli censorship of their evil deeds is more than 60 years old.
Complain about this comment
# 164
Those who manage to find the URL for Physicians for Human Rights for themselves should get on the free mailing list.
It may be one of the few ways to get the facts about the horrors being perpetrated by the Israelis against the Palestinian population.
Complain about this comment
Response to Peter_Sym: 12:49 #158
and also asked for by _Marko in his post #166 3:59pm
Peter the point of this entire blog is why the BBC is excluded from covering Gaza and other hot-spots in the world: See the final paragraph of my post #120 to Marko for an external reasoning for this exclusion from Gaza; by external I refer to factors forced on the BBC from outside. See my post #52 to paulcrossleyii for an internal reasoning for the BBC bias against Jews; by internal I mean self-imposed bias. TrueToo described my post #52 as a fine rebuttal, in his post #131 (thank you kindly T.T.), but he said that my argument would quote; go over the heads of many here.
In your post #158 you seek to solve the problems of the Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, which is slightly beyond the scope of this blog. However I will indulge you. I hope others can either forgive the length of this post or ignore it if it causes headaches caused by cognitive dissonance, as it will clash with any pre-existing Judeophobic worldview.
I would agree with you that the West Bank will become-one with Jordan sometime in the future. Hamas and Hezbollah have both stated that they want to get as much land from Israel in the West Bank before they take-over Jordan. This will put the Israelis back to their strategic reality of pre-1967.
Before 1967 Israel could have been feasibly cut in half by a tank thrust and small guerrilla action. This is because Israel in pre-1967 form is only a few kilometres wide around Caesarea. This strategic weak-point of Israel was purposefully created on the map by those countries at the United Nations who were originally against the recreation of Israel in 1948. Those opposed countries did not think for one minute that Israel could defend themselves from having their country cut in half, and expected Israel to be overrun and destroyed in the 1948 War of Independence. My question to you is why should Israel give up land to Jordan now when they know Hamas is ready to strike that country with Islamic regime change? You even describe Jordan as a moderate country. Well moderate in terms of Iran maybe, but moderate is the incorrect description of a country where it is illegal to deport convicted terrorists from Britain for fear they will be tortured and murdered. Either way Jordan will fall to Hamas and Palestinian ethnic rule, as the majority of the population there is what is now referred to as Palestinian.
Hamas has forever taken control of Gaza. Egypt has no intention of becoming embroiled in that territory. You probably do not know it, but Egypt emptied their prisons into Gaza in 1948 just to be rid of their worst criminal elements. So it is a pipe dream to suggest Egypt will become involved in pacifying the rabid Islamic extremism now evident in Gaza, which is fuelled by Iran.
You raise the subject of Israeli settlers: One thing I find it hardest to understand is how all the self-righteous of the world demand that no Jews may live in so-called Arab lands like Judea and Samaria, the West Bank, and yet simultaneously they demand that Israel not only allows Arabs to live inside its borders but also demand that Israel submit to a massive influx of Arab population. Such an influx would mean Jews were in the minority throughout their one and only country; the result being the destruction of the only Jewish State in the world. The world evidences and supports an absolute, provocative and awful double standard in this regard.
The idea that Jews cannot live in Judea and Samaria, areas they inhabited since before they provided the West with the basis of modern civilization, while Arabs have some sort of birthright to East Jerusalem from where the Arabs ethnically cleansed all Jews up to 1948; demonstrates the racist, Judeophobic and one-sided mindset that the world has allowed itself to be lulled into.
It is an interesting parallel that Christianity teaches about Jesus, a Jew, who suffered and died for the evil of the world; they say. It seems to me instead, that the world is making the entire Jewish people, the people Jesus came from; suffer in perpetuity for the evil of the non-Jewish world. The only difference from the time of Jesus is that now Jews have to suffer injustice from not only Christianity but Islam as well. Both monotheistic religions would simply not exist without Jewish theology and philosophy. The Jews dragged the world away from human-sacrificing animism and superstition. Credit where credit is due no? The effort to mass-kill Jews is a form of cultural patricide perpetrated over the eons by almost every other ethnic group in Europe and the Middle East. From my perspective as a modern Evolutionist, the people of the world cannot be at peace while the Jews are threatened with extinction; the other peoples are demonstrating that they are simply too barbaric and backward to achieve world peace by their treatment of Jews. The treatment of Jews by the world is like a litmus test for global civilization. The blatant hypocrisy of banning Jews from living in the West Bank while Islamic Arab Palestinians live freely to vote and own business and to prosper in Israel is ludicrous. Jordan is Palestine, not Israel. If the Jews do not have a right to peaceful National Self-Determination then no one on the planet does.
Worse still, with each passing day the hypocritical hatred with which the Jews and Israel are treated demonstrates the false platitudes and nonsense that the United Nations has been turned into. A majority of Islamic dictatorships and their cronies in the General Assembly voted by natural majority to determine that Zionism is Racism back in the 1970s: A few years later and the BBC, Judeophobes, Islamicists and self-righteous left-wingers are all regurgitating, broadcasting or reprinting this false-mantra as truth. This adds insult to injury.
Syria lost the Golan Heights after several wars of aggression. Under international law land taken in a defensive war can be kept; for example Alsace and Loraine are now in France not Germany. Besides the Syrians were caught playing with a North Korean Plutonium factory only a few months ago and have been technically at war with Israel since 1948.
Gaza will befall the NATO expansion: If Hamas cannot control itself the international community will impose NATO peacekeepers there, as they have done in Southern Lebanon.
It is interesting that the BBC, and many posters here, focus solely on Israel or the Israeli temporary refusal to grant the BBC access to Gaza. Especially when it is demonstrably obvious that the BBC cannot write articles critical of Hamas for fear of their correspondents being kidnapped. However no mention is made of the fact that the Taliban will not allow the BBC to freely report from the North West Frontier in Pakistan. The autonomous Federal areas of Pakistan are a much more volatile, dangerous and strategically important place than Gaza will ever be. In Pakistan you have the potential for nuclear war between countries with blunt city-killing thermonuclear devices. Further there is the very real possibility of Al Quaeda obtaining weapons of mass destruction in Pakistan, to use according to their patently weak human conscience and their medieval, dogmatic, theological beliefs. However the argument the BBC propagates is: This is the fault of the Israelis and the Palestinian occupation as they call it. What utter nonsense. It is dangerous nonsense too, as the future of the world is being decided in Waziristan not Gaza.
The obsession with blaming Jews for all the problems in the world is making the BBC and others, fail to analyse the Pakistan situation and Islamic extremism for the real threat that it is…which takes us back to what I would call the Jesus Syndrome.
I hope these thoughts are useful to at least one reader. However I suspect that posters here like Xie_Emperor_Ming and his ilk will simply copy and paste some more Judeophobic or Zionophobic web rants and urls in response.
Xie_Emperor_Ming your complaints about what you call editorialising, in your posts #163 and #164, are in reality a weak complaint against and rejection of reasoned argument. This is not a surprise, as you have no arguments to offer. You prefer to spam the same one-sided bias, as you are too frightened to engage in direct debate about facts that you simply deny.
To be clear to _Marko, your post #166, and in terms of a request for solutions: I believe the solution is to pay-off the King of Jordan to abdicate his absolute and dictatorial power, so that he provides democracy for the eighty per cent plus of his population who are Palestinian. This was the solution originally envisaged for the split of the British Mandate in Trans-Jordan. By taking the pressure off Israel much will be accomplished with them.
However I still see the theological problems that Islam has with Judaism as a route cause of the differences. The highest Imams in the world, accepting that Judaism has a rightful and equal place in the world alongside Islam, is the only way to resolve the theological difference.
Gaza becoming an enclave of the Palestinian state to be created in Jordan, similar to Russia’s Kaliningrad, could then solve the Gaza problem. Alternatively a population exchange could be carried out transferring over one million people to the new State of Palestine in Jordan from Gaza. This would only be possible if Iran and other Islamicist States and organisations like Al Quaeda remove the pressure from the Palestinians to reject any deal with Israel.
I do genuinely believe the Arabs and Islamic world are the only ones able to make peace. Israel cannot make peace with a culture of over a billion people while even a small percentage of those people still hold the view that Jews should be annihilated generally and specifically from Israel.
Good luck to you all, including you Xie; we are all going to need it.
Complain about this comment
# 168 and #169 are factual and contain URLS to recognized and respected Israeli sites.
Verbosity is not required, for the facts speak for themselves.
That is why the political Zionists seek to hide the URLs and, in the Occupied Territories, deny entry to the press and international observers.
_______________________________-
[As an editorialism, it is getting rather low to try and eliminate people by preventing them from running their own hospitals or having access to Israeli ones.
I attribute this to a racist attitude that the Palestinians are not really human.
Do we say "Ethnocracy"?]
Complain about this comment
#135
So it is okay for anyone to call Palestinians "maniacs" but when the boot is placed on the other foot you do not like being reminded just how far across the line many Jews have allowed themselves to drift. Even a weak UN has found it necessary to censure the cowardly actions of Israel.
It is time for a very much more measured, moderate and cool headed Israel that does not over react to every stone that is lobbed at them and, instead, shows courage and conviction for world peace.
And the personal insults lobbed at me show just how low you have fallen. I have a very clear conscience - do you?
Complain about this comment
Response to Xie_Emperor_Ming 5:12pm #171
You are nothing if not predictable.
Do you realise it is comical that you are the only one quoting your own posts; as if they were either positive contributions or on topic? That should tell you something.
Complain about this comment
Response to MeACoalPit 5:15pm #172
Coal you continue with your warped statements and lack of logic; let me translate your latest post for you:
A natural majority of Islamic and Arab Dictatorships, their cronies and several countries that can have their non-binding votes easily manipulated by petroleum deliveries, dominate the UN General Assembly; GA. Condemnation of Israel by this bloc at the GA is to be expected and is a symptom of the problem Israel faces. It says nothing about Israeli behaviour that those dedicated to the destruction of Israel vote in natural majority at the UN GA to condemn that same country.
You try to belittle the threat Israel faces by referring to their over-reaction to rocks being thrown at them. In reality, they face Iran and Syria who are both in a race to develop nuclear weapons to throw at Israel, and who both have biological and chemical weapons ready to use against Israel already. They face daily barrages of rockets, mortars, snipers, car bombs and even bulldozers used as weapons. Each and everyone one of these attacks kills and maims Israeli Jews. As I pointed out before: The only thing a person like you wants is for the Jews to die quickly and most importantly quietly, without a fuss and without defending themselves.
You tell us that you have a clear conscience. What do you think this shows? Hitler and his henchmen had a clear conscience, which does not mean that they were justified, correct, intelligent, moral or positive contributors to human civilization. In fact you can have a clear conscience by not understanding the damage you do to others. This is why there is a famous saying: Ignorance is bliss. You are just another reason why this saying became a truism.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
You will need to come clean and release the Balen report.
You also need to ask yourselves why the BBC is being banned in so many places. I think that BBC News should be banned in the UK until it gets rid of its propensity to comment on the news rather than report it and to run campaigns such as the current one against George Osborne.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Xie_Ming how about you actually engage in logical argument rather than spam?
Why describe those who take the time to debate as reprehensible?
Are you unable or unwilling to debate?
Why misrepresent debate as screaming abuse?
Why use the word Zionist as an insult?
Why be racist and describe the activities of all Israelis as both evil and illegal when this is a patently racist generalisation?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
# 3
It is, of course, no accident that the Israelis have barred news media and foreign observers from Gaza. The operation has evidently been long-planned and scheduled for the interregnum of the US Administration.
Since Sharon visited Temple Mount and before, the pattern has been the same:
deliberate provocation, weak response, and massive onslaught.
The purpose is always the same: to drive the Palestinians out of their homes and lands or to kill them.
Whether one calls this genocide, transfer, "forced transfer" or ethnic cleansing makes little difference to the Israeli regime.
That regime represents a vicious coalition between the fanaticism of many Orthodox and the religio/ethnic ideology used by the political Zionists. The victims are not considered by the ideology as humans.
Yesterday, the full blockade was reimposed on Gaza. Today, Israeli tanks moved in.
And, the press is barred from observing what they do.
Complain about this comment
#170. As you say its rather a big post and I basically agree with you:
However its not pre-67 again. Israel COULD be cut in half with a tank thrust but who's tanks? Jordans? The whole point of Israels nuclear weapons programme is that its a doomsday device. Destroy Israel and Israel takes you with them. Its basically why no one has pointed a tank at Israel since '73 and instead quietly given HAMAS etc enough arms to cause trouble without quite justifying a war. In addition tanks have become far less potent a weapon in the past 30 years and infantry and helicopter carried guided weapons have made 1980's soviet armour obsolete.
You mentioned neutron bombs in an earlier post- they were invented to destroy massed soviet armour on the German plains. The high energy neutrons pass straight through tank armour, kill the crew but don't trash Germany. Israel could very easily devestate any '73 style armoured fist if it needed to. Even fuel air weapons would make such an attack very messy for the attackers.
My proposal was also based on the small gamble that the current Jordanian government wouldn't be mad enough to actually accept the West bank back. Why on earth would they want that nest of vipers to be their responsibility? By forcing Jordan to say 'actually we don't want the Palestinians' it would be a massive PR coup and destroy the myth of arab solidarity for the Palistinians. Worst comes to the worst and Jordan DOES accept then Israel gets good PR for making peace, everyone goes to Stockholm for prizes and we all laugh as the UN try to sort out the mess.... they've been demaning the return of that land for 40 years. They can't complain when they get it.
I like the King of Jordan (not least because he's colonel in chief of my old regiment) and he's precisely the sort of leader we want in the mid-east (because in reality he's the best we'll get). If there's one Arab country that should be getting our aid its Jordan.
Syria is totally different issue. As I said IF they want Golan back they negotiate... that means a legal ceasefire, legal recognition of Israel (as Egypt & Jordan have done) etc. Israel doesn't HAVE to give the Golan back but it might feel it worth trading it back in exchange for peace. Quite what Syria was hoping to achieve with that nuclear plant we can but ponder. I can't imagine any first generation bomb created with Arab and North Korean technology would create a terribly pleasant Palestinian state.
Remember how a small wet island off the North coast of Europe controlled a third of the world: it wasn't because of our 2 million strong army. A little cunning, a lot of bribery and a bit of gambling usually work far better than brute force. Google 'the golden cavalry of St George'. We captured the whole of India by playing one side off against the other, not by force of arms.
Complain about this comment
Dear Neds or is it Zzzzzzz
Kindly do not patronise with your pathetic drivel. Israel has carried out who knows how many illegal acts of indescribable cruelty against its perceived enemies, men, women and children. The UN has recognised many of these and Israel has ignored all censure.
Israel is "for" proliferation of its nuclear arsenal and yet it screams out loud to prevent others from obtaining capability. By your words it is prepared to use its weapons against ANY of its enemies regardless of whether they have nuclear capability or not.
I do not think I can add to the case for the prosecution of Israel as a Nation too big for its boots.
Complain about this comment
Oh- one thing I missed and should be pointed out is that that Syrias bio & gas weapons can be discounted.
Why?
Very simple. Israel has very good, very lightweight US issue protective gear for all its troops, most of if its vehicles are NBC proof and Israeli civillians mostly have gas masks and shelters. Syrian NBC protection is poor so they'd need to use short acting weapons like cyanide which is lighter than air and blows away quickly. It doesn't penetrate cellars very well at all. If syria forced both sides to fight in NBC gear Syrian troops would be at a far greater disadvantage that the Israelis. It would actually aid Israel on the battlefield.
Germs and gas are great for terrorising unprotected civillians and half-trained troops, but I spent more time in a gas mask than out of it on excercise and I doubt the Israelis are much different.
Equally the US have made a precident with their two wars with Saddam of publically stating that gas and germs will be met by nukes.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#182. The problem is that Israel has also suffered countless and illegal acts of cruelty against its civillians and the main UN resolutions call for an end to violence by ALL sides... not just israel.
All sides are as bad as each other. I don't think 'being too big for your boots' is grounds for prosecution.
Equally its worth pointing out that Israel refuses to admit to having nukes and has never threatened anyone publically with them.
The US HAS used nukes against one non-nuclear nation (Japan) and quite clearly told Saddam that he could expect nukes if he used gas or germs. Russia has nuclear missiles pointed at non-nuclear nations in Europe so your allegations aren't exactly Israeli specific.
I have never understood why so many people choose to pick one side in this mess and blindly support them. Its like football teams.
Complain about this comment
Response to Xie_Emperor_Ming 08:51am #180
You obfuscate again. When you say Israeli tanks rolled into Gaza with the press barred, you attempt to completely misrepresent what happened:
It was Hamas digging a tunnel under the Israeli border with the intention of kidnapping more Israelis that caused the recent flare up in violence and risks the cease fire in place since June: Although the BBC did not report this fact. I note that in all your posts you have not once mentioned young Galit who is held captive by Hamas, after their last kidnap offensive.
The only reason Israelis sent tanks a few hundred meters into Gaza this week was to defuse explosive devices set by Hamas to kill Israelis on the Israeli side of the border. This tank movement, which you describe as rolling into Gaza under the cover of a news blackout, and suggest was sinister, did not even respond to live-fire and mortars launched at them. The main operation vehicle was an armoured bulldozer. No Arabs were hurt in this purely defensive operation.
The tanks then rolled back out of Gaza once the explosive devices had been decommissioned, which you failed to mention.
Complain about this comment
Response to MeACoalPit 11:34am #
Just to point out a technicality; Israel does not seek to proliferate its nuclear weapons unlike the Islamics who stole the technology from the West and spread it to over ten non-nuclear countries. You are obviously wrong about this statement; you throw false accusations at Israel in the hope that some of your fabrications might stick.
The fact that you think there is a case to prosecute Israel, for defending itself, when there are Islamic states like Sudan currently engaged in real genocide, speaks volumes for the value and bias of your posts here.
Complain about this comment
#186,#188
I am not on any side - I just want peace in the Middle East so that we do not have the continuous "lie" about Islam being used as a weapon that will potentially destroy us all.
Israel is NOT a signatory of the NPT.
Whilst every Nation has a right to defend its territory Israel is defending land to which it has NO legal claim.
And a question especially for the hot head - has Israel committed genocide?
Complain about this comment
# 189
The campaign that began in the final hours of the British Mandate was genocidal- the attempt was made to destroy entire Arab villages.
Subsequently, 500,000-700,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes.
Uri Avnery (who was there with a machine-gun) received orders to "kill any who tried to return".
The intent was to drive them out and kill them if they did not go and stay away. If this was not genocidal, then it was close to it.
That was the official government attitude.
The prevailing attitude among many Israelis is genocidal toward Palestinians.
[The zope- gush-shalom website URLed above is searchable in either English or Hebrew]
Some Israeli military leaders have expressed the desire to depose the King of Jordan and "forcibly transfer" the Palestinians across the Jordan. The strangulation of Gaza may be viewed as a continuation of this effort.
Press coverage is desirable, and it is easy to understand why the Israelis have barred journalists and observers.
Complain about this comment
Response to MeACoalPit 1:29pm #189
and in passing to Xie_Ming 1:56 #190
However neutral you claim to be, your arguments are one sided. You single out Jews, Israel, Zionists and anyone that asks you to consider them fairly. You have not referred to the original blog question, you have not criticised a single Islamic State. There are many cases of the BBC being barred from reporting in territories such as Waziristan, Darfur and Iranian nuclear plants. You only mention Gaza. However in recent posts you do not even mention teh BBC you just attack Israel. Anyone reasonable can see your posts are indeed one-sided.
What lie about Islam are you referring to? It is the Islamic States that deny the right of Israel to exist. It is the Islamic Republic of Iran that threatens repeatedly to annihilate Israel. At every military parade in Tehran they write Death to Israel on the back of their missile launchers. Israel has not called for the destruction of anyone, either publicly or privately.
Israel has the same right as any other State to defend its land. Israel is a member of the United Nations as much as Britain, France or America. The West Bank and Gaza are disputed not occupied territories. You obfuscate repeatedly. However you are not alone. In the BBC article today http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7737315.stm they also refer to the West Bank as occupied; when it is legally disputed. This just backs up the arguments I made earlier about inherent internal BBC bias. The inaccuracy of the BBC, gives people like you the ability to repeat the same untruth. All of that leads to Israelis looking bad; which I argue is the intention of both you and the BBC in the first place.
Israel is in a unique position with regard to deterrence; it has a population of some three million defending itself against annihilation by some one billion from more than thirty Islamic countries; the majority of whom officially deny its right to exist. This requires a certain strategic ambiguity on the part of Israel in its self-defence mechanisms. As has been demonstrated it is naturally outvoted by Islamic States in all international forums. In these forums it is accused of the most heinous crimes for which it is simply not guilty. Israel cannot afford to have the NPT system used against it in the same way that the UN General Assembly has been abused to make Israel alone guilty of Racism, in its aspiration to have its Judaism protected by its mechanisms of State. No one at the UN accuses Saudi Arabia of racism for preventing Christians and Jews to practise freely and openly in its State. None of this however makes your earlier statement that Israel proliferates nuclear weapons true. Israel does not proliferate; and certainly not like Pakistan has. Push your attention to Pakistani proliferation if you are not on any side as you claim.
If you refer to me as the hothead, I would honestly say that no; Israel has not committed genocide. For if it had there would be no Arab population within its borders or even in its near abroad, as the Russians call it. There was a war of Independence when huge populations of Jews were expelled from Islamic countries and many less Arabs from what is now Israel. That is not genocide. Genocide is the death of millions of people. This simply has not happened. There were no more than five hundred thousand Arabs in what is now Israel in 1948 anyway. If the Israelis did in your view and the view of Xie_Ming in post #190, commit Genocide then where did the present day Arab population in Israel come from? Out of a magicians hat like a white rabbit? Stop accusing the Jewish State of crimes it never committed. Stop transferring the explicit genocidal desires of Islamic States such as Iran onto the peace loving democracy that is Israel.
Perhaps then, there might be a chance at peace. However I do not believe that enough Islamic people want a peace that allows Israel to survive as a self-determining Jewish State. This is the real problem.
How about these posters who obsess on Israel and accuse it of crimes it never committed, talking about the FORUM THREAD SUBJECT of how the BBC is denied reporting access? This is not a forum about Israel. The forum is about denial of reporting access. I challenge you demonstrate the fairness you claim to have with references to Darfur, Waziristan or Iranian nuclear facilities and the BBC inability to report on those stories.
Or you can whine on about Israel and confirm your single-minded desire to hijack this forum with untruthful and Judeophobic propaganda.
Complain about this comment
# 189
The barring of reporters and other observers from Gaza by the Israelis may indeed be to cover acts that are defined as genocidal.
[One should read the full definition on the site]:
...
Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide:
1) the mental element, meaning the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such, and
2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called genocide.
Article III described five punishable forms of the crime of genocide: genocide; conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity.
The forcible transfer of children is one of the five acts.
http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/officialtext.htm
Complain about this comment
Response to Xie_Ming 2:48 #192
As I predicted; another post about just Israel from Xie_Ming; let me try a different line of argument:
Firstly to deal with your accusation that Israel alone is guilty of genocide and this is why they restrict the BBC from Gaza. I would point out that the BBC has only been restricted temporarily from Gaza during random rocket strikes on Israel from Gaza. If there were a huge project of extermination of culture and people, genocide, inside Gaza surely all press would be permanently banned? Your argument does not make sense with the reality in this regard.
The Israelis are engaged with Palestinians and Arabs in an effort to get the Arabs to recognise Israel’s right to life and right to exist. This logically presupposes an acceptance by Israel of both the De Facto and De Jure rights and pre-existence of a Palestinian ethnic group, Arab ethnicity and Islam, as they are engaged in dialogue and negotiations with them. The Israelis are engaged in an effort to remove themselves from the West Bank and no longer occupy the Gaza strip, as this is now run by Hamas, who incidentally do have an explicit policy of genocidal aspirations against both Jews and Israel. The Israelis debate the establishment of a Palestinian State. All these facts are simply logically incompatible with allegations of genocide. How can you argue that the Israelis alone are trying to annihilate the Arabs or Palestinians by genocide when in actual fact the reverse is true? Further it is the Israelis who have provided much of the cultural development and self-awareness that has developed the Palestinians into a distinct ethnic group; which simply did not exist one hundred years ago. You make bland allegations against Israel in this regard, but on closer inspection and in the light of reality, you allegations are shown to be fallacious and illogical statements.
The provision of self-determining territory for Palestinians is difficult considering ninety per cent of Palestinians live under a Hashemite Dictatorship in Jordan. However you claim it is the responsibility of Israel to provide for the Palestinians. You do not mention any responsibility for the King of Jordan, an Islamic, to do so. You do not mention the impossibility of the BBC entering those so-called refugee camps in Jordan where the Palestinians are suppressed by the secret police of the State of Jordan. This is another glaring omission in your argument.
I take it from your exclusive focus on Israel that in your view ONLY Israel is guilty of genocide and that no Islamic state, including Sudan against Black Africans in Darfur or Shiites against Christians in Iraq, are guilty of even ethnic cleansing let alone genocide?
Further, I take it from your post that you think it is only Gaza where the BBC is restricted from reporting? You therefore believe the BBC is free to operate in Darfur, Waziristan, Yemen, or Somalia and is free to enter Iranian Nuclear facilities?
I think it is plain to see that your sole consideration here is to single out and portray Israel as the sole criminal regime on the planet, in the Judeophobic attempt to first de-legitimise and then destroy it.
Keep posting malicious falsehood about Israel if I am correct.
Complain about this comment
#190 O.K. Even if we totally accept that it was in 1948! Most of the current population of Israel weren't even born then. My own father wouldn't be conceived until my grandad got back from Palestine and he's 60 next month.
What annoys me is that somehow Israelis born in the 80's are responsible for the sins of their grandfathers but Germans born in the 80's have nothing to do whatsoever with the holocaust. Why this double standard?
It also ignores the one fact that you can't hope to overcome: the UN recognise the independent state of Israel within its pre-67 borders. No matter how much you hate it or how much you dislike how it was formed (and I'm a not a huge fan myself) it has a legal right to exist under international law.
Complain about this comment
#187 " The only reason Israelis sent tanks a few hundred meters into Gaza this week was to defuse explosive devices set by Hamas to kill Israelis on the Israeli side of the border. "
Can you explain that in a bit more detail because it makes no sense as it reads. If the bombs were set several hundred metres inside Gaza how could they have killed Israelis on the Israeli side... what where they? 10 kt nukes???? They can't have been that dangerous if they used a bulldozer (and those Israeli ones do tend to carry M-60's) to get rid of them either.
In Britain we'd have used a man with a flap of kevlar hanging over his essentials and a perspex visor to defuse them or at a pinch a little RC robot with a water jet, not a squadron of tanks and a 60 ton bulldozer.
This is a perfect example of the Israelis doing a totally justified thing (bomb disposal- 100% self defence) but using such massive force that it can be used as propaganda against them. The IDF is its own worst enemy. The palestinians aren't the sharpest tools in the box, but they know full well that the moment the giant bulldozer appears you get the kids throwing rocks at it and the liberal press has a wonderful photo op.
Complain about this comment
Game Over?
Complain about this comment
Response to Peter_Sym: 3:32pm #195
You are again off topic however: I would hope you think the Australians are neutral, their paper wrote:
According to an IDF spokeswoman who spoke to The Age, the tanks entered Gaza as part of a routine operation. During a routine IDF operation to uncover explosive devices near the security fence of the southern Gaza Strip, Palestinian gunmen fired two mortar shells at the IDF personnel, the spokeswoman said. No injuries or damage were reported.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/israeli-tanks-rumble-into-gaza-strip-20081119-6aii.html
The tank movement was solely an effort to remove explosive devices planted against the cease-fire agreement by Hamas. Hamas used a range of remote controlled systems including IEDs. Some involve remote control mortars. I was not there and am not in the IDF so I have no further information for you.
However this is all beside the point. In my post #187 that you take issue with, I was just rebutting Xi_Ming posting in his #180. He wrote about a press black out and tanks rolling into Gaza as if it was a large-scale aggressive invasion. I was posting the truth of the matter that was that it was a purely defensive action to remove Hamas explosive devices and the Israelis withdrew immediately.
As an ex-military man why you would suggest that in Gaza the Israelis could do the same as you say would be done in Britain; that a man just protected by Kevlar would be sufficient? Firstly this suggests that you know the specific type of explosives to be decommissioned and secondly this ignores the fact the Hamas were bringing the anti-explosives team under fire; hence the need for bulldozers as opposed to men exposed in just Kevlar. Hamas use snipers you know. They use snipers to shoot Israeli farmers in the fields inside Israel, but hey, the BBC has no interest in reporting that either.
If your argument and analysis were true, the only course of action available to the Israelis would have been to either send in a robot or leave the explosives to be used against them. Robots are fine for defusing car bombs on the streets of London, which are not a war zone; their successful use cannot be guaranteed under battlefield conditions. Hamas were launching mortars and rockets at the Israelis attempting to defuse the explosives.
You are now doing the same thing as Xie. You argue falsely that the Israelis protecting their troops with armour was not necessary and then jump to the Sophist conclusion that this was an Israeli over-reaction that the world can feel justified in castigating them and using their self-defence as propaganda.
Bah.
Can anyone post on topic?
Complain about this comment
Not game over :)
I could not post with more than one link in a post Peter: Here is an Iranian link to the same story if you do not trust the Australian press:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=74739§ionid=351020202
Complain about this comment
Many thanks to the more vocal contributors to this debate - you couldn't hope for a better example of why the Middle East Problem is still the Middle East Problem.
For all of the superficially sophisticated arguments and historical allusions, this still reads like the bickering of a couple of 4 year olds over the use of their favourite toy (in the case of MAII, I not entirely sure this isn't that far off the mark).
Until such time as both sides are willing to admit that:
1. Atrocious Acts were (and are still being) committed by both sides.
2. Criticising terrorist activities of Hamas does not necessarily make you pro-Israeli.
3. Criticising the actions of the State of Israel doen't not necessarily make one anti-Jewish.
4. That the State of Israel exists and isn't going anywhere.
5. That there can be no peaceful solution without the creation of a viable Palastinian State (which will have to entail the return of lands seized - and partially settled by Israel).
you are condemning the Israeli and Palastinian Children to a future which is devoted to this ongoing cycle of madness and mutual destruction.
Look to Northern Ireland for an example of what can happen when people are mature enought to step away from emotive, kneejerk partisanship and actually talk to the other side.
Basically, grow-up the lot of you.
Complain about this comment
Reply to Peter_Sym 3:32pm #195
By the way: I think your statement that: Palestinians aren’t the sharpest tools in the box, is racist and offensive. I am not sure whether you are more academically qualified, and consider yourself more intelligent, than Professor Rashid Khalidi; but this statement of yours suggests firstly that you are wrong and that secondly there are Palestinians who are cleverer than you are.
Bah.
Complain about this comment
Both Peter_Sym and zeneds demonstrate the whole culture that is driving our world into a head on conflict with absolutely no way of negotiating itself out. We have this courtesy of the USA (and others), driven by concerns that Islamic states are likely to remove Israel from the map and yet 99% of those who follow ANY religion are peaceful and pacific.
It is rather like the police officer who knows that it is Al Capone causing the mayhem but will not arrest the man because it is easier to blame everyone who carries a violin case around with them for the carnage.
The USA has never been so idealistic that it has worried about religion before because what it is really talking about is the altar of oil. And so Israel becomes a part of the strategy to get US presence where the oil and oil pipes are to be found. As long as Israel is under threat the US can rush in wherever it chooses, as unabated by the UN as is Israel. And so it is the interests of oil that the carnage in the Middle East is allowed to continue.
That is the Islamic lie.
Complain about this comment
MeACoalPit; 5:22pm #201.
Another post that is way off topic and Israeli-centric.
You say ninety nine per cent of all religions, in this case Islam, are peaceful? However the majority of Islamic countries are dedicated to not recognising and destroying Israel. This is an obvious contradiction.
The analogy about violin cases and Al Capone makes no sense whatsoever.
The post becomes absurd when it seeks to argue that the USA supports Israel for the reason of Oil. Even a high school student can tell you that the USA would have a much easier time with the oil producing countries if it did what they said, which is to abandon Israel to its destruction, by them. This is another obvious contradiction: Embarrassing stuff.
The thought in this post is very confused and self-contradictory.
What is driving the world towards conflict is people who cannot employ logic properly, refuse to accept the truth and fantasise about reality to fit their own phobias; in this case Judeophobia. You refer to the Islamic lie; the only one lying here is you; and you are only lying to yourself.
Complain about this comment
To zeneds #202 RE: employing logic properly
No-one questions your ability to continuously post a pro-Israeli line but you have shown that you are entrenched when it comes to a balanced assessment. I suspect you only make accusations of bias and Judeophobia to further your message rather than as a real attempt towards determining impartiality.
Three points to address:
If someone posted saying look at this BBC news website story,
it has a reference to "West Bank" instead of the correct "Occupied West Bank"
therefore it backs up the argument about the inherent anti-Arab BBC bias!
You would probably reject such a conclusion as irrational and immature.
1) Please confirm that you would reject this conclusion (and the rationale), or why you feel it is valid when you do the same.
2) Your quote: "All of that leads to Israelis looking bad"
Please list all the things Israelis have done that shows them looking bad. (or if you're unable to do so, please explain why)
3) Have you any evidence that your views posted here represent the majority UK or World opinion?
This is all directly relevant to the blog about manipulation of media and reporting the facts in the Middle East.
Complain about this comment
# 190
The Saudis and most say that a return to the 1967 bords will result in normalization of relations with Israel.
HAMAS offers an "indefinite truce". This is for ideological consistency, rather than practical purpose.
Amadajinidad is blowing hot air for political
purposes in the face of a prospective loss of power.
Note: that means leaving the "settlements"!
___________________________
As to the "sins of the fathers".
The ethnic cleansing and atrocities continue to this day.
Perhaps tomorrow, I will elucidate this with a few examples.
The fault lies in the Nazi-style religio/ethnic ideology as taught by many Orthodox and as used by the right-wing exploiters.
The BBC and other news organizations and obeservers are barred from Gaza because Israel is continuing its grinding policy of ethnic cleansing and atrocity and does not want outside witnesses.
Complain about this comment
Requested response to _Marko 7:59pm #203
This is again another post way off topic; however.
I would ask you to think carefully about the way you phrase you questions, as they are not that easy to understand. I also see no reason for you to put words into my mouth. In response to your questions:
1) It is a false question as the West Bank is legally disputed not legally occupied. All I would do is point out that the BBC uses the prefix occupied, which makes the Israelis look bad. The Israelis dispute the Arab claim to the land. It is a technical fact. You can debate forever whether or not the BBC use of the term occupied is intentional, bias or intentionally racist. One thing is for sure; it is misleading and untrue. The BBC have had this pointed out to them before but they continue to use the term occupied. That is logically siding with one side over the other.
2) I am not sure why I should be spending all my time typing your demands out seeing as how I have answered your questions in detail so far. Besides you miss the point. I was arguing that for example in the case of the tank movement Xie_Ming brought up earlier; he made it sound like an armoured invasion when in fact it was a defensive explosive removal exercise. I argued that he intentionally twisted reality to make the Israelis look guilty of attack when in fact they were defending. As to a list I am not paid to respond to you but it is clearly self evident if you read these posts that Israelis are made to look bad for just about everything that they do, including being Israelis. Their defence is called attack. Their self-determination is called genocide. Their culture is called inherently evil. All of this tripe is racism in my opinion.
3) Clearly I am the only one defending the democracy of Israel on this forum against those posters who lie about Israel and denigrate its people. I do not claim to represent anyone but myself. It is of course my view that I speak the truth. Israel like Jews are persecuted unfairly and that this is a blight on the cultural development of our species. I believe that fair minded people agree with truth; if they did not our species would still be picking fleas off each others fur in caves. Clearly those posting off topic here are more interested in denigrating Jews and their culture than discussing the forum topic about BBC news access.
As far as manipulation is concerned, look for example at the multiple posts from Xie_Ming. That poster is clearly just interested in spreading hate for the Jews without any contextual understanding that they, and not the Arabs or Islam, are fighting for their survival; and what makes that worse is that they just suffered The Holocaust within living memory. Which is quite depressing if you think about what that means for human development. Just look at his latest post and how he tries to transfer the crimes of the Nazis on to the Jews, the very people who suffered at the hands of the Nazis, and the Arab authorities in Jerusalem that co-operated with the Nazi regime. This is extreme Judeophobia, which is accepted as mainstream thought and happily reprinted by the BBC on a blog. In my view it is an extreme form of hate. The only reason people get away with it is that there are so few Jews in the world; a bullying syndrome has appeared against them. For example Xie_Ming demands Jews leave the settlements; if you read my posts above you will see that I argue it is unfair to expect Jews-Free Arab lands and at the same time demand Arab living rights within Israel; just at an elementary level of logic. However this does not seem to bother posters here, who just keep repeating that Jews are evil etcetera.
I think I have posted enough here for any fair-minded person to have a balance. I am just proud not to be a bully or a racist.
If the Judeophobes here were not haters and hijacking this forum, then we would be discussing why the BBC cannot post from Waziristan and Dafur in Sudan, not the history of Israeli crimes as they see it. It is obvious who has hijacked this blog forum; as with many other forums.
Complain about this comment
Xie__Ming post #204. There you go again quoting your own posts and writing solely against Israel, way off topic. You are just repeating yourself and are not adding anything new to this debate.
It is widely known that in Islam you may make a temporary truce in order to rearm to fight and win another day. This is all Hamas and Hezbollah have offered Israel: A temporary truce. Both organisations publicise the most hateful opinions and murderous propaganda against not just Israelis but Jews generally.
I stand against this sort of hatred and fight it when I see it. The fact is Israelis make the maximum effort not to inflict civilian casualties; Hamas and Hezbollah do the exact opposite. You attempt to attach the most hateful evil to a people who could obliterate Gaza but have not done so, as they do not want to. If Hamas had the weapons of the Israelis then there would not be a single Jews on the face of the Earth. Nor I suspect would there be any Christians, Buddhists or Hindus for that matter.
This will not end with the Jews and it did not start with them. It is pathological that you are unable to remove your fixation with Jews and debate the BBC news ban from areas other than Gaza; where it is just temporary.
Yesterday Xie_Ming described anyone who disagreed with him as reprehensible…
Complain about this comment
Zeneds, #74, I suspect you were attempting to sound authoritative, and possibly intelligent. Insead you criticise me for the time at which I posted my comment (jumping to a very incorrect conclusion about me in the process - is this your speciality?).
Thank you for sticking up for MAII who is a very sensitive soul. I really was rather mean to him, after all, he only said he'd rather shoot himself rather than be me, despite knowing nothing about me.
I promise sincerely to continue not to use sarcasm in my posts.
Complain about this comment
Reply to post paulcrossleyii 9:43 #207
Are you so proud of the insight of your post #71 that you want to remind everyone about it?
Of course you are the only intelligent one here. Of course you are the only one with an authoritative viewpoint. I do not think it is gratuitously mean to call someone a smelly cheese; in fact it is quite comical. It takes skill to post about cheese at 3:20am on a Monday. Yes, you add humour to this forum; you are a laugh. Well you make me laugh.
However there are serious haters spewing racist bile here and I have been defending reason against all comers. Perhaps you can explain why so many want to hate Israel rather than stay on topic to discuss why the BBC is fixated on its inability to gain access to report in Gaza for a few days, when it does not bother to report from places like Darfur and Waziristan at all? (Both locations are of far more significance for the future of the planet).
We await your wisdom and pontification. However, I find it hard to take your promise to have mercy with your sarcasm seriously; as you break this promise in each post you make and sometimes from one sentence to the next. What gems of wisdom do you now have in store for us now?
Complain about this comment
This comment wont go through. Trying again. I see there was a user-friendly message about incorrect HTML in my text. Now corrected:
166. _marko wrote:
To TrueToo #131
By arriving at that definition, would you then be forced to acknowledge that terrorism has been committed by all sides?
Nope. What makes me think you had that answer prepared no matter what definition came up? Again, Israel does its utmost to avoid civilian casualties while Palestinian terrorists do their utmost to inflict them.
....and maybe conclude that If you are unable to acknowledge this then you may not be able to judge news media bias?
See the point I've just made above. I don't think I can make it any clearer than that.
The bias of the left wing media, particularly the BBC, is evident in the careful omission and distortion of inconvenient facts and also in the emphasis and repetition of some facts at the expense of others. I have been studying it for years. The BBC doesn't simply report the news. It distorts it.
170. zeneds.
Thanks noted and appreciated.
172. MeACoalPit,
Coupla points:
I didn't call the Palestinians "maniacs" though I would agree that many of them are. Are you seriously trying to compare that to the description of the Israelis as "Nazis?"
Israel is not "cowardly." Many other countries would simply flatten Gaza from the air. Israeli troops go into Gaza in pursuit of terrorists, often paying with their lives.
Fine words about Israel showing "courage and conviction for world peace." How would you suggest Israel stop Palestinian terror in the meantime?
You sit there on your lofty perch making cliched observations about a conflict you know next to nothing about and you casually lob the worst insult you can find at the Israelis and then claim that you are the one who has been insulted. Give me a break.
Complain about this comment
In March 2003, BBC 2 broadcast an extraordinary hatchet job on Israel titled Israel's Secret Weapon, purporting to be a documentary on Israel's nuclear capability. In fact, it was unsubtle demonisation of Israel and at the same elevation of Mordechai Vanunu to heroic status for revealing Israel's nuclear secrets. The film was also broadcast on BBC World.
The Israeli government was outraged and withdrew cooperation from the BBC.
Mr. Williams might like to reflect on those events while complaining about the current exclusion of journalists from Gaza. He might also like to reflect on the fact that the third world hellholes, like Zimbababwe, that have denied entry to the BBC do so because they do not want any publicity of their dictatorial actions while Israel is an open democracy and has a vigorous free press often highly critical of the government.
But I don't know if there is any point in directing a comment to a BBC editor here. Since they seldom, if ever, respond to comments, one wonders if they ever even have a look at them to see the reaction to their posts.
Complain about this comment
Zeneds, is that just the tiniest hint of sarcasm I detect in your last post? Or do you really think I am intellient and authoritative?
I don't agree with your take on the subject of this blog, but I see your point that a lot of people are just using it to air their (sometimes) racist views - on either side.
I'm not sure a lot of people DO hate Israel. A lot of them dislike some of the things Israel have done.
For those who do, maybe it's because it's the easy option, people think the problems started with the creation of Israel and have continued ever since. Possibly it's because a rich, well equiped government is always going to stuggle not to look barbaric in a fight such as this. Unfortunately that doesen't really help anyone.
One thing is for certain, amongst my friends and colleagues any negativity toward Israel is based upon the actions of the Israeli government, I just don't see the deep rooted anti-semitism that you think is the root of the problems at the BBC. I'm not saying it does not exist, just that maybe it isn't quite as prevalent as you think.
Complain about this comment
Paul's post 11:59pm yesterday #211
Thank you. I shall sleep well due to your positive outlook on the world; and your view that its haters are simply lost children who are frightened of the dark.
Complain about this comment
Zeneds, I don't remember saying that, but if it helps you sleep well, knock yourself out.
Complain about this comment
# 186
The fact is that Israel has blocked ALL correspondents and all observers from entry to Gaza.
No one has any doubt about the motive, propaganda efforts of the usual suspects here nothwithstanding.
If anyone is interested in documentation of the CONTINUING religio/political persecution and ethnic cleansing that Israel is doing, speak up and examples will be provided.
{Alternatively, those interested can consult the URLs already provided and do their own research]
It is to conceal such activities that Israel is barring all reporters from Gaza.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
211. paulcrossleyiii,
Are you and your friends even a fraction as concerned about well over 200 000 Darfurians slaughtered by Jangaweed gangs with the blessing of the Khartoum government and armed by Russia and China for oil, or China's brutal oppression of Tibetans as they are about Israel's attempts to stop terrorism from the Palestinians?
And if not, why not?
Are you simply anti-Israel, or is it a cloak for anti-Semitism?
Complain about this comment
Xie__Ming post 09:26am #214
Still lying about Israel and Gaza Xie_Ming?
Firstly Xie_Ming is not telling the truth. Not only are there Arab journalists in Gaza who can use a variety of means to communicate with the outside world, there are also some Associated Press reporters there as well. His posts claim that ALL correspondents are banned are more of his lies designed to discredit Israel and back up the lie he is peddling here that Israel is in the act of some great ethnic cleansing against the Gazans as we speak.
Not a single report of ethnic cleansing has been made in any press outlet; these are simple lies.
As soon as the rocket and mortar fire from Hamas aimed at the border crossings and Southern Israel ceases, the border will be open and all normal movement will resume. Neither the BBC, nor Journalists, nor anyone else has been singled out. It is just unreasonable to expect Israelis to put their lives at unnecessary risk from the explosive munitions falling without warning from the sky there; hence the border is closed temporarily.
The manipulative mindset of lying to discredit, are recognised by Israelis as both intransigent and hatefully biased against them. This has a natural effect to make them more intransigent and therefore makes a peaceful solution less likely. For if third parties blatantly lie to discredit them, and supposedly balanced organisations like the BBC, reprint these lies; what point is there in them listening to reasoned arbitration.
Solution: Do not lie to discredit either one side or the other in the Middle East conflict.
There is the need for stricter self-policing of media outlets to prevent unwarranted hatred being republished to the point at which lies are believable and racist hate is seen as socially acceptable in many social circles and communities. The BBC is playing a direct role in the republication of modern day Judeophobic lies and libels; right here in this forum.
Complain about this comment
#200. A majority of palestinians voted for HAMAS knowing full well what the Israelis where likely to do.
Is that a sign of intelligence?
They keep refusing any serious attempts at compromise and stick to a mistaken belief that they can get the entire state of israel back on the battlefield.
What is really annoying is that there ARE very intelligent Palestinians but they get sidelined by the mob who would rather have their cancers untreated and their water dirty than stop firing rockets.
Incidentally remote mortars on the Palestinian side of the fence make much more sense. I still wouldn't have used tanks to take them out because you don't use tanks in built up areas.... they're far too blind and easy to disable. A squad of infantry in land rovers would have been quite adequate and much less 'spinable' in the press
Complain about this comment
oh.. i've never met Professor Rashid Khalidi and have no idea how clever he is. I've got two decent degrees in biochemistry from a top ten UK university and have spent 10 years working at another top ten university developing cancer vaccines. I've published about 30 odd papers in major european, american & asian journals in that time so I'm not exactly 'un-academic'
I case you're wondering I decided against a militray career after my time in Croatia (because of the utter feeling of uselessness from not being able to intervene) and followed the other family trade: treating cancers.
Complain about this comment
Just so you know: The post of mine #215 that was removed to moderators sought to explain the connection between the lies of Judeophobes and future attempts at genocide against the Jewish people.
The BBC is happy to reprint lies in this forum (and elsewhere) against Jews and Israel, (not one had been removed by moderators), however the BBC will not reprint or allow reasoned warnings of the consequences that will flow from it supporting and giving credence to these lies.
Here are some quotes from the Hamas Charter:
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished [genocidal annihilation] and Allah's victory is realised.
The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing [all] the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.
Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge [In their view] Islam and the Moslem people. May the cowards never sleep.
My parenthesis.
If anyone suggests for a moment that Hamas is peace loving and Israel is Genocidal I challenge you to explain these declarations away, which logic prevents you from doing.
Hamas is dedicated to the murder of every last Jew, and not just in Israel. They even say it out loud. To ask the Israelis to stop defending themselves against this onslaught is insane, violent and counter-productive. When are people going to realise that subjecting any ethnic group to this level of threat allows them to do what ever it takes to defend themselves.
The Right to Life is the most important human right. The Gazans are responsible for empowering this Hamas charter. As a democratically elected theocracy only the Gazans are responsible for the consequences of empowering such a murderous policy towards their neighbours.
If you could not make peace with someone dedicated to murder you, your family and all you relations; why would you ask someone else to do the same? You simply cannot. You are either on the side or reason or you are on the side of Hamas.
Complain about this comment
Response to Paulcrossleyiii 2:07am #213
Paul I was just returning the kind favour of some of your good-natured and self-confessed sarcasm.
Response to Peter_Sym 3:32pm #195 19th November, 11:53am #218 and 11:59am #219 20th November.
Paul you clearly think you are a very nice person and valuable contributing member to society. Why then make racist generalisations about the intelligence of Palestinians? You described them as: not the sharpest tools in the box, which is extremely disparaging and racist characterisation. You should know better. This off the cuff comment devalues everything else that you have to say.
Message of the day: Stop being racists kids.
Complain about this comment
Are any here interested in documentation of the fact that ALL correspondents and observers are barred from entry into Gaza?
Are any here interested in documentation of the CONTINUING ethnic cleansing by the Israelis?
If so, speak up and examples will be provided!.
[Let the honest folk seek facts, rather than gaseous political assertions]
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming 12:46 #222 20th November.
You should take the time to read other posts; it has been shown that your copied and pasted posts are lies.
Complain about this comment
The BBC and posters here should be much more concerned about this story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,455024,00.html
The inability of the BBC to report on this global issue from Iran (let alone the inability of the International atomic Agency to report on it) far outweighs the threat of Israeli defensive action in Gaza.
I think that the obsession of hate towards Israel is blinding the world to the real dangers it faces.
Complain about this comment
Bald-faced lying by political Zionists is admired by some as “chutzpah”:
…The fighting resumed, with an Israeli army incursion into Gaza and a retaliatory barrage of militant rocket fire. With that, Israel all-but shut the Gaza Strip.
Although there are some goods being smuggled into Gaza through tunnels from Egypt, little else is reaching the territory.
Serious fuel shortages have led to widespread power cuts across Gaza City. That, in turn, has caused problems in pumping water to homes, and sewage to treatment plants.
Israel is preventing many aid workers, and all journalists from entering Gaza too, so our interviews have had to be conducted over the telephone…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7739063.stm
Complain about this comment
Again, desperate lies by political Zionists can find Talmudic justification, but honest folk may be interested in facts:
Are any here interested in documentation of the CONTINUING ethnic cleansing by the Israelis?
If so, speak up and examples will be provided!.
Complain about this comment
It is patently evident that the political Zionists have no appreciation of truth and act as did their ideological antecedents.
Is is also evident that decent humans can have nothing but contempt for such behaviour.
Let us note the Middle East reporting by the BBC and the fact that the most verbose specimen here calls the BBC report that all correspondents are barred a "lie".
Would you expect anything else from such ilk?
Complain about this comment
It is becoming impossible to characterise the BBC as anything but Judeophobic:
The proof is that the moderators here allow the repeated copied and pasted spam in this forum of patent, repeated and obvious lies by one poster Xie_Ming. Xie_Ming’s posts are designed to cause ethnic discord and increased hatred towards Israel and Jews. Further these posts are designed to cause emotion distress to Jews. The BBC is contributing to racial disharmony and is being biased.
The State of Israel does not mention in its constitution the imperative to murder Palestinians. The Hamas Charter does give their people the imperative to murder all Jews. Xie_Ming has it backwards and he does so intentionally:
Palestinians and Arabs are trying to ethnically cleanse Jews from their country not vice versa.
For example in a post at 12:57 #225 Despite the reality that the recent trouble started with Hamas tunneling under the Israeli border he lies and says the Israelis broke the cease fire. What nonsence.
There is not one post here from him that does not contain lies; yet he accuses all others of lying. There are AP journalists inside Gaza from before the recent and temporary closure caused by Hamas attacks.
Complain about this comment
I would ask the moderators why they banned the URL for the Israeli
Physicians for Human Rights?
If the URLs are banned, a dedicted Zionist may continue to assert undocumented falsehoods.
If Israeli documentation is permitted, it is possible to use such sources to show the continuing ethnic cleansing and religio/ethnic persecution effected by the Israeli regime.
It is to conceal such acts that all journalists are now barred from Gaza.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming is lying at you all again.
Gaza has an Egyptian border controlled by Hamas and Egypt. There is free trade and passage of people across this border.
Hamas fights for Israeli Genocide, as their charter states openly. Israel fights for the right to live without terrorism.
Xie is peddling lies and the BBC is happy to reprint them.
Complain about this comment
You can all see the impartiality of the BBC is broken. A Hamas political hack can spew lies here without moderators controlling him.
Complain about this comment
To zeneds #205
You avoided answering the questions I posed in #203. Declaring 1) as false, not providing a list in 2) and providing no evidence that you represent wider opinion in 3).
From this I conclude that you may not be qualified to make declarations of bias and may not be mature enough to debate the issue or come to a solution. Why do you think Ireland managed to reach a solution?
To TrueToo #209
So just to confirm, you are saying that terrorism has only been committed by one side? (yes or no)
If possible please link to your studies to add some context.
What are your answers to the questions posed in #203?
Complain about this comment
There are more than twenty posts by just a single account (Xie_Ming) on this forum, which seek to impose liable, and defamation on Israel. All of these posts break the BBC rules of forum posting and moderation that the BBC has set for itself.
The BBC leaves itself exposed to the proof of its anti-Israel bias by the very fact that despite complaints it fails to moderate these libellous and defamatory lies off its published forums.
The BBC is a public organisation that uses taxpayer money. The fact that the BBC knowingly allows false accusation of genocide and ethnic cleansing against Israel on its website is evidence of malfeasance. These serious but unproven lies against Israel are designed solely to encourage race hatred against Israelis and Jews, both in the Middle East and in the wider world
The BBC should control itself better, or will face more control from the UK government and should loose its right to collect taxed money from the British public. The British government cannot expect to play any mediating role in the Middle East whatsoever while its monopolistic news service is reprinting heinous lies about one side in the conflict; as has been proven here.
Now can we talk about why the BBC does not talk about its lack of access to Darfur, Waziristan, Tibet, Somalia or nuclear plant in Narantz?
Complain about this comment
Response to _Marko 2:03pm #205.
You appear irregularly on this forum demanding detailed questions or asking for definitions that even the UN cannot furnish (for example your post at 1:44pm on the 17th November #90). After a few short lines of scribbling you disappear. You then reappear later to declare that you are right and everyone else is, as you say not qualified or not mature enough, to answer your questions.
However this time you are misrepresenting the truth. The initial question you posed (in your post 7:59pm #203) contained a double negative and was not clear; however I did answer the question fairly. You were provided with a list to your second question, despite your denial. To your third question: You cannot say that an opinion is incorrect solely on the basis that it MIGHT be in a minority; which is what you attempt to do with opinions that Israel is NOT a genocidal State.
Do not fool yourself that only a hundred words of twisted response can turn the truth against itself. Many here have discussed the subject of Israel which people like you have diverted this forum towards. Many have made the effort to answer questions. You however just throw impossible questions like, your demand for a definition of terrorism in post #90; then whine that Israel is evil when you do not get it.
You are like a person who clings to the theology that the world is flat long after it has been proven empirically that it is round. Whatever proof you are offered you ignore. You just revert to your initial Judeophobic rant. There is simply no point in anyone debating with a person like you who denies reality and truth in favour of a racially biased disposition.
You were answered fairly, you did not like the response, and so you ignored them. No one should waste their time responding to you on the basis of the ignorance you have displayed to honest attempts at dialogue with you in this forum. It is disgraceful to insult people who have treated you with enough respect to honestly answer your malformed and seemingly insincere questions as well.
Complain about this comment
The topic here is the barring of all entry by journalists to Gaza by the Israelis.
The tactics of political Zionism to present publication and to conceal the evil deeds of the Israelis are illustrated by the foregoing postings.
If the moderators can overcome their terror of URLs, we may begin documenting the savage and racist policies of the Israeli regime against the Palestinians.
It is to conceal such activities that the barring of entry to all correspondents to Gaza was applied by the Israelis.
Complain about this comment
Post by Xie_Ming 3:16pm #235.
Lies again. Journalists may enter through Egypt into Gaza; they can even come by boat:
http://current.com/items/89464730/boat_arrives_in_gaza_to_protest_blockade_associated_press_et_al.htm
It is pure unadulterated, Judeophobic, dishonest propaganda to accuse the Israelis of either ethnic cleansing or genocide; and it is also both libellous and defamatory.
Further the story or forum is about BBC access difficulties all over the world not just in Gaza: However all you talk about is Gaza, make fabrications against Israelis and Jewish people and defame those who disagree with you.
You even complain about the Mediators here who have you on a very long leash already.
Complain about this comment
To zeneds #234:
You display too many symptoms of someone trying to hi-jack or manipulate a media outlet listed in #166.
You genuinely believe you are helping the situation.
Complain about this comment
zeneds: my comments about Palestinian intelligence were neither off the cuff, nor racist.
You posted the HAMAS charter yourself: do you think the majority of a people who vote for that given the power of the Israeli army to make their lives totally miserable are terribly smart? I frankly don't blame the Israelis for shutting down their hospitals etc. I wouldn't give medical aid to someone who vowed to kill me either.
Voting in hamas was the equivalent of us brits voting in the BNP then complaining all the asian GPs and Polish dentists had vanished and the NHS was falling apart. Not smart at all.
Seeing as taking the middle ground has effectively lead to be being called a judeophobic zionist I'll point out that a lot of Israelis don't seem too smart either. They never fail to use a sledgehammer when a small screwdriver would be more appopriate and have a truly stunning habit of never missing an opportunity to turn reasonable action into a PR coup for HAMAS by overreaction and 'accidents'.
The difference between the Palestinians and the Israelis is that you'll find lots of Israelis who'll criticise what their government does.
Incidentally I note no-one has mention the Pan-Arab league's peace proposals which they're trying to restart. Quite similar to my own I though which doubtless means it'll be ignored.
Complain about this comment
Post by Xie_Ming 3:16pm #235
As I explained to you before: Hamas is firing random rockets into Israel and threatening the border crossing with a variety of attacks. They started the recent trouble with an attempt to tunnel under the Israeli border; which is a breach of the cease-fire. Under these circumstances the Israelis have the border closed to all but humanitarian access. You repeatedly seek to misrepresent this reality and impose the fallacy that the border closure is there to mask an epic and secret campaign of ethnic cleansing and genocide, as you put it, against the Arabs in Gaza; which is palpable and pathetic nonsense.
I posted to you before about both the sea and Egyptian access into Gaza and you accepted that there is tunnel access as well. The tunnels can be used to get journalists into Gaza, in between the illegal, cease-fire breaking weapons smuggling.
As for you complaints about genocide, perhaps you should focus your energy on convincing Hamas to remove the call to Genocide against all Jews in the world in its Charter, which has a url link posted above in my post at 12:20pm #220 today. Your refusal to do so just reconfirms your bias and attempted political manipulation of this forum.
Complain about this comment
Response to Marko 3:42 #237.
I am just replying, as you and others have requested. The only other reason I post is to oppose and expose the lies, racism, libel, defamation and false accusations that a few others seek to impose on the State of Israel and Jews generally, herein.
I do not insult others as you have insulted me; I do not need to.
I am British, and this is a BBC website. I have as much right to defend the truth here as you do to deny it. I stand against the way our media and society is being abused by fascists seeking amongst other things, Genocide against the Jews; again.
Stop the lies and I have no reason to post in order to expose them.
Complain about this comment
# 238
There was a response to the Arab Peace proposals:
204. At 8:09pm on 19 Nov 2008, Xie_Ming wrote:
# 190
The Saudis and most say that a return to the 1967 bords will result in normalization of relations with Israel.
HAMAS offers an "indefinite truce". This is for ideological consistency, rather than practical purpose.
Amadajinidad is blowing hot air for political
purposes in the face of a prospective loss of power.
Note: that means leaving the "settlements"!
Complain about this comment
Again, if the moderators will overcome objections and allow the posting of Israeli URlLs,
then the terrible activities and ethnic cleansing done by the Israelis can be documented
Do anyone wish to see to see such documentation?
Concealment is necessary to the Zionist enterprise, the is the reason for closing entry to Gaza to journalists.
The BBC righfully notes it and all those interested should keep current on the BBC MidEast website.
Complain about this comment
Post by Xie_Ming 6:03pm #241
The ideological consistency he refers to in this post, is the ability for Hamas and Hezbollah to sign a land for peace deal now, which does not prevent them from fighting again later. All others would be fooled into believing this was a once and for all peace settlement. The truce would not a peace deal but a practical deception of mediators and the Israelis. The tactical truce is a well-known concept in Islam. This prevents the contradiction with both organisations Charters, which call for the annihilation of all Jews on Earth, due to their theological beliefs.
This would allow both organisations to restart hostilities at any point in the future and at a time of their own choosing.
This is not a peace deal. For the Israelis and Jews it is a suicide contract.
Comprehensive peace only thanks Mr. Hamas: Also equal rights for Jews in Arab countries that Arabs expect in and around Israel.
Complain about this comment
Can we get back on topic?
Complain about this comment
# 238
The Arab peace proposals are the best things on the table.
The current intensification of Israeli ethnic cleansing in Gaza seems clearly timed to the interregnum in the USA. It will not succeed.
The Israelis have been trying the same tactics for decades and have reduced the Palestinians to grinding disease and poverty but have not succeeded in driving them from their homes and into Jordan.
Despite all, the Palestinians are out-breeding the Israelis and add to the paranoia of the latter by creating a perceived "demographic problem".
The Saudis (and many others) agree that normalization will result if the Israelis return to the 1967 borders.
This would require giving up the illegal "settlements" on Palestinian Occupied territory that the Israelis fostered despite their promises to the US administration.
If the USA were to withdraw its guarantee of 10 BILLION in Israel loans, stop all tax- funded donations to Israel (c. 3 BILLION per year) and halt military aid, then Israel would suddenly discover that it could clean out the "settlements".
Israel cannot follow its religio/ethnic policy and allow the return of 700,000 Palestinians driven from their homes, together with their descendants. Thus, Israel must pay compensation to these ethnically cleansed people.
Palestine must become a viable state. This includes air, land and sea access not subject to Israeli blockade.
However, one must be aware of the influence of the Israel lobby on the US Congress- see the Measheimer and Walt
report.
Full reporting is the enemy of those ethnically cleansing the Palestinians- let the journalists in Gaza!
Complain about this comment
LOL
This has become the HCC
The Hamas Broadcasting Company
Complain about this comment
zeneds,
So in summary:
a) Terrorism has only been committed by one side.
b) Lack of the word "occupied" before "West Bank" does not imply anti-Arab bias but
use of the word "occupied" before "West Bank" implies anti-Israeli bias.
c) You are unable to list all the things Israelis have done that shows them looking bad.
d) You have no evidence that your views posted here represent the majority UK or World opinion.
e) A legal definition of terrorism if arrived at would derail only one side of the argument.
f) You are unable to link to a source that you believe expresses the centre ground.
g) You have no method of analysis (a transferable reproducible method) for measuring bias.
h) You show many of the media hi-jacking symptoms listed in post #166
i) Despite accusations, you can't quote where I have shown hatred, Judeophobia, lies, half truths, overt distortions, denial of truth etc.
j) Israel only prevents access to Gaza because it is dangerous.
g) You choose not to express in words why Ireland managed to reach a solution.
(Don't let this stop you from continuing to post in this blog)
Complain about this comment
# 238
Yes, the Saudi (Arab) Peace plan is the most promising effort at present.
The usual Israerli tactic of "establishing facts on the ground" may underlie their present abuses in Gaza and their barring of entry to all the press.
The Saudis (and many others) agree that normalization will result if the Israelis return to the 1967 borders.
This would require giving up the illegal "settlements" on Palestinian Occupied territory that the Israelis fostered despite their promises to the US administration.
If the USA were to withdraw its guarantee of 10 BILLION in Israel loans, stop all tax- funded donations to Israel (c. 3 BILLION per year) and halt military aid, then Israel would suddenly discover that it could clean out the "settlements".
Compensation could be paid to the 700,000 and their decendants who were driven from their homes and land.
(The attempt to link the well-being of Jews all over the World to this abuse by Israel of the Palestinians is absurd and cruel).
Again, the light of the press is the best chance for truth to emerge.
[Avnery's archive on the zope-gush-shalom website is a good source for such matters]
Complain about this comment
Reply to Marko Post 7:26pm #247
I too could type any number of random points ignoring all evidence and answers posted by others and spin my own conclusions.
You have not contributed anything to this debate argument; you just make your own points up as you go along. That is obvious to anyone.
If you are shown a white light but insist it is black repeatedly there really is no point trying to talk to you.
I have made an honest effort to answer you and you have twisted every reply and randomly spun your own conclusions.
You are a flat-worlder. I will let other readers decide the merit of your questions and self-summaries.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming you keep on trying to convince yourself that the Israelis are the only ones to blame.
As an Englishman I never really understood Israeli intransigence. However in light of the blatant lying and obvious twisted trickery just in this post, I have to admit that in their shoes I would probably be a lot less patient than they have been.
For a culture who has stolen the Jewish homeland for several hundred years and now spouts genocidal transferred mania at them; I am not sure you have much to ask for Xie_Ming.
The points have been made in this forum and repeatedly you and the other side just lie and lie and lie. There is no debate to have. Your side has no capacity to either compromise or communicate.
I am sure you will get justice from the Israelis, as I cannot find it in myself to debate with liars and twisters. I hope the neutrals can see the way this debate has been handled by both sides.
Complain about this comment
A waste of time but a response to _Marko Post 7:26pm #247. This is just so you know you cannot put words into other people’s mouth. You twist anything good and misrepresent all the effort made to answer you. You degenerate this forum into a yelling match. Every point you typed is a misrepresentation of either the truth of my honest attempts to answer you. You have ignored facts given to you above to make this twisted untrue summary: Pathetic.
a) This is your summary, I never said it and you are attempting to put words into my mouth.
b) The legal status of the West Bank in international law is that the land is disputed sovereignty: It is anti Israeli bias to say they occupy it and it is pro Arab bias to deny it is disputed.
c) I gave you several lists of things; but you have decided to ignore them.
d) It is childish to argue that a forum post should have democratic support; and that this is in any way relevant; right is right and wrong is wrong. To ask anyone making a post to prove they have majority global support is the sort of thing a child would request. Unrealistic and pointless. Again you have made up this demand on your own and satiate your own appetite for irrelevant detail by repeating a point that I have addressed twice above.
e) Again you make a fatuous point about the definition of terrorism. The Arabs call the Israelis terrorists and vice versa. You are just wasting time again.
f) It is clear that with Hamas clamouring for the murder of every Jew on the planet there is no source showing middle ground.
g) I suggested a measure of bias for the BBC as you requested; you responded but now pretend I offered you no measure.
h) I am responding point by point. You and Xie_Ming are just copying pasting and ignoring reality. He makes defamatory untrue claims, you ignore answers to your questions and pretend that answers to your questions have not been given.
i) Anyone can see from the questions and answers that you are being obtuse and evasive. You ask questions get answers and then ignore them and twist the response. You also make summaries and attempt to put words in other people’s mouth. Insidious.
j) Israel has temporarily barred access to Gaza as there is a war going on and it is too dangerous – the only point we agree on.
k) The IRA charter did not call for the genocide of Unionists in the North. Hamas and Hezbollah both call for the murder of every last Jew on the planet.
Everything I have just typed is a complete waste of time. You will again ignore it as you did before. You are a very sad character indeed.
Complain about this comment
tuetrue #216, to answer your first question, yes we are as concerned about the other terrible situations that you mention as the Palestine Israel problems.
I would have thought I didn't need to answer your second question after stating explicity that I wasn't anti-semitic. Perhaps you didn't read that bit? In case you were uncertain, its a No.
zeneds #221, you're intentions are most welcome, keep it up!
Complain about this comment
To bring this debate back on topic:
In mid-June 2007 during the brutal fratricide in Gaza, when Hamas was expressing its displeasure with Fatah by throwing Fatah prisoners off buildings and shooting Fatah women, the BBC broadcast a Have Your Say programme that could hardly have been more slanted in favour of Hamas.
Alistair Crooke, of the Conflicts Forum, was allowed to ramble on at length on how unfortunate it was that the West was not keen to back Hamas. And there was some relief agency guy talking about difficulties in supplying aid to Palestinians. But the star of the show was the studio guest in London, one Dr. Azzam al-Tamimi, a Hamas radical if ever there was one, though he was not introduced as such by the BBC, but simply as the Director of the Institute of Islamic Thought.
Fatah was barely represented; the occasional Fatah-supporting e-mail or brief caller was obviously considered adequate by the BBC for purposes of balanced debate.
This was an extreme example among many I have observed over the years of the BBC acting as the Hamas Broadcasting Corporation. It is obvious that it has thrown its considerable weight behind Hamas.
So when the BBC objects to being shut out of Gaza it is not because it is being prevented from the noble and courageous pursuit of objective, incisive journalism, as Jon Williams would have us believe, but because it can't be near its Hamas friends to receive their instructions for the latest round of propaganda to be delivered to the naïve "international community."
Complain about this comment
# 238 # 248
The compensation of the Palestinians driven from their homes (700,000) and their descendants (3.5 million) is also referred to as the "right of return".
The racists policies of Israel even allowed the conversion and importation of Peruvian indians to populate Occupied Territority
but will not permit any Palestinians to return to their own homes and land.
The Palestinians that remain have their olives stolen and their trees destroyed, the thieves being protected by the Israeli armed forces. One such group of settlers was urged on by the former chief rabbi of Israel.
In Gaza, the terrible strangulation of 1.5 million helpless people continues.
Even if press converage is allowed after the latest persecutions, will the USA have the political will to aid the victims of the Israeli policies?
Complain about this comment
252. paulcrossleyiii,
Yes, I did miss that bit, so thanks for the clarification and I apologise for my suspicions.
Complain about this comment
# 253
The propagandizing polemic willfully ignores the fact that the entry of ALL journalists to Gaza was barred (see above BBC report).
The BBC is one of the few important outlets not controlled by advertising revenue and thus is not subject to the constrained reporting of Israel-related events enforced on US news media.
The Christian Science Monitor (csmonitor.com) is also a universally respected source not dependent on advertising revenue.
Like the BBC, they have a free daily internet newsletter.
The postings of these political Zionists are intended to intimidate the BBC as other news sources are repressed in the USA.
It is to cover very evil deeds that Israel bars the entry of reporters to Gaza and seeks to repress or shout down other exposure of its activities.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming #254, #248, #245, #242: Seeing as you are still stuck-on-Israel; Here are some historical facts on the ground, also some prescriptions for a just peace. These counter your extremely bias and one-sided argument:
_Marko in your own style of point making; Feel free to refute each point of historical fact here, although you will be denying recorded history: If you can not then you owe a large apology and your earlier attempt at an argument is disproved. You need to answer and disprove each historical fact. You can feel free to post here whether or not you are foolish.
1) What Xie_Ming does not explain, is that before 1900 there was no such thing as Palestinian Nation. No flag, no language, no history.
2) The Palestine name is actually derived from the name Philistine. The Philistine was a small tribe from biblical times around the area now know as Gaza.
3) The Name became Palestine, as the Romans could not pronounce Philistine.
4) When the Roman Empire destroyed Israel around 2000 years ago at the time of Jesus, they renamed Israel as Philistine on maps as an act of Judeophobia; naming Israel after their biblical enemy. This act was perhaps where the present day Iranian President got the phrase ‘wipe off the map’. The Roman idea was to forever name Israel after the Philistine tribe.
5) The only claim to fame that the Philistine had historically was as the baddies in the David and Goliath story in the Torah, the five books of Moses.
6) Incidentally, Israel had been destroyed two or three times before the Romans by successful attack from Babylonians and Greeks; both of which tried to destroy the Jewish belief in a monotheistic God and replace it with their own pre-modern animisms and polytheisms.
7) Jerusalem had been the Jewish Capital city since Biblical times and Israel had been a Jewish country, several thousand years before the Romans tried to destroy it.
8) After the Romans had destroyed Israel 2000 years ago their culture eventually adopted a version of the new religion developed by Jesus of Nazareth, a Jew. This religion Christianity developed into several competing forms, which fought each other for centuries, Catholicism, Roman Orthodox and Lutheran Protestantism; but they were all unified by their core Jewish beliefs (for example the Ten Commandments), and all drew their philosophy from Jewish culture.
9) Once the Romans had adopted Christianity, they went around trying to destroy the remnants of Jewish culture, as Christianity could not be the True religion of God until its precursor, Judaism, had been annihilated and Jews either converted to Christianity or killed.
10) Christian culture then controlled Israel.
11) Some five hundred years later Islam came into being via Mohammed who is now known as a prophet to Muslims. Muslims feel entitled to kill any person who insults Mohammed’s memory; so one has to write very carefully about this subject even if one is not Islamic.
12) Mohammed had bad relations with those Jewish cities of Medina and other parts of what is now Saudi Arabia that had been Jewish kingdoms since before the time that the Romans destroyed Israel. Yes, I hear you gasp; Medina was a Jewish city before Islam took it. I think you will find Mecca was as well. He copied the Christian example of attacking Judaism from where he had developed his religion.
13) Islam too copied most teachings and cultural behaviour from Jews and took Jewish thought as their model. For example Muslim eating law is a lighter version of Jewish Kosher eating rules. Islamic people will maintain Islamic dietary law if they eat according to Jewish dietary law. It does not work the other way around. Jewish dietary law is stricter than Islamic dietary law.
14) In fact when Islamic armies took Jerusalem from the Christians, they built the blue dome on the most holy Jewish site, the site of The Biblical Temple of Solomon. The Islamic armies did the same thing in Constantinople, today called Istanbul, when they rebuilt the churches as mosques.
15) From that time to the present day Jews sought to return to their historical homeland; despite having been dispersed first by Christian then by Islamic culture and having faced forced conversion and having faced persecution and mass murder, from both. Nevertheless Jews continued to return from exile to Israel or Palestine as the Romans had renamed it, and Judeophobes prefer to call it.
16) For hundreds of years Jews in Israel, or Palestine as those fighting to destroy Judaism called it, were forcibly converted to Islam or murdered by the Islamic power controlling it; the last of which was the Ottoman Empire. This included the murder of every last Jew in the old city of Jerusalem. So a fact on the ground in Israel is that the only reason East Jerusalem is called Arab relies on some fairly recent Ethnic Cleansing by local Arabs against Jews.
17) In 1948 and before, the modern movement of secular National Self Determination swept across the world. The Jews like all other peoples sought to apply this now universal right to themselves and their historical homeland. Zionism is the Jewish political movement that sought national self-determination for Jews.
18) As Israel was legally re-established in 1948 all of the Islamic countries tried to stop the recreation, although they were happy to use self-determination to gain their own independence. Part of the problem for Islam accepting Israel was the Islamic teaching against Jews. Summed up in the modern Hamas charter (link in point #220 above); that Islamic people must kill all Jews.
19) In 1948 the vast majority of Jews remaining in what were now Islamic countries were forcibly expelled. The only place they had to travel to was Israel. Israel had to absorb some two million Jews from Arab countries.
20) It should be noted that if any so-called Palestinian refugees are to be compensated, then the Jews who were expelled from Arab lands in 1948 should also be compensated, for the sake of fairness and equity. The difficulty that this places the Arabs in is that much oil producing land was stolen for Jews at that time, whereas the Arabs from what is now Israel had swampland with Mosquitoes.
21) In the twentieth century the British Empire came to control Israel, Palestine as the Romans called it, and some Arab lands to the East. The whole area was called Trans-Jordan.
22) The League of Nations and then the United Nations determined that Israel was to be re-established as an exclusively Jewish Country in its historical position, and agreed that the remained of the British-Controlled Trans-Jordan would be an Arab country to be known as Palestine. Palestine was hijacked by the minority Hashemite clan who renamed it Jordan and run it as a Dictatorship to this day.
23) Despite the fact that Israel absorbed all the Jewish refugees from all the Arab and Islamic countries in 1948, the Arabs leaving Israel were not offered any place to go by their Islamic brothers. This was intentional to use them as a pawn against the newly re-established Israel.
24) The Arab countries maintained a perpetual state of war against Israel for the next sixty years, attacking it and refusing to integrate Arab refugees from it; keeping them in Refugee camps. Further the more radical Islamic states have put great pressure on the Palestinians not to settle a deal with Israel. Most extremist Islamics say that the Palestinians do not have a right to do a deal with Israel that would allow Israel to survive as a Jewish country.
25) Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. There is no true Islamic democratic country. Arabs are allowed to live and prosper in Israel. Jews are not allowed to live freely and prosper in Islamic states. Jews in Islamic States have what is called Dhimmi Status or simply cannot live there. In the West this would be referred to as being a second-class citizen who has to pay a tax just to live for example. In effect this is Sharia law and means a Jew has to live under Islamic law. In Israel Islamics are free to worship and do not have Jewish law determining their daily activity.
26) Arabs in Israel do not have to join the army, whereas Jews do. So in effect Jews protect the secular rights and property of Arabs in Israel with the Israeli army.
27) The poster Xie_Ming states that more than 700,000 Arabs were forced out of Israel in 1948; but the entire Arab population of Israel at that time was the country was not more than 800,000. Xie_Ming lies as the population of Israel now has 1.5 to 2 million Arabs descended from the original population. Less than 500,000 and probably less than 200,000 Arabs were forced out of Israel in 1948. However ten times that number of Jews were forced from Islamic countries. Much of the population of Gaza were in fact expelled criminals and undesirables from Egypt.
Summary
1) Palestinian Nations sole reason of being was as an Arab nationalist tool to be used against Israel and to prevent a Jewish State from existing.
2) If any compensation is paid to Arabs who left Israel in 1948, then equal rights for compensation should be given to those Jews who were forced to leave Arab and Islamic countries at that time; including compensation for loss of Oil sale revenues on their lands there.
3) If Arabs are to be allowed to live freely in Israel then Jews must be allowed freely to live in Arab countries; with equal rights and protection under their laws.
4) Islamic theologians must issue universally binding Fatwah(s) that protect the Jews and make it un-Islamic to kill Jews. This will prevent splinter extremist groups from ignoring any peace deal.
These four logical principles must be included in any peace deal between Israel and the Arabs. If they are not; it is not a peace deal. It is imposed on the Jews by the money the Islamics now have from selling Oil. Islamic countries are now wealthier than America, Israel and Europe put together.
As I argued before; the only ones able to make a just peace are the Arabs.
Now can we talk about why the BBC is more concerned about its temporary inability to gain access to Gaza rather than its permanent inability to gain access to Waziristan, Darfur and Somalia?
Complain about this comment
#257. When the Romans were busy colonising Judea they were also doing a spot of ethnic cleansing in the UK but that (nor the subsequent ethnic cleansing by Saxons, Danes, Normans etc) isn't considered by sane people as justification for anything in 2008.
Only in the mid-east is 2000 year old history used to justify slaughter today. I'd strongly suggest that if both parties wish to find a solution they forget about everything that happened in the past and accept the UN position that there IS a state of Israel (defined by the pre-67 borders) and quit trying to argue as to whether what happened in '48 was legal or justified, because it happened regardless.
Complain about this comment
5-aproposofwhat
100% correct
Complain about this comment
Response to Peter_Sym 12:20pm #258
I am sorry for you that you have typed that I am insane for describing the history of how Israel became named as Palestine by the Romans. Insults against me are no more valuable now than your earlier racist generalisation that Palestinians are to quote you; not the sharpest tools in the box, your post #195 3:32pm 19th November.
However, Historical Claim is a pre-requisite of national self-determination, many Judeophobes still dishonestly refer to Israel proper as Palestine. Prior Historical claim is also significant when there are dual claims on a single piece of land. It is therefore essential to understand that the Roman Empire sought to wipe Israel from the Map in the same way that the President of Iran does today. This fact is a pre-requisite prescience for the establishment of a just and lasting peace between Arabs and Jews. The so-called Palestinian nation is a very recent twentieth century invention fashioned to fit the ancient Roman attempt to extinguish Jews and Judaism from history. This is why it is relevant. When Arabs or Palestinians claim that the Jews stole their land, history shows that in fact, the reverse is true. Similarly when Arabs and Palestinians claim the Jews are attempting genocide against them, in fact the reverse has been and is still true. These genuinely evil transferences have to be recognised and purged from Arab culture for there to be a lasting peace in the Middle East.
It may be inconvenient that Jews have a history considerably longer than England, but nevertheless they do. I am sure Scots would take issue with their country being called England as much as the English would take issue with their country being called France. Do not try to argue that the Jews have less of a right to name their own country. Further the cultural difference between Jews and the people surrounding them is greater than that of the invaders of England who you quote. The point I was making in my last post is that the Jews have made an unbroken attempt across the ages to re-establish their country despite outside servitude first from Christian and later by Islamic empires. This too is critical to acknowledge. The length of their effort to return is so long that it is almost inconceivable; you go so far as to say that it is insane or mad to consider it. However the paucity of your ability to grasp the length and significance of history, and your personal disregard for history, is no reason to deny either historical reality or Jewish rights to their homeland.
It is a Sophist argument, without logic, to then leap to suggest that the accepted historical fact that Romans renamed Israel to Palestine is being used to as you say to, justify slaughter today. The slaughter today is in great part due to the refusal of Arabs and Islamics to allow the Jews their reciprocal right of Territorial Sovereignty and National Self Determination in their historical homeland, within the rules of International Law and international declarations on the subject.
The Slaughter is in great part due to the refusal of huge Arab and Islamic States to refuse to absorb a the refugees from Israel: Square mile for square mile and head for head, Israel had to absorb a much higher percentage of refugees from Arab and Islamic countries in 1948, than the Arab countries ever had to integrate: Israel is a minute country.
Anyone attempting to deny the Jews either their history or their rights is not interested in a true and lasting peace. The Jews are owed a serious apology by all of us. They should be left in peace. The Arabs owe it to them and the Palestinians to spend their huge, unrivalled and some would say exploited wealth, on caring for the Palestinians as they are integrated into Arab society.
The solution is not to take small bites from Israel, just to restart a war of genocide against Israel, after a small territorial success against them. This is what Hamas and Hezbollah say they will do. It is for this reason that the Jews and Israelis are right to be suspicious.
As I suggested in my last post, for the Arabs and Islamics to show that they are serious about peace the following need to be components of a lasting peace agreement:
1) If any compensation is paid to Arabs who left Israel in 1948, then equal rights for compensation should be given to those Jews who were forced to leave Arab and Islamic countries at that time; including compensation for loss of Oil sale revenues on their lands there.
2) If Arabs are to be allowed to live freely in Israel then Jews must be allowed freely to live in Arab countries; with equal rights and protection under their laws.
3) Islamic theologians must issue universally binding Fatwah(s) that protect the Jews and make it un-Islamic to kill Jews. This will prevent splinter extremist groups from ignoring any peace deal.
If you do not agree with these three principles being a pre-requisite of Arab/Islamic and Israeli/Jewish Peace; then you are not seriously committed to the Peace. You just want a tactical withdrawal of the Israelis to make it easier to fight them to a genocidal finish later, as is stated openly by both Hamas and Hezbollah.
Complain about this comment
Those interested in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria and Iran will want to read Olmert's Tom Kippur interview published in Yedioth Ahronoth.
It is available in English translation in the December 4 issue of the New York Review of Books nybooks.com
".. meaning a withdrawal from all, or nearly all, of the Occupied Territorities.."
and many other "things that the time has come to say".
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming 2:59pm #261.
Damn boy you are obsessed with Israel.
Do not blindly take Olmert’s words as truth. He is officially corrupt. Many in Israel believe he took bribes from Arab oil money to betray Israel.
It will be interesting to see who is elected as Israeli Primi Minster next.
Complain about this comment
zeneds,
My guess is Binyamin Netanyahu. Man has the right stuff. Let's hope the Israeli public realises that. His brother Jonatan was the only Israeli commando to die in the brilliant and courageous raid on Idi Amin's Entebbe to free the hostages.
Olmert has little credibility left after almost certainly being heavily involved in fraud and corruption.
Complain about this comment
# 264
Let us cling to the hope that Israelis may, in the next election, break out from the domination of corrupt religio/ethnic sociopaths.
There is very little prospect of this happening, for many Israelis seem to be totally disgusted with the politicians and see little good in voting.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming 9:04am #264. Be extremely careful what you wish for:
Xie_Ming I am amazed at the nerve you have, Judeophobes and obsessive haters like you have dishonestly and unjustly sought throughout history to impose the most heinous crimes and transferences on the Jewish people. You repeatedly call Jews religio/ethnic sociopaths, ethnic cleansers and genocidalists in this forum. This is just simply racism.
I am also amazed the moderators do not see this as racism and prevent the BBC from advocating your position by republishing you lies. However this proves my point about the BBC being bias against Jews and Israel; hence their focus on access to Gaza as opposed to Waziristan, Darfur or Narantz.
You mirror the Judeophobic attacks exemplified in history; such as the Roman Empire crucifying Jesus of Nazareth and then teaching for two thousand years that The Jews did it. Today you call Jews sociopaths, ethnic cleansers and say they are guilty of genocide, when in fact the Islamic culture is the one that teaches the Jews must be murdered. Hamas says it, Hezbollah says it, Iran says it and even the Quran that call for the annihilation of every last Jew. Jews do not say that Islamic people should be murdered.
You are correct that the Israelis are disgusted with their present leaders. They feel betrayed by the bribes that they believe the Americans are using, from Arab money, to attempt to get corrupt Israeli leaders to betray the Israeli people and sell out to Arab genocidal demands for the weakening and later destruction of Israel. However the Israelis will vote, despite the fact that the present government has negotiated with the Arabs with an approval rating below 5%.
If you wish hard enough you might actually end up with an Israeli government that really does not care what anyone thinks and uses all necessary means to stop any possibility of attacks on them, either now or in the future. The talk you make here is precisely the kind of talk that will lead to war not peace. You persistently talk of the Israelis as criminals and not once in any of your posts mention that perhaps the Arabs have done something wrong too. The Israelis do have the capacity to send the Arab world back to the Stone Age. I suggest if you want peace with them you stop attributing lies and heinous crimes on them, while at the same time threatening their entire people with annihilation.
At some point the Israelis might think: Well, if everyone believes the Xie_Ming lies, we may as well push the button on the lot of them, as they will all gang up to kill us all if we do not. Iran has pushed the entire Arab world to the edge of destruction with their genocidal threats to Israel. I do not see the Arab world clamouring for a fair peace either.
As I have argued here, with this off topic thread, only the Arabs have the capacity to make peace in the Middle East. The Israelis are logically incapable of making peace with people dedicated to the murder of every last one of them, and their Diaspora.
Xie_Ming your false accusations, libels and defamation of Israelis and Jews are giving Israelis reason to fight not make peace. Do you think threads like this go unnoticed in Jerusalem? All you are doing is making it more likely that there will be a devastating war, not less likely. It is a certainty that the Arabs will come off very much worse in any total-war for the foreseeable future. The Israelis have not fought a total war with the Arabs since 1948, this was a war of survival for the Jews, when their means were much more limited. Since then the wars from the Israeli side have been Limited in both the use of force and the use of technology and Israeli avoidance of attacking Arab cities.
You might be wishing in a new Israeli government who might perceive a second unlimited war of survival is necessary.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming 9:04am #264. Be extremely careful what you wish for:
Xie_Ming I am amazed at the nerve you have, Judeophobes and obsessive haters like you have dishonestly and unjustly sought throughout history to impose the most heinous crimes and transferences on the Jewish people. You repeatedly call Jews religio/ethnic sociopaths, ethnic cleansers and genocidalists in this forum. This is just simply racism.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming 9:04am #264. Be extremely careful what you wish for:
I am also amazed the moderators do not see this as racism and prevent the BBC from advocating your position by republishing you lies. However this proves my point about the BBC being bias against Jews and Israel; hence their focus on access to Gaza as opposed to Waziristan, Darfur or Narantz.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming 9:04am #264. Be extremely careful what you wish for:
You mirror the Judeophobic attacks exemplified in history; such as the Roman Empire crucifying Jesus of Nazareth and then teaching for two thousand years that The Jews did it. Today you call Jews sociopaths, ethnic cleansers and say they are guilty of genocide, when in fact the Islamic culture is the one that teaches the Jews must be murdered. Hamas says it, Hezbollah says it, Iran says it and even the Quran that call for the annihilation of every last Jew. Jews do not say that Islamic people should be murdered.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming 9:04am #264. Be extremely careful what you wish for:
You are correct that the Israelis are disgusted with their present leaders. They feel betrayed by the bribes that they believe the Americans are using, from Arab money, to attempt to get corrupt Israeli leaders to betray the Israeli people and sell out to Arab genocidal demands for the weakening and later destruction of Israel. However the Israelis will vote, despite the fact that the present government has negotiated with the Arabs with an approval rating below 5%.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming 9:04am #264. Be extremely careful what you wish for:
If you wish hard enough you might actually end up with an Israeli government that really does not care what anyone thinks and uses all necessary means to stop any possibility of attacks on them, either now or in the future. The talk you make here is precisely the kind of talk that will lead to war not peace. You persistently talk of the Israelis as criminals and not once in any of your posts mention that perhaps the Arabs have done something wrong too. The Israelis do have the capacity to send the Arab world back to the Stone Age. I suggest if you want peace with them you stop attributing lies and heinous crimes on them, while at the same time threatening their entire people with annihilation.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming 9:04am #264. Be extremely careful what you wish for:
At some point the Israelis might think: Well, if everyone believes the Xie_Ming lies, we may as well push the button on the lot of them, as they will all gang up to kill us all if we do not. Iran has pushed the entire Arab world to the edge of destruction with their genocidal threats to Israel. I do not see the Arab world clamouring for a fair peace either.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming 9:04am #264. Be extremely careful what you wish for:
As I have argued here, with this off topic thread, only the Arabs have the capacity to make peace in the Middle East. The Israelis are logically incapable of making peace with people dedicated to the murder of every last one of them, and their Diaspora.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming 9:04am #264. Be extremely careful what you wish for:
Xie_Ming your false accusations, libels and defamation of Israelis and Jews are giving Israelis reason to fight not make peace. Do you think threads like this go unnoticed in Jerusalem? All you are doing is making it more likely that there will be a devastating war, not less likely. It is a certainty that the Arabs will come off very much worse in any total-war for the foreseeable future. The Israelis have not fought a total war with the Arabs since 1948, this was a war of survival for the Jews, when their means were much more limited. Since then the wars from the Israeli side have been Limited in both the use of force and the use of technology and Israeli avoidance of attacking Arab cities.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming 9:04am #264. Be extremely careful what you wish for:
You might be wishing in a new Israeli government who might perceive a second unlimited war of survival is necessary.
Complain about this comment
Readers: Due to the Refusal of the BBC moderators to publish comment 265, I have split it into paragraphs to see which bit they object to. I will attempt to find out why through the correct channels next week.
It seems a little strange that the BBC will happily reprint and allow racist comments against Jews but will not allow the reprinting of facts either historical or strategic.
The BBC seems to no longer be a news organisation; but has morphed into an Judeophobic rant channel. This might be way the attacks by Ross and Brand against Andrew Sachs were authorised.
Complain about this comment
Readers: In summary what the BBC has moderated from #265:
1) Historical fact: Roman Empire’s treatment of a certain Jew from Nazareth and the apportioning of blame for his demise.
2) Posting Here: My summary that one poster in particular has been racist and the BBC is allowing it.
3) Transference: My view that crimes of other ethnic groups are attributed to Jews
4) The statements of Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic texts vis-à-vis Jews.
With regard to point 4: I refer to extracts from a certain Islamic core text, quoted in the Hamas Charter on this link:
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
I had paraphrased the final quote in article seven, which speaks for itself. To see how this must feel for Jews, try removing the word Jew and replacing it with your own ethnic group(s).
So in summary: A Judeophile is allowed to attribute untrue criminal acts against the entire Israeli and Jewish people here, in a self evidently racist fashion, but references to the above facts are moderated out of the forum.
Decide for yourselves whether the days of the BBC license fee should go on forever as a mandatory UK tax.
Complain about this comment
# 274
The fundamentalist extremists must be replaced by the secular majority in controlling the affairs of Israel, but this is not likely to happen.
Rather, the ethno/religious persection of the Palestinians is likely to continue
and an extreme right government under Netanyahu is likely to emerge.
Netanyahu's desire to "forcibly transfer" the Palestinians to Jordan is known.
Those are the likely events, as is the Israeli prompting of a war with Iran
Unless the new government in the United States begins serious talks with Iran and cuts off the underwriting of Israeli loans, etc.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming 4:10pm #277.
I am sure the Israelis are flattered that you are so obsessed with them that you cannot keep on topic and keep typing about them. However you have demonstrated that you habitually lie and described the opposite of the truth as the truth.
The Religious parties have not controlled the recent government in Israel. The Olmert government has implemented what are generally agreed to be left wing policies. It is widely known that the government has less than ten per cent approval ratings. The reality is that Arab bribe money sent through the USA has been controlling Israel since the Oslo terms were imposed on Israel.
There is no ethno/religious persecution of the Palestinians; it is the Palestinians who have elected a Hamas government dedicated to the destruction of Israel. It is Hezbollah who talks of annihilating Israel. It is Iran who talks of wiping Israel off the map.
The only reason Netanyahu will be elected is because Israelis are sick and tired of the lying double standards that non-Israelis attempt to impose upon them, as you enunciate and demonstrate so well in your twisted posts on this forum. They will elect him out of despair and lack of hope to get a fair deal from Arabs and the international community.
It is ridiculous to suggest Israel is starting or could start a war with Iran. Iran has threatened to annihilate the Jewish state from the map and is widely believed by developing states and intelligence services across the world, to be developing nuclear weapons to do just that. Any war between Israel and Iran that involves shooting has already been started by Iran with its existential threats against Israel.
The Arabs have already got the Americans bribing successive Israeli leaders; including Olmert. The Arabs are the only ones who can make peace by ceasing the genocidal threats against the tiny Jewish State.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming.
What should concern you, and those of your mind-set here, is that I am a lone English voice trying to talk some reason into you.
The Jewish people have given up on debating with people of your view and accept the bias of suposedly neutral organisations like the BBC.
I would be very worried if I were you.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
# 279
One should save # 278 and # 279 as evidence of pathology animating the Zionists.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming 12:07pm #281.
You are funny. You talk of pathology? You are all full of transference; a psychological malaise.
You use the word Zionist as an insult against an Englishman arguing against your bias. You throw the most heinous allegations of crimes against all Israelis and Jews, crimes they have not committed. You never once acknowledge the Hamas Charter which calls for the destruction of Israel. Instead you transfer all the hatred from those giving it to those defending against it.
It is your posts that should be saved to display why the Israelis should not be asked to submit to the ethno/religio pathological sociopath ideology (as you call it) emanating from Gaza. Further that as is clear under international law; a nation state is free to use whatever means are at its disposal to prevent terrorism against its citizens.
Complain about this comment
To zeneds,
"_Marko in your own style of point making"
It does enable a more precise referencing of points and is a generally good thing for a blog. People are more likely to address them rather than ignore them. It is also more visible if a question is ignored.
(I began using statements because you seemed more interested in rolling out an
agenda rather than responding to my questions. Suggesting things and seeing how you react seemed to be my only method to understand your viewpoint)
Thanks for the answers you have supplied.
How would you refute this accusation:
"The bias of zeneds is evident in the careful omission and distortion of inconvenient facts and also in the emphasis and repetition of some facts at the expense of others. He doesn't simply report information, he distorts it."
I hope you agree it can't really be refuted with a simple statement but requires method, reference point, specific analysis and free dialogue (questions and answers). And hopefully not too much abuse. A continuous process?
"Everything I have just typed is a complete waste of time"
It is if you appear unwilling to support statements when challenged and need prompting to supply rational answers and arguments to specific points. If you make assertions you need to be prepared to defend them.
a) "Terrorism has only been committed by one side."
You can't bring yourself to admit terrorism has been committed by all sides.
b) "West Bank" or "Occupied West Bank" from your example story.
If you trust Wikipedia as a source then if Arabs regard "Occupied west Bank" as a more accurate description then obviously using just "West Bank" would appear pro-Israeli to an Arab. You should be able to acknowledge this logic regardless of the subject (if you agree Arabs are allowed to hold a perception you disagree with). Your initial comment about proof was like an Arab posting that the BBC was conclusively pro-Israeli after using the term "disputed west bank" in a story.
c) "You are unable to list all the things Israelis have done that shows them looking bad."
You are happy to reel off a long history in your new post #257, but there is still nothing in it that shows Israelis looking bad - looking bad in your eyes. You are still unable to express it. A central impartial source would acknowledge the negatives. More indications that your exposition is no attempt at an impartial account of both positives and negatives. I guess it is not in your interests to do this which is why you have not answered this. Although you have now acknowledged a negative in post #262 for the first time. You can't bring yourself to do a similar view of history from an Arab point of view, or even acknowledge a valid one could exist. Of course having a different perception would be labelled false, obtuse etc.
d) "You have no evidence that your views posted here represent the majority UK or World opinion".
Childish?
If you were writing a Middle East news story rather than an opinion story, evidence of wider agreement gives the story more credibility. The point remains. You say childish, I say more credibility (just as having legal status in international law gives greater weight)
e) "A legal definition of terrorism if arrived at would derail only one side of the
argument".
It might be fatuous in the sense that it is not appropriate for you. I guess the UN thought it might be useful.
f) "You are unable to link to a source that you believe expresses the centre ground".
This point remains as you say there is no source showing the middle ground. Choosing a source may risk labelling your centre ground. Impolitely prompting you again: what's your view of Wikipedia as the most impartial source of information about the Middle East? Would you be happy to say that it broadly acts as good impartial source? ( but not news). If you were to choose one news website that chimed with your views on this subject which would it
be? (broadly speaking, without need to justify every news item).
g) "You have no method of analysis (a transferable reproducible method) for measuring bias."
Your number of deaths/number of words is simplistic and shows that bias is of secondary concern. If you're happy with that level of analysis then an Arab concluding the BBC is pro-Israeli because it uses a pro-Israeli term (from an Arab
perspective) would also be acceptable proof of inherent bias the other way. You appear happy to use this non-method or shallow analysis and presumably by including it in your post you feel it is a valid way of determining bias.
h) "You show many of the media hi-jacking symptoms listed in post #166."
Accusations of generally ignoring reality is not addressing this. Even if you're
not able to admit to some of them, please re-examine the list. How would you detect someone hi-jacking a thread and just dumping an agenda? What symptoms would they show?
i) "Despite accusations, you can't quote where I have shown hatred, Judeophobia, lies, half truths, overt distortions, denial of truth, sad etc."
yes, very "insidious" towards irrational behaviour! The point remains. You can't point it out. Making these accusations doesn't promote your message. Anyone who disagrees is branded with these terms. You then expect to be taken seriously as an arbiter of whether something is biased or not!
People might reject some of your valid analysis if you display too much of this. Please discourage other views with strong arguments rather that insults. In your eyes perhaps giving an apology would be a sign of weakness and not necessary because a blog discussion is trivial compared to what is going on in the Middle East. Or maybe a blog discussion about the Middle East is inevitably an ugly one, a textual analogue of the real situation.
j) Israel only prevents access to Gaza because it is dangerous.
I don't know. Just confirming your opinion (but others may disagree)
k) "You choose not to express in words why Ireland managed to reach a solution."
Ok. Thanks for a response here. I was hoping for some of your speculative reasons why reconciliation was possible in this case, but not in the Middle East.
Are you saying that the scale of attrocities or threatened attrocities is so much more significant that reconciliation is that much more difficult?
If you feel the whole world is anti-semitic (correct me if I'm wrong) you might not be the best judge of whether something is biased.
Complain about this comment
Reply to _Marko 5:03pm #283
Points can be useful in discussion format if they are logical and when used in a two-way debate. However when used to barrage a list of generally pointless (excuse the pun) random pontificating, (as in your case) point making becomes a form of bluster. You have shown a refusal to accept honest answers given to you much earlier in this debate string. On two occasions you have been answered (by me) on a point-by-point basis. On both occasions you have generally ignored the answers and just logged back two days later to repeat your questions in a slightly altered form. I am not sure whom you think you are to log into a blog and repeatedly demand answers to inane off topic questions. You do have delusions of grandeur.
You have demonstrated a pugnacious refusal to accept answers to your questions. Like Xie_Ming you are off in your own world of Sophistry; you too are full of insults for those who do not go along with your worldview. Readers here may if they desire search your questions and then check my answers above; no one can be bothered with your childish attempts to derail the argument. This blog was about BBC news access not your attempt to discredit Israel.
So I did not ignore your questions, although you have generally ignored my answers to them and have singularly failed to furnish any answers to my questions or reaction to the facts of history that rally against your earlier supposition herein.
My posts here were just in response to those slandering, libelling and defaming Israel and Jews as the one sided perpetrators of crimes in the Middle East. You can call me whatever you want, I am not the one insulting here; you and others are. Your suggestion that firing irrelevant questions at me, demanding answers, then ignoring the answers, as the way to understand perfectly clear posts is frankly silly.
You do not dialogue. You throw questions in an attempt to avoid the reality that your initial posts were designed just to embarrass Israelis and were nothing whatsoever to do with the BBC having news access. It is a waste of time responding to someone who ignores answers to questions.
a) Already answered: The Israelis do not consider themselves to be terrorists and regard themselves solely as defending. Hamas regard themselves as freedom fighters. You can bluster on but you have been answered. Your original question was off topic and pointless.
b) Already answered: The West Bank is not occupied, it is LEGALLY DISPUTED territory. Bluster on if you want.
c) Already answered: You and the Judeophobes have listed all that the Israelis have done wrong in your view, no reason for me to comment.
d) Already answered: It is irrelevant how many people agree or disagree with any debate. The majority may be wrong. A show of hands is only a way to elect people not to decide right or wrong. You know that a majority of people are Judeophobic (as for example is the United Nations General Assembly). Hence to look for a majority view to support the Israelis is impossible and further your request for proof of a majority supporting my balanced view to be fair to the Israelis is also impossible. Hence you request is a twisted attempt to show the Israelis and my points are not right by overwhelming us with a show of hands from a bunch of people dedicated to the destruction of Israel. I pointed this out earlier. Like a child you keep repeating your dulled attack.
e) Already answered: The United Nations cannot agree a definition of terrorism; therefore it is impossible here. Again like the point above you seek to argue that without such a definition no debate can be had: wrong. Further you make assumptions about the value of such a definition in supporting one side completely against the other; also wrong.
f) Already answered: How inane is it to suggest there is a single Internet or other source out there that somehow provides centre ground. Again, stupid and childish. Also dealt with above. If you want a source try the London School of Economics Library, although beware some sources contradict each other. How silly.
g) Already answered: You accept I answered this one but do not like the answer. How about you suggest a method better than the one I did to measure how bias the BBC is across countries and stories? Your thoughts after you reject a tested methodology that I suggested are garbled and nonsensical.
h) Already answered: You accuse me of hijacking when I am just defending against racism and bias. Someone hijacking a thread shows all the traits that you display: Posting off topic, posting irrelevant questions, refusing to accept answers they do not like, denying they have been given answers, re-posting those same inane tangential questions off-topic. Essentially I have just been posting against those attacking Israel. I do not like bullies. I did not like them at school and I do not like them in International Relations. You have not debated the failure of the BBC to gain access to Darfur, Waziristan or Narantz. You haven’t mentioned their failure to gain access to Gaza or Zimbabwe either. You are just focused on attacking Israel.
i) Already answered: See points made in (h) above. You are an attacker at a different level to Xie_Ming. You seek to sound very reasonable when in fact you are attempting to undercut the equality and rights of the Israelis. You earlier posts display this when considered that this is not an anti-Israeli rant fest but a debate about BBC access. You have focused on the rant-fest not the BBC access. Hence my opinion that you are Judeophobic. I am not sure when you gained the right to decide what my opinions can be, but I hold them nonetheless.
j) Already answered: Israel has temporarily banned all access to Gaza except for humanitarian access while Hamas rockets fall. Perhaps you should be asking why the BBC has a Palestinian reporter on the subject of a Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Another point you have avoided. The border will be re-opened when the rockets stop. This is relevant to point (i): If you were not Judeophobic and therefore focused on attacking Israel you might be asking why the BBC has lost permanent access to Waziristan, Darfur and Narantz.
k) Already answered: Ireland is a completely different topographical, ethnological, theological and historic situation. As you begin to grasp; the threat by Hamas and Hezbollah to extinguish Israel is at its base one main reason why the Middle East will not be easy to solve. The theological problems that the Palestinians face in making peace are immense.
Of course the entire world is not Judeophobic. I hesitate to use the term anti-Semitic as you do as this has now been in your words, hijacked, by Arabs claiming that they too are Semitic. I like to be clear this is about Jews not Arabs. However as I pointed out in my historical summary, to which you have not responded (as you are probably unable or unwilling), the religions of Christianity and Islam cannot argue that they are the true religions of God while Judaism still exists. This is why countries with those religions are generally anti-Jewish in some way and have at some time in their history mass-murdered and expelled Jews. You have ignored the reasonable arguments I set out in this regard though. You have failed to answer one question that I put to you.
Your last two posts are a singularly expansive waste of time. Your refusals to accept answers have got you repeating yourself. You refuse to deal with questions put to you. You are not debating. You are just trying to be difficult. I doubt anyone wants to waste their time examining your repetitive questions and my answers.
You inability to do anything but repeat yourself and ask irrelevant questions and then declare yourself victory of an anti-Israeli debate you have conjured up in your own head just shows the insidiousness of your Judeophobic tactics.
Feel free to spam more repeated questions about definitions of terrorism, demands for lists of all the bad things Israel has done, and try to convince yourself that a majority is always right. If a majority is always right (as you suggest) then in your view a majority of Islamic states refusing to accept the existence of Israel implies that Israel is in the wrong for actually existing. This is a plain example of why I find you insidious and trite.
It is time you answer the questions as opposed to repeat spamming those you try to use to embarrass Israel and anyone who tries to explain that the BBC is bias against that country.
For the sake of the sanity of other readers, I will not keep repeating answers to your repeated questions. Three times you have spammed the same questions in a slightly different form. They are irrelevant, answered and off topic.
You have failed to answer a single question and as I explained above this exposes your own questions as insincere. You are just here to cause trouble for those defending Israel and the ability of that country to defend itself.
Nothing in your last two posts was worth typing and I have wasted time responding to you to show others your anti-Israel-repetition-bluster-boogie. Asking for an apology is not only funny, it is what I should be doing; you are a complete waste of time.
Yawn.
Complain about this comment
_Marko before you repeat any questions for the forth time: You need to answer whether you agree that the three principles set out in the summary to my post #257 are needed for a just peace.
1) If any compensation is paid to Arabs who left Israel in 1948, then equal rights for compensation should be given to those Jews who were forced to leave Arab and Islamic countries at that time; including compensation for loss of Oil sale revenues on their lands there.
2) If Arabs are to be allowed to live freely in Israel then Jews must be allowed freely to live in Arab countries; with equal rights and protection under their laws.
3) Islamic theologians must issue universally binding Fatwah(s) that protect the Jews and make it un-Islamic to kill Jews. This will prevent splinter extremist groups from ignoring any peace deal.
Complain about this comment
Marko 5:03 pm
In many instances plagiarism is illegal. You used my words from comment no. 209 without acknowledgement, except that I was not talking about zeneds:
"The bias of zeneds is evident in the careful omission and distortion of inconvenient facts and also in the emphasis and repetition of some facts at the expense of others. He doesn't simply report information, he distorts it."
So to reclaim what I wrote, since you have tried to make it your own, here it is:
The bias of the left wing media, particularly the BBC, is evident in the careful omission and distortion of inconvenient facts and also in the emphasis and repetition of some facts at the expense of others. I have been studying it for years. The BBC doesn't simply report the news. It distorts it.
Now you might like to try debating the issue fair and square, rather than playing games.
Complain about this comment
Respect to TrueToo 10:00pm #286
Now I had missed that one T.T. Well spotted.
I tried answering this guy _Marko three times now. He keeps repeating his questions and ignoring the honest answers I tried to good him in good faith.
However it is psycho-city for him to have copied your words like that; flattering to you though. Good Job; you own. _Marko the laugh is on you. How pathetic you are to have copied the words from a post by TrueToo.
As I said earlier _Marko, you are a waste of time. You cannot debate, you just evade.
_Marko you are one of those guys who wants to hate but does not have the courage of a guy like Xie_Ming to come out and say it directly: But _Marko I am laughing so hard at you copying another guy’s words. Laughing so hard it hurts.
It will be funny to see you here again. Your tail should be firmly between your legs when you read this.
Classic :)
Complain about this comment
All reporters, not just the BBC, are barred from Gaza.
The motivations for such concealment are obvious.
It is in free media (not those controlled by advertising reveues) that one can look for truth.
That is why such sources as the Christian Science Monitor, NPR and the BBC are to be highly prized.
And it is also why the dark forces of political Zionism seek to denigrate, intimidate and silence them.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming 8:48am #288
Predictably you log in for two lines of rant. You do not debate you just throw untrue allegations. Your refusal to acknowledge the three simple point I made about making an equitable peace in the Middle East show that you are not sincere when you talk of a settlement. You raise the principles of the Saudi so-called peace plan: If you want anyone to think you are serious about a fair settlement then please respond to whether you think the following three principles should be also be included.
1) If any compensation is paid to Arabs who left Israel in 1948, then equal rights for compensation should be given to those Jews who were forced to leave Arab and Islamic countries at that time; including compensation for loss of Oil sale revenues on their lands there.
2) If Arabs are to be allowed to live freely in Israel then Jews must be allowed freely to live in Arab countries; with equal rights and protection under their laws.
3) Islamic theologians must issue universally binding Fatwah(s) that protect the Jews and make it un-Islamic to kill Jews. This will prevent splinter extremist groups from ignoring any peace deal.
Until then stop copying and pasting lies into this forum it does not help develop a debate it merely turns this string into a rant-fest.
Reporters can gain access to Gaza with negotiations with the Egyptians, by boat from Cyprus or at a push through a tunnel used to smuggle weapons. Israel has no obligation to open it borders when they are under attack by terrorists. This is obvious under international law.
There is no such thing as free-media; someone pays and controls the agenda, to suggest otherwise is quite naïve and uninformed. In monopoly funded media as the BBC and Christian Monitor as you suggest that control and manipulation is greatest. You only suggest those, as they are the most bias against Israel. We all know the history of Christianity against Judaism and it is not pretty. As has been argued convincingly here, the BBC is also obsessed with painting Israel in a bad light. The forum monitors allow you to express untrue libel, fallacy, and defamation against Israel. That alone is proof.
Again you refer to the dark forces of Zionism: Racist and untrue. The Zionists do not have a charter calling for the annihilation of Arab countries. Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran openly call for the annihilation of Israel. The majority of other Islamic and Arab States do not recognise Israel and use that lack of recognition to impinge on the human rights of Israelis and Jews across the world. As an Englishman looking on, it is the Arab side that you blindly support who are, in your words, dark and evil. After all the only silencing going on will be the annihilation of an entire nation-state from the membership of the United Nations.
Remember there are three million Jews in Israel and over one billion Arabs ganged up against them. It is ridiculous for the Arabs to play the downtrodden minority. This is a tired old game you are trying to play.
You have only copied and pasted against Israel here; you have not once engaged in debate. Despite pasting your own view of the Saudi proposal you have not realistically engaged in any talk about how the Jewish side can be made to feel that they will not be attacked again if they give up any more land.
Further, this is a debate about BBC access globally; you just keep banging on about Israel. See you tomorrow for your anti-Israel post.
Did you see how _Marko made a fool of himself copying a paragraph from another poster here ? Now that was funny. Bah, you guys: lol.
Yawn.
Complain about this comment
287. At 11:02pm on 23 Nov 2008, zeneds wrote:
Respect to TrueToo 10:00pm #286
Now I had missed that one T.T. Well spotted.
Be interesting to see what, if anything, Marko has to say for himself if he comes back. My words were in response to a query he had on media bias, but instead of debating the issue, he disguises them as his own and throws them back into the discussion. It's impossible to have a debate under those weird conditions.
Complain about this comment
It really doesn't matter what Xie-ming thinks or says. The Jews are in Israel, it is THEIR land, they won't be leaving and if the surrounding Arab states dare to try to take it away from them they will get more than they bargained for.
The responses from Xie-Ming are typical of the "black is white" reasoning of the left Islamist sympathisers.
I also agree that the BBC should be barred from visiting Gaza, because they are quite obviously biased in favour of Hamas and the Palestinians.
Complain about this comment
BBC Moderation and Bias
I think it is quite self-evident what the BBC staffs think. Despite complaints they have upheld the right of posters like Xie_Ming to type the most outlandish and racist, libellous and defamatory statements about Jews and Israel.
The only complaints against Judeophobic rants that they upheld were references to ‘..that ilk..’, which they removed (two posts by Xie_Ming). These are disparaging references to Jews. It is important to note that the moderators have not removed the specific false accusations of criminal actions and crimes against humanity which the Jews have been accused of and which have been posted above and herein.
On the basis that the UK taxpayer supports this organisation I have forwarded the complaints to a variety of media watch organisations; including Israeli ones.
I do not think it is beyond logic to argue the following:
1) The BBC is happy to reproduce racist comments designed to disparage Jews, Zionists and Israel (for example calling them all ethnic cleansers and guilty of genocide, when neither serious charge has been proven). This can only lead to more unwarranted race-hate against Israelis and Jews in England and abroad.
2) On the other hand, the BBC will not reproduce references in Islamic theology that call for actions (I use a very watered down euphemism) against Jews. I have also had to reword several posts with references to this issue and also the German treatment (another watered down euphemism) of the Jews in the 1930s. I believe that certain posts here resemble anti-Jewish propaganda of the pre World War Two era, in form and in purpose.
3) Therefore: As a tax funded arm of the UK government I believe that the behaviour and bias in this regard demonstrates that the Israelis should exclude the UK from any Middle East mediation. If the UK government cannot prevent its own state media arm from being racist against Jews, bias against Jews and one-sided in its moderation of their International Editor blog; how is it reasonable to suggest that the UK can play a useful neutral mediating role in any upcoming discussions between Israel and the Arabs?
4) Logic suggests that the bias represented here is mirrored in UK foreign policy.
I have one other point to make but I suspect the moderators will remove it so I will post again in a single paragraph so that the above has a reasonable chance to be allowed by moderators.
Complain about this comment
BBC Moderation and Bias (continued)
This is the section that I think the Moderators might not allow:
5) Further the UK now has a vociferous minority who feel that it is their right to place explosives on buses, aeroplanes and in airports to protest when the foreign policy of the UK does not fit their dictate. This same (UK) minority want the UK (and other States) to force Israel to submit to the will of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran; i.e. cease to exist as a Jewish State. The UK has to now seriously consider the homogeneity of its population before involving itself abroad. Perhaps the BBC has succumbed to this pressure in the one-sidedness, which is self-evident here.
Complain about this comment
The BBC has a Palestinian reporter reporting on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Which is perhaps as much a demonstratiion of their bias as one could imagine.
The views expressed by the BBC are not much different from those expressed by Xie_Ming herein.
I wonder how many Palestinian supporters and Judeophobic militants work in the BBC, manipulating the news and moderation of BBC websites?
Complain about this comment
By the way:
Once the Xie_Ming type characters have got their way and extinguished Israel and probably Jews from the map of the world; do you seriously think they will stop there?
Go to Bradford or The Easy End of London if you want a taste of England's future. Do you know what happens to anyone who protests the building of the new mega mosque in East London? They get physical intimidation in their home. Ever wondered why it is all right for Saudi Arabia to fund a Mosque bigger than any football stadium in London but it is an arrest-able offence to even carry Jewish or Christian religious books into their country?
The Israelis are holding the line for Western civilization.
You may be sorry once they are gone. The BBC has already fallen to fith column action.
Complain about this comment
#294 Woot!!!
They are not in control this afternoon anyway :)
Complain about this comment
To zeneds
I think my post in #283 is reasonable and based on what you have written in this thread and may be applied to your following posts.
My interest was mainly about bias (which was mentioned in the blog post). I don't know enough about the Middle East to
determine if the principles you present in post #285 are good ones. Maybe others can comment specifically on this.
I'm happy you tried to answer the questions in good faith, but initially wasn't satisified with the answers and found them evasive.
To TrueToo #286:
Apologies for using your words but my point here was that it can't be answered in a post - I then went on to say it requires method, reference point, specific analysis and free dialogue, continuous process etc. If it makes people laugh then that's not a response I predicted.
I think Wikipedia is a good reference point for understanding the Middle East.
To zeneds: How do you think you come across in this thread? From the info in the thread, how would people describe you?
(you don't need to answer!)
If there's anything positive about the thread, it might be that the problems are given wider exposure and all points of view can be aired - and the intensity of view points. I don't think it'll be solved any time soon.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Reply to _Marko 3:20pm #297
Your post #283 is not only a repeated spam of what you had written before, but you had literally copied and pasted and then plagiarised the words of another poster.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Reply to _Marko 3:20pm #297
The civilization and decency that Britain prided itself on is being eroded by the hatred people like you and Xie_Ming spew. Go back and read the Hamas Charter and what it actually says. Then decide which side you are on.
It is hilarious that you plagiarised and that you spammed the same questions three times without responding to answers that you now grudgingly accept were written in good faith.
Complain about this comment
I am really starting to hate the BBC.
I was born in London but to watch all these posters being allowed to say all Israelis or Jews have ethnocentric pathology and a whole slew of false allegations made against them, the to have my posts debating against these racists moderated, makes me believe that the BBC is no longer British.
Complain about this comment
Reply to _Marko 3:20pm #297
Nothing you say is original or worth responding to.
As far as how I come across; I am not a lying racist who seeks to impose false allegations of crimes against humanity on a small ethnic group (Jews) battling to survive against real genocide in living memory and real genocidal threats to their future. I hope people like you find me really annoying.
Complain about this comment
The scariest thing about race-relations law and political correctness is the uneven distribution of equality, fairness and the law in what they call Britain today:
It is acceptable to have black and Asian only associations, such as the non-white police association.
It is acceptable to falsely accuse Jews, Zionists and Israelis of crimes against humanity; even when there is no proof of those crimes. As a direct consequence it is then understandable, necessary and acceptable for Jewish children to go to school in bombproof buildings.
It is acceptable to force the construction of Mosques on cities like London, with funding from foreign governments.
The BBC bias is the least of the problems the English now face.
Complain about this comment
Having read all the posts, I must say that zeneds makes the most sense of all the posters.
With regard to the BBC, my experience of reading the BBC web sites leads me to the belief that the BBC is biased against Israel and has an unreasonable bias towards the Palestinians.
I can quite understand why the Israelis would prevent the BBC from entering Gaza; it is obviously against their interests. The ban is only temporary as I understand it, and in any case there is nothing to prevent the BBC from entering Gaza another way.
The BBC championing the so-called rights of the Palestinian people to self determination contrasts oddly with their hatred of British nationalists who wish to preserve their nation and their way of life against unbridled immigration, most particularly from those belonging to an alien religious/political movement allied to the Palestinians, Hamas and Hezbollah!!
I also agree fully with zened's latest post #304.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The Occupation Magazine is also a daily source of information:
http://www.kibush.co.il/index.asp
Haaretz - "The Gaza Strip has been sealed off from the world`s press for the past two weeks. The closure comes on top of the two-year-old ban on Israeli journalists from entering Gaza. […]
The denial of entry to Israeli journalists was met with not one protest, and when Defense Minister Ehud Barak was asked about the subject a few weeks ago, he did not even know there was a ban in force"
Thus has the repression become so routine.
It does suggest suggest that the Israeli regime wishes to keep the Israeli public misinformed, also.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming 9:46AM #306 and 11:09am #307
As predicted you are back lying and projecting your one-sided bias again this morning; let us see if you have anything new to say today:
XIE LIE NUMBER 1: No one claimed only the BBC was barred from Gaza. In fact media access can be gained through Egypt and from Cyprus, but Xie does not want you to know that. He just wants you to hate Israelis.
XIE LIE NUMBER 2: Media not governed by the demand of consumers is much more free to express editorial bias. It is well known to any young student of media studies that media that relies on advertising must be popular. The outlets you mention have political funding and as such are much more able to express anti-Israeli bias.
XIE RACIST COMMENT 1: You state: There is not room for truth in the Zionist enterprise. This means that everyone in Israel lies. (This is a hateful and racist statement that breaks the rules of the forum and which the moderators should not allow), and is patently a silly thing to say.
Some of the urls that you provide are so racist and defamatory against Jews and Israelis that you leave the BBC no choice but to remove them. If they leave them in, those fair-minded governors at the BBC might use the admission of your posts to indicate the BBC and the moderators of this forum are also racist; and suspend or fire them. However you seek to circumvent the moderation by mentioning sites anyways.
XIE LIE NUMBER 3 and XIE RACIST COMMENT 2: Again you State: The policy of ethnic cleansing applied by the Israelis in the occupied territories. (This is a hateful and racist statement that breaks the rules of the forum and which the moderators should not allow). The only ethnic cleansing the Israelis did in Gaza was to the Jews who were forcibly removed from Gaza by the Israeli army; I do not hear you complain about that. Instead you blurt out nonsensical lies to defame and libel the Israelis.
If you want to talk about real genocide, that is a proven fact not a hysterical allegation for propaganda purposes, check a ling readers: This explains the connection of the Mufti of Jerusalem (the one who expelled the last Jews from the East of their historical capital, Jerusalem) to the Third Reich.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd12e_hitler-et-le-mufti
Now Xie, that link shows the decent folk who really are the ethnic cleansers and genocidal maniacs. In comparison your baseless and unproven false allegations against the Israelis sound puerile and pathetic. The BBC should not allow you to use their pages for the distribution of hate.
I agree it essential to be honest. However you talk as if only your lies should be considered (as truth), by as you call them, decent folk. Do you want to fool all the nice people with lies and propaganda Xie? What about the nice people in Israel, what do you want to do with them Xie?
XIE LIE NUMBER 4: The horrible facts are that the Arab world is not helping the Palestinians but instead making them suffer through their refusal to integrate them into the Arab countries (as Israel had to integrate all the Jews expelled from those same Arab countries). The Arabs do this to garner support and sympathy for the Palestinians in the Islamic world’s attempt to do away with Israel and its population.
XIE, the BBC cannot reprint items which can easily be proven in court are defamatory, racist, hateful libellous and designed to cause hurt; these descriptions can be applied to all the post of yours here that have been altered and deleted. Even in this post you are racist again.
You talk of unsubstantiated verbalisations and yet you still have not addressed the last quote in the seventh (7th) article of the Hamas Charter (linked above). The allegation I have proven is that it is not the Jews who seek genocide as your posts state; it is the other way around. The Jews are defending themselves against genocide for the second time in living memory.
Your post #307 feigns surprise that there are restrictions when there is a war on. Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel and its citizens; they say this in their Charter. The State of Iran and others support Hamas in this effort. It is very serious as the Jews are outnumbered by over 100 to 1. The only repression being attempted is that by those who seek to repress the Israeli’s right to life and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Jewish State of Israel.
Throughout this entire forum all you have sought to do is embarrass, libel, defame and ridicule Jews, Zionists and Israel. You have not once addressed BBC restriction from other areas like Waziristan and Darfur. You have refused to address serious issues brought up against your generally false and racist statements. You have failed to address the three simple principles that I believe the Arabs need to incorporate into the peace plan they are proposing:
1) If any compensation is paid to Arabs who left Israel in 1948, then equal rights for compensation should be given to those Jews who were forced to leave Arab and Islamic countries at that time; including compensation for loss of Oil sale revenues on their lands there.
2) If Arabs are to be allowed to live freely in Israel then Jews must be allowed freely to live in Arab countries; with equal rights and protection under their laws.
3) Islamic theologians must issue universally binding Fatwah(s) that protect the Jews and make it un-Islamic to kill Jews. This will prevent splinter extremist groups from ignoring any peace deal.
Nevertheless we expect to see you bright and early tomorrow morning attempting to convince the world of your one-sided lies against the Jews. At least you are helping demonstrate to all the nice people exactly the mindset that the Israelis are contending with.
DECENT FOLK, please check the url that I supplied in this post for the TRUTH.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
# 13
Lists another URL, that of the BBC:
What actually happened: Israeli army attacks Gaza > Hamas retaliates with rockets > Israel stops deliveries of fuel and food to Palestinian people = collective punishment = war crime under UN Charter.
I suggest this person reads
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7729886.stm
"Oxfam called on world leaders to do everything they could to break Israel's blockade of Gaza and urged Israel to resume supplies without delay."
Of course, the evil doers want to silence the BBC!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
An inestimable fource of truth for what is going on in Israel/Palestine is Uri Avnery.
He is now 85 and has been a member of the Knesset, a war hero, and reporting for more than sixty years. His articles are searchable in either English or Hebrew. Here is one:
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
It requires key words, for his titles are whimsical.
This is perhaps the primary site for anyone actually interested in what went on or is going on.
Complain about this comment
The Other Israel index is also a useful refenence source, from an Israeli point of view of what is going on:
Examples contained in the following show a continuum of Israeli censorship, so the recent blocking of observers from Gaza is nothing new. It also contains an interesting an interesting history of the Zionist enterprise in Palestine from an Israeli point of view:
toibillboard.info
Complain about this comment
The atrocities are denied, but are recorded daily by
http://www.btselem.org/English/
The religio/ethnic corruption of the Israeli administration is so pronounced that it is only by individual legal actions that btselem can seek redress in individual cases.
Complain about this comment
There are other organizations that the interested person can easily find:
Physicians for Human Rights ([Broken URL removed by Moderator])
Rabbis for Human Rights ([Broken URL removed by Moderator])
and those listed on the BBC Middle East links page.
Of course, the political Zionists want to silence any mention of them-
the facts are awful and allowing journalists to observe them makes concealment impossible.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Xie_Ming: General
Please feel free to discuss matters honestly and fairly. Recognise that you cannot just spam and lie here on the BBC forums. Respect the moderator decisions, like the referral of your posts #141, #175, #309, #311 and #315. I wonder if your post #317 will be allowed to remain – it too breaks House Rules in several ways.
Again I ask you reasonably to discuss the points your raised in your post #241, #245 and #248: You seem to have no argument as you keep ignoring the line of argument that you started on making peace. It seems you do not want peace. Your refusal to debate this makes it seem that you solely aspire to the final quote in article 7 of the Hamas Charter.
I suggest that only three principles need to be added to the Saudi plan that you propose:
1) If any compensation is paid to Arabs who left Israel in 1948, then equal rights for compensation should be given to those Jews who were forced to leave Arab and Islamic countries at that time; including compensation for loss of Oil sale revenues on their lands there.
2) If Arabs are to be allowed to live freely in Israel then Jews must be allowed freely to live in Arab countries; with equal rights and protection under their laws.
3) Islamic theologians must issue universally binding Fatwah(s) that protect the Jews and make it un-Islamic to kill Jews. This will prevent splinter extremist groups from ignoring any peace deal.
Further I would propose that the Hashemite Clan are compensated by the Arab Petro-Dollars and the State of Jordan then holds democratic elections. Both Hamas and Fatah can then stand for parliament there. Based on ethnic make up of Jordan it is likely that between them Hamas and Fatah (assuming they remain the only two political organisations representing Palestinians) would control over 85% of the Jordan parliament. Hey presto you have your Palestine. Positively this would mean not having to destroy Israel. The Hashemites could then play a role in Jordan similar to that of the Queen and Royal Family in England.
Then issues of potential populations transfers (for example from Gaza), and land transfers (for example from Israel to Jordan/Palestine) and monetary compensation for these transfers could be negotiated without the Israelis feeling that they had to give up their State and right to self-determination for the Palestinians.
This is the only point I have made here. The freedom and self-determination of Palestinians does not rely on Israel ceasing to exist. Those in the world who try to use the Palestinian Question as the basis to attack Israel’s right to exist are not really interested in Palestine. It is these people who stand between the situation now and peace in the Middle East.
Now as you have lied, spammed and plagiarised about as much as you can about Israel: As you have failed to advance the discussion about a lasting peace by discussing the points I have raised above to add to your points in #241, #245 and #248; can we not discuss why the BBC cannot get access to Waziristan and Darfur?
Xie; would you not agree with both the United Nations and me, that Darfur is the worst case of genocide in the world today? Who do you think is committing this crime?
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming:
Discuss these other matters and leave Israel alone, or you risk being recognised by DECENT PEOPLE as a rabid Judeophobic.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Xie_Ming: 5:53pm #320
The url sites that are respectable have been allowed. However what is disallowed is your spam, defamation, libel, harassment, and race hate. So as opposed to blaming intimidation, blame yourself for repeating race hate and slander. That is the only reason some of your posts have been removed.
In my opinion your statements that Israelis are ethnic-cleansing everyday and are guilty of genocide are extremely libellous and should also be removed. Think yourself lucky you can express the race hate that you have got away with. So do not try to lie again by pretending that BBC moderation is the result of intimidation, when in fact it is the result of fairness.
As has been pointed out above there are more ways into Gaza for the BBC than via just Israel. There are both Associated Press and local journalists there as we speak. Nothing in Gaza goes unreported if there is a tiny chance it can discredit the Israelis. It was not long ago that pictures were taken to demonstrate the electricity cuts there: With children holding candles. However the pictures were taken in the daytime with the sun out in a blacked out room. That is how even handed the press reporting is against Israel from Gaza.
Xie_Ming, are you able to post without using the words Zionist, Israel, evil, ethnic cleansing and genocide?
Do not worry, all the DECENT FOLK, here have got a good look at your arguments.
Complain about this comment
# 320
Submitted to OFF LIMITS thread of THE EDITOR’s blog at 18:20 November 25, 2008
________________________
Evidently, if references to respected Israeli sites are blocked,
Then the moderators have been intimidated
And no documentation to establish the atrocities and ethnic cleansing
By the Israeli regime can be presented.
It is facts that establish the Israeli crimes, not rhetoric.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
In my opinion your statements that Palestinians are terrorists everyday and are guilty of terrorism are extremely libellous and should also be removed.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
318 last line
What has that got to do with Israel. Darfur commited by Who, why does that matter, because they are muslim?
is that it.
well the Refugeee country shoudl take some in. but we went through this when the ploppies blogged the other bbc site.justin webb.
True pooh , ro plop the gherkin and mostly erroneous have been blogging in tandem around like a gang of school bullies.
Get lost twerps
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
In reality, they face Iran and Syria who are both in a race to develop nuclear weapons to throw at Israel,
and both Iran and Syria face the US and Isreal who both already have nukes ready to throw , but then you don't care about fair.
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming.
You need to calm down and stop spamming hateful, libellous, defamatory, offensive and frankly quite sordid posts here.
You have now had successive posts referred to moderators: #315, #317, #320, #322 and #325. No one wants to hear your hate. Take a chill-pill.
This is a BBC forum not Middle Eastern Judeophobic rant-fest.
Perhaps you should consider reality:
1) Just because you say something does not make it true.
2) You try to project Judeophobic falsehoods, in order to damage the Jewish people, which few other people want to hear.
3) Examine the last quote in the Hamas Charter Article 7; this aspiration has damaged you.
4) Perhaps you need some counselling?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#329
The difference is no one in Israel has threatened to wipe Iran off the map and funded terrorists.
#318
The problem with your vision is that it's unrealistic. While i agree that your points to add to the Saudi plan are important its clear that to get peace Israel is going to have to create a Palestinian state within Greater Israel.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the