Top Hamas Military leader killed - Israel/Hamas on the brink of War??

Suff

SamHarris wrote: »

As to your point, if you believe Hezzbollah proved anything comprehensive its pretty clear you are saying what you want to believe rather than what is fact.

And this fact is according to ...?

Given Arab public and poltical opinion in surrounding states fear of the Israeli military is certainly one of the main factors stopping (yet another) mass attack. You only have to look at opinion polls to see the truth of this, with intense racial hatred being endemic throughout the region.

I would disagree on this. There is no fear of Israel what so ever. There are many political cobwebs-like factors within the region that is stopping any 'mass attack'. the likes of the USA keeping a tight grip on all the ME's government - Egypt, Saudi, Jordan for example. If there's a real government in the ME that represents the general public, we wouldn't be talking about this conflict.

To clarify when you use the term 'racial' which is not, Arabs are semitic... which makes its a political matter. The very concept of Israel and Zionism had caused such conflict, since it projects a racial and colonised agenda. Zionism takes a discriminational racial view on religion.

SamHarris

KyussBishop wrote: »

You haven't put out a single solid criticism of the article there, this is just a patronizing sneer, where you try to attribute a whole bunch of unstated views to me, as straw-men, based on the content of that article.

Pick out the parts of the article you disagree with; there are dozens of criticisms of the BBC's coverage in that, point out the ones you actually disagree with, and back them up with an argument.

There's every reason to be critical of their coverage, and it's wholly ignorant to suggest that's anything about picking a 'side', as you don't need to pick a side or have a motive to criticize any media outlet, if there is a problem or bias in their reporting.

A patronizing sneer was all it deserved.

If you can't see the enormous bias of the article on it's face, you don't want to.

Even it's headlines are blatant editorilising - GAZA BLITZ - HOW CAN THIS BE SELF DEFENCE? is all very clearly already taking a strong position.It's entire tone is tailored with this in mind.

Claiming the failure of a media outlet to report fairly by linking your own piece of yellow journalism isn't exactly a fantastic strategy.

I will say this about the appaling BBC headlines. They change often. They often report on Israeli attacks. At that time the news was the visit of the Egyptian PM. Reporting it, or acknowledging the existence of rocket attacks in the lead up to and after the Israeli attack, is not evidence of a propoganda machine, or even pro-Israeli bias. It is reporting what is happening at that time.

That those on the right believe the BBC has an enormous left-wing bias, and vica versa, I take as a very good sign that a media outlet is doing at least a reasonable job.

junder

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Is Suff not correct though? The surgical strikes have not eradicated the capabilities of Hamas to target Israeli centres of population. Indeed we have seen Tel Aviv targeted alongside Jerusalem, which was unimaginable prior to the outbreak of this current conflict.

The IDF will have to move in to save face.

And the random lobbing of missiles into isreal has hardly eradicated the IDF either. Isreal is not about to implode, collapse or in anyway disappear so aide from the deaths of mostly innocent people Hamas are not exactly achieving much.plus if your a right wing government having a group of terroists on the fringes is a good way of keeping in power as even moderates start to demand tougher actions against Hamas. On the other side, hiding behind a civilian population (which if your Actually honest is what Hamas are doing) and having them bear the brunt of the IDF, is a good way to keep in power as well, plus keep a steady steam of ready recruits to. So if your a cold hearted, cynical politician or terrorist ( which lets face it you have to be to get anywhere in the real politik) it's win win. It's a symbiotic relationship in which innocent civilian blood is the currency.

SamHarris

Suff wrote: »

And this fact is according to ...? .

You.

Suff wrote: »

I would disagree on this. There is no fear of Israel what so ever. There are many political cobwebs-like factors within the region that is stopping any 'mass attack'. the likes of the USA keeping a tight grip on all the ME's government - Egypt, Saudi, Jordan for example. If there's a real government in the ME that represents the general public, we wouldn't be talking about this conflict.

To clarify when you use the term 'racial' which is not, Arabs are semitic... which makes its a political matter. The very concept of Israel and Zionism had caused such conflict, since it projects a racial and colonised agenda. Zionism takes a discriminational racial view on religion.

I said it was ONE of the factors. You honestly don't think the fact that they couldnt does not play into that they don't? Fair enough.

We would, a democratic government is not going to initiate a war it almost certainly would lose, regardless of how much it populace would like to initiate it. The Arab leadership are more than old enough to remember how poorly it went last time, and if anything Israel (and far more, the US) is even more dominant now than it was then.

Semitic is a language group.

And yes, the fact that for example 98% of Yemeni's dislike 'Jews' is extremly racial. Or that Hamas wishes to combat their enemy 'the Jew'. Their is an enormous racial as well as religious aspect to the confilct, there nearly always is particularly in the Arab regions.

Yes, I acknowledge and loath the racial/ religious aspects of the Israeli state. However, given that you are ultimatly arguing for another Islamic Arab state disparaging Israel for it's religious and racial tones holds no legitmacy. Given the example set by every other state in North Africa and the Middle East any Palestinian state will be extremly discrimanatory both racially and religiously.

Suff

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes yes, you don't recogonise anti-semetic as a label to describe a legitmate historical phenomenon of hatred of the Jews, what a surprise.

Where have I state this? The Israelis have used this anti Semitic card in this conflict far far too long, and yet people still fall for it. Arabs are semitic, in all their sects; christians, muslims and jews. Arabic, Aramaic and Hebrew are all semitic languages.

Israelis have been trying to make a race out of Judaism, its a faith and not a race. It's like stating Christianity is a race!

I am Semitic, and would be anti-Zionist - its a political view, not a racial one.

As in a leader determined to meet violence with peace, to secure the moral high ground for those to weak to win in any other fashion than garnering support.

So, what you're saying here is that the Palestinian leader must be determined to meet the violence from Israel with Peace, to secure the moral high ground for those too weak to win.

Which brings me to your statement below..

You may feel that Palestinians have excellent reasons for their 'hatred' and dedication to violence (again shown in poll after poll and the support for Hamas) I, and anyone in a position to make descisions with regard to the situation, really don't care. The fact of it remains, and the fact of it is what Israeli's and people in power have to deal with.

At least you are honest in that you recognise it. So your position is that Israel should just take it? Are they allowed to hate and resent the Arabs for their positions and attacks?

If we're going to play 'point the finger' at who did what and why, a little back tracking (which isn't that far back) to the beginning of this conflict would clearly state that the whole thing started by invading Palestine, enforcing a zionist doctrine by declaring it a jewish state. Zionism took a discriminational racial view on religion.

Here's a link: Racist and sexist Israeli military shirts show the mindset that led to war crimes in Gaza | source Mondowei Online newspaper that I've posted earlier about the Israeli view to Palestinians.

quotes:
A T-shirt for infantry snipers bears the inscription "Better use Durex," next to a picture of a dead Palestinian baby, with his weeping mother and a teddy bear beside him.

A sharpshooter's T-shirt from the Givati Brigade's Shaked battalion shows a pregnant Palestinian woman with a bull's-eye superimposed on her belly, with the slogan, in English, "1 shot, 2 kills."

Says a lot!

How easy it is for people to absolve the 'right side' of any responsibility.

This is a two-sided statement, and could be easily re-applied to your views.

Suff

SamHarris wrote: »

As to your point, if you believe Hezzbollah proved anything comprehensive its pretty clear you are saying what you want to believe rather than what is fact.

Suff wrote: »

And this fact is according to ...?

SamHarris wrote: »

You.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here, I have asked what is this fact that I am trying to deny?

SamHarris

Suff wrote: »

There seems to be a misunderstanding here, I have asked what is this fact that I am trying to deny?

Sorry, you claimed that their was a perception of invincibility that Hezzbollah destroyed. I was trying to say the conflict and it's success/failure means little in larger terms. I shouldn't have used the word 'fact', both were merely opinion.

Chuck Stone

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes yes, you don't recogonise anti-semetic as a label to describe a legitmate historical phenomenon of hatred of the Jews, what a surprise.

The words stereotype, prejudice and discrimination have Jews covered. The term anti-Semitism, because it has been leveraged to stifle criticism of the state of Israel by invoking memories of the holocaust, has lost its emotional impact and has become effectively worthless in a reasonable discussion.

Suff

SamHarris wrote: »

Sorry, you claimed that their was a perception of invincibility that Hezzbollah destroyed. I was trying to say the conflict and it's success/failure means little in larger terms. I shouldn't have used the word 'fact', both were merely opinion.

Thanks for clearing it.

My point was that, the general view at the moment; media and the arab street alike is that Israel's image as the unbeatable army has been broken in the 2006 war with Hizballah. And as a result it gave Hamas the courage to attack Tel Aviv. This doesn't mean that Hamas are capable of taking Israel full on face to face, for Israel would wipe out the gaza strip and what's left of it.

Anyway, the current issue for the Israeli government is that after the 2006 war they cannot afford to stop their current operation until they achieve something they can sell/ boast about in their coming elections.

KyussBishop

SamHarris wrote: »

A patronizing sneer was all it deserved.

Oh nice, an admission you didn't actually have an argument against the article at all, but were just smearing it.

SamHarris wrote: »

If you can't see the enormous bias of the article on it's face, you don't want to.

Even it's headlines are blatant editorilising - GAZA BLITZ - HOW CAN THIS BE SELF DEFENCE? is all very clearly already taking a strong position.It's entire tone is tailored with this in mind.

Claiming the failure of a media outlet to report fairly by linking your own piece of yellow journalism isn't exactly a fantastic strategy.

I will say this about the appaling BBC headlines. They change often. They often report on Israeli attacks. At that time the news was the visit of the Egyptian PM. Reporting it, or acknowledging the existence of rocket attacks in the lead up to and after the Israeli attack, is not evidence of a propoganda machine, or even pro-Israeli bias. It is reporting what is happening at that time.

That those on the right believe the BBC has an enormous left-wing bias, and vica versa, I take as a very good sign that a media outlet is doing at least a reasonable job.

Well then point out the problems with it's criticisms! You're effectively asserting "oh it's obvious! if you can't see the bias you don't want to", which is a simple unbacked assertion.

Okey lets see:
http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=706:gaza-blitz-turmoil-and-tragicomedy-at-the-bbc&catid=25:alerts-2012&Itemid=69

Right, lets pick out some quotes:

The Israeli attacks have routinely been reported as 'retaliation' for Palestinian ‘militant rocket attacks’ on southern Israel

What is wrong with that criticism? The timeline clearly shows Israel having initiated and escalated this conflict:
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/how-israel-shattered-gaza-truce-leading-escalating-death-and-tragedy-timeline

Another:

On Newsnight (November 14, 2012), BBC presenter Gavin Esler allowed Daniel Ayalon, Israel’s deputy foreign minister, to present his state’s propaganda view essentially unchallenged. The 'taking' of Ahmed al-Jabari, Ayalon said, was 'self-defence, it’s a classic self-defence', adding:

'There is no other way to deal with terrorists who you cannot reason with but by defending yourself in a way that they will not be able to operate again.'

Esler did not counter the Israeli 'self defence' argument by pointing to the actual chronology of recent events. Ayalon then went on to state that Israel 'gave Gaza, entirely so, to the Palestinians. We left Gaza altogether in 2005, seven years ago.'

Again, Esler failed to offer any serious journalistic challenge. He did not point out that although Israel says it 'withdrew' from Gaza in 2005, its control of Gaza’s water, electricity, sewage and telecommunications systems, and its control of Gaza’s land and sea borders and airspace, means that the UN still views Israel's control of Gaza's population as an occupation. As indeed does the UK government.

Perfectly valid criticism, of a wholly one-sided exchange; can you imagine a Hamas leader being interviewed in such a one-sided way on the BBC?

There was also no mention during Newsnight of released Israeli state documents revealing that the blockade of Gaza is state policy intended to inflict collective punishment. The documents showed that 'the dietary needs for the population of Gaza are chillingly calculated, and the amounts of food let in by the Israeli government measured to remain just enough to keep the population alive at a near-starvation level. This documents the statement made by a number of Israeli officials that they are "putting the people of Gaza on a diet".'

Another apt and excellent criticism; any issues with that?

And more again:

Between December 2008 - January 2009, Israeli forces mounted a massive campaign of violence against Gaza in Operation Cast Lead. B’Tselem estimates that 1,389 Palestinians were killed including 344 children. In addition to the large numbers of killed and wounded, there was considerable damage to Palestinian medical centres, hospitals, ambulances, UN buildings, power plants, sewage plants, roads, bridges and civilian homes.

The BBC later refused to broadcast a charity appeal on behalf of the people of Gaza, an almost unprecedented act in BBC history.

Amena Saleem, a campaigner with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, points to the BBC ‘keep[ing] the truth about Israel’s illegal actions from its audiences’, a clear failing which is ‘spread across the whole of BBC programming, from news right through to entertainment.’

Why is this? One factor is the intense pressure applied by a powerful pro-Israeli lobby. The flak sometimes originates from the Israeli government itself. The Glasgow Media Group's Greg Philo and Mike Berry noted in their 2009 book, 'More Bad News From Israel':

‘to criticise Israel can create major problems. Journalists spoke to us of the extraordinary number of complaints which they receive. We have presented our findings to many groups of media practitioners. After one such meeting a senior editor from a major BBC news programme told us: "we wait in fear for the phone call from the Israelis". He then said that the main issues they would face were from how high up had the call come (e.g. a monitoring group, or the Israeli embassy), and then how high up the BBC had the complaint gone (e.g. to the duty editor or the director general).' (p. 2)

All highly relevant disclosures of bias in the BBC.


The impression so far, is that you're trying to smear and shut down this source of criticism, of heavily biased pro-Israeli news reporting, and by your own admission, without even bothering to engage in actual counterarguments with the criticism, until pressed for points.

Can you engage in actual argument on those points I've quoted, or are you just going to attempt to smear again, for lack of any arguments?

Nodin

SamHarris wrote: »

...........

Untill the Palestinians have a Gandhi or Martin Luther King they will remain where they are - and given the attitude polls show the people their have towards violence directed at Israel (even childern) it is incredibly difficult to see how any mass peace movement would take hold there.

Given that the West Bank has been peaceful for many years now, and has received nothing but settlements and abuse for its trouble, I think its Israel that requires a "Gandhi or Martin Luther King".

Jelle1880

KyussBishop: electronicintifada ?

Seriously ?
May as well post straight to a Hamas-linked website.

The facts are that Hamas has been firing rockets for months now, that website makes it look like it started last month when Israel killed a Hamas official.

Have you actually seen the interview on Newsnight ? Anyone who claims that the Israeli representative was not challenged is either stupid or outright lying.

The BBC reporter constantly tried to shift the attention to the killed child, after every question.
The bias towards the Palestinian side of things was clear as day.

coonecb1

I think the term "Palestinians" is a little bit confusing seeing as there is such a split between them.

- Gaza is a tiny enclave completely isolated in the south east, and is controlled by Hamas (believe in violence against Israel)

- West Bank is the vast majority of what people think of as Palestine, and is a peacful adminstration which has no control over Gaza. This is where all the settlements are being built.

Israel point to Hamas as justification for the settlements

KyussBishop

Jelle1880 wrote: »

KyussBishop: electronicintifada ?

Seriously ?
May as well post straight to a Hamas-linked website.

Bollocks; back up that smear with an argument, preferably showing why it's not a perfectly reputable source.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

The facts are that Hamas has been firing rockets for months now, that website makes it look like it started last month when Israel killed a Hamas official.

It says right at the top of the article, it is a timeline of the current escalation; what is so hard to understand about that?

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Have you actually seen the interview on Newsnight ? Anyone who claims that the Israeli representative was not challenged is either stupid or outright lying.

The BBC reporter constantly tried to shift the attention to the killed child, after every question.
The bias towards the Palestinian side of things was clear as day.

Oh I see, bringing attention to a murdered child is 'biased' in your world?

Here are the specific criticisms made, which I'll requote:

The 'taking' of Ahmed al-Jabari, Ayalon said, was 'self-defence, it’s a classic self-defence', adding:

'There is no other way to deal with terrorists who you cannot reason with but by defending yourself in a way that they will not be able to operate again.'

Esler did not counter the Israeli 'self defence' argument by pointing to the actual chronology of recent events. Ayalon then went on to state that Israel 'gave Gaza, entirely so, to the Palestinians. We left Gaza altogether in 2005, seven years ago.'

Again, Esler failed to offer any serious journalistic challenge. He did not point out that although Israel says it 'withdrew' from Gaza in 2005, its control of Gaza’s water, electricity, sewage and telecommunications systems, and its control of Gaza’s land and sea borders and airspace, means that the UN still views Israel's control of Gaza's population as an occupation. As indeed does the UK government.

What, exactly, is factually wrong with those criticisms?

arybvtcw0eolkf

coonecb1 wrote: »

Israel point to Hamas as justification for the settlements

Actually as wrong as the settlements are, your statement is also wrong ~ they (Israel) don't.

Jelle1880

KyussBishop wrote: »

Bollocks; back up that smear with an argument, preferably showing why it's not a perfectly reputable source.

They're biased, they admit it themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Electronic_Intifada

It says right at the top of the article, it is a timeline of the current escalation; what is so hard to understand about that?

If they think the current escalation started a week or so ago then I can see where they're coming from, but it's absolute bull****, since the facts are there to prove that it's been going on for months.

Oh I see, bringing attention to a murdered child is 'biased' in your world?

it is when you're trying to bring it up in completely unrelated questions.

Here are the specific criticisms made, which I'll requote:

What, exactly, is factually wrong with those criticisms?

As for the criticism, I strongly urge you to look at the Newsnight interview.

Offy

Jelle1880 wrote: »

KyussBishop: electronicintifada ?

Seriously ?
May as well post straight to a Hamas-linked website.

The facts are that Hamas has been firing rockets for months now, that website makes it look like it started last month when Israel killed a Hamas official.

Have you actually seen the interview on Newsnight ? Anyone who claims that the Israeli representative was not challenged is either stupid or outright lying.

The BBC reporter constantly tried to shift the attention to the killed child, after every question.
The bias towards the Palestinian side of things was clear as day.

When Israelis in the occupied territories now claims that they have to defend themselves, they are defending themselves in the sense that any military occupier has to defend itself against the population they are crushing... You cant defend yourself when your militarily occupying someone else's land. That's not defence. Call it what you like, its not defence.
-Noam Chomsky

KyussBishop

Jelle1880 wrote:

Have you actually seen the interview on Newsnight ? Anyone who claims that the Israeli representative was not challenged is either stupid or outright lying.

The BBC reporter constantly tried to shift the attention to the killed child, after every question.
The bias towards the Palestinian side of things was clear as day.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01nzqz7/Newsnight_14_11_2012/

I actually just watched this now (it's in just the first 10 minutes), and you completely lied here (after accusing MediaLens of lying, about their pretty much dead-on criticism), the reporter just asked the rep if he would apologize for civilian deaths, at which point he said that was the fault of Hamas, that they use the population as human shields, and the newsnight reporter did not contest a single thing, he just said "ok we'll leave it at that", basically giving the rep complete freedom to spout rhetoric.

At no point did he bring up anything about a killed child, let alone 'after every question'; that was a total lie by you, which you used to try and present the show as having a pro-Palestinian bias, after they had let just about all of the Israeli reps claims go completely unchallenged, giving him that platform to spout rhetoric.

Imagine a leader of Hamas being given that kind of freedom on the show, to put forward whatever rhetoric he liked, without any challenge!


Totally hypocritical, that you accuse other sources of bias, and try to put doubt on criticism of pro-Israeli sources, when you lie yourself to try and make the argument.

KyussBishop

Jelle1880 wrote: »

They're biased, they admit it themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Electronic_Intifada

Care to quote where they say that? Or is this another assertion without facts? After the unreliability of your previous claims, I'm not going to take this on faith.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

If they think the current escalation started a week or so ago then I can see where they're coming from, but it's absolute bull****, since the facts are there to prove that it's been going on for months.

As we can see now, you're very 'loose' with the facts; point out any factual fault with the timeline.

One thing that nobody is contesting, is that Israel broke the truce on the 14th, when they assassinated Ahmad al-Jabari, and that is one of the clearest, uncontestable escalations in this current round of conflict.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

Oh I see, bringing attention to a murdered child is 'biased' in your world?

it is when you're trying to bring it up in completely unrelated questions.

Yes which we now find out is not factually true at all; at no stage in the interview, was a murdered child ever mentioned.

KyussBishop

Jelle1880 wrote:

...

I've even gone through the other newsnight programs from 13-16, just to see if it may have been a different days program, and there was no kind of interview where the newsnight reporter was continually drawing attention to a killed child or anything like that; that was completely made up by you.

Mr.Micro

Offy wrote: »

When Israelis in the occupied territories now claims that they have to defend themselves, they are defending themselves in the sense that any military occupier has to defend itself against the population they are crushing... You cant defend yourself when your militarily occupying someone else's land. That's not defence. Call it what you like, its not defence.
-Noam Chomsky

It sure helps Israel as a ready excuse every 5 mins to go on the rampage and play the victim. Those bad Palestinians want their autonomy and next their lands back and do not like being kept prisoners...... we can't be having that.

Jelle1880

Apparently I was talking about the interview which was broadcasted on Radio Scotland (Also BBC) with an Israeli official, so it was not Newsnight, apologies.

Weird though, how the opinions between local BBC brances differ so much.
I would suggest looking into The Balen Report.

As for EI:

ABOUT THE ELECTRONIC INTIFADA

The Electronic Intifada is an independent online news publication and educational resource focusing on Palestine, its people, politics, culture and place in the world.

Founded in 2001, The Electronic Intifada has won awards and earned widespread recognition for publishing original, high-quality news and analysis, and first-person accounts and reviews. The Electronic Intifada’s writers and reporters include Palestinians and others living inside Palestine and everywhere else that news about Palestine and Palestinians is made.

http://electronicintifada.net/about-ei

So it's pretty clear that they're biased towards the Palestinian view of things, even taking a look at the website itself makes that crystal clear.

As for that timeline: So firing hundreds of rockets into Israel for months on end is not breaking a truce, it's only that when Israel hits back.
Gotcha :pac:

KyussBishop

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Apparently I was talking about the interview which was broadcasted on Radio Scotland (Also BBC) with an Israeli official, so it was not Newsnight, apologies.

Weird though, how the opinions between local BBC brances differ so much.
I would suggest looking into The Balen Report.

As for EI:



http://electronicintifada.net/about-ei

So it's pretty clear that they're biased towards the Palestinian view of things, even taking a look at the website itself makes that crystal clear.

As for that timeline: So firing hundreds of rockets into Israel for months on end is not breaking a truce, it's only that when Israel hits back.
Gotcha :pac:

That's their stated topic of focus, it's ridiculous to use that as claim of unbalanced reporting, just because they don't focus on global affairs; that's just like the silly argument that comes up anytime someone criticizes the US "why don't you criticize Russia, China, Iran etc. too".

Point out any factual faults with their timeline, and tell me how Hamas are responsible for breaking the truce on the 14th, and not Israel.

If all you can give is a pretty weak attempt at smearing a source of facts, then you don't have an argument.

Jelle1880

How hard is it to understand that something that happened on the 14th is not breaking a truce, if that truce has been broken on a continuous basis for months on end ?
I would even wonder how much of a truce it really was, considering that there was never really a stop to the rocket attacks since january of this year.

And I'm not criticizing them for only focusing on the Israel-Palestine conflict, I'm saying that it's very clear that they are biased towards the Palestinian side of things and there is no denying that.

edit: To make it a bit clearer for you, since you seem to have problems understanding it.

The problem with their timeline is that they only start from when Israel killed that Hamas official.

They conveniently forget that 3 days before that happened over 100 rockets were fired into Israel.

So there's your 'faults with their timeline'.

KyussBishop

Jelle1880 wrote: »

How hard is it to understand that something that happened on the 14th is not breaking a truce, if that truce has been broken on a continuous basis for months on end ?
I would even wonder how much of a truce it really was, considering that there was never really a stop to the rocket attacks since january of this year.

That truce was brokered the day earlier, as outlined here:
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/how-israel-shattered-gaza-truce-leading-escalating-death-and-tragedy-timeline

Jelle1880 wrote: »

And I'm not criticizing them for only focusing on the Israel-Palestine conflict, I'm saying that it's very clear that they are biased towards the Palestinian side of things and there is no denying that.

You haven't contested a single fact from the article I originally linked (which happens to be the one I link above); you have done nothing to back up your claims here, you have just asserted, and appear just to be trying to dishonestly smear the factual claims of a perfectly valid source.

Try contesting any of the actual facts; you arguments so far have been totally unbacked assertions (some of which have turned out to be quite enormously false) and smears.

KyussBishop

Another good article on BBC bias, in allowing wholly uncontested pro-Israeli voices, free reign to put out propaganda/rhetoric:
http://electronicintifada.net/content/israel-assaults-gaza-bbc-reporting-assaults-truth/11894

Goes into even more detail than the MediaLens article, listing a plethora of historically one-sided interviews from the BBC.

BlaasForRafa

KyussBishop wrote: »

Another good article on BBC bias, in allowing wholly uncontested pro-Israeli voices, free reign to put out propaganda/rhetoric:
http://electronicintifada.net/content/israel-assaults-gaza-bbc-reporting-assaults-truth/11894

Goes into even more detail than the MediaLens article, listing a plethora of historically one-sided interviews from the BBC.

electronic intifada talking about the bbc being biased? pot, kettle, black an all that.

KyussBishop

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

electronic intifada talking about the bbc being biased? pot, kettle, black an all that.

Again the usual smears; point out a single factual fault with their reporting, or you're spreading FUD.

They've outlined extensive and detailed faults with the BBC's coverage, how they do not challenge the factual accuracy of pro-Israel statements, so if you claim they do the same, putting out factually false articles, back it up with actual arguments (preferably quoting the false statements), or you're also just baselessly smearing them.

SeanW

KyussBishop wrote: »

Bollocks; back up that smear with an argument, preferably showing why it's not a perfectly reputable source.

The clue is in the name "Electronic Intifada!" Is that not a clue?

KyussBishop

SeanW wrote: »

The clue is in the name "Electronic Intifada!" Is that not a clue?

Heh, this is a ridiculous clutching at straws now; 4 posters, trying to smear MediaLens and/or Electronic Intifada, and can't come up with any actual quotes or factual inaccuracies in their articles, to back up their criticisms, and even resorting to trying to use the outlets name as an example.

Again, if you don't have any examples of factual inaccuracies, you are spreading FUD and have no argument, trying to smear outlets in a knowingly dishonest way.

You've either got quotes and examples to back up your arguments, showing factually false claims, or you have nothing.

BlaasForRafa

KyussBishop wrote: »

Again the usual smears; point out a single factual fault with their reporting, or you're spreading FUD.

They've outlined extensive and detailed faults with the BBC's coverage, how they do not challenge the factual accuracy of pro-Israel statements, so if you claim they do the same, putting out factually false articles, back it up with actual arguments, or you're also just baselessly smearing them.

The article basically states that the BBC should be positively biased in favour of the palestinians, that attacks on Israel should be minimized and attacks on Gaza exacerbated. It also complains about the BBC interviewing Israeli government spokespersons and that the Israeli position should not be put forward. Electronic Intifada wants to muzzle objective reporting and replace it with Palestinian bias. EI's articles are ALL from the Palestinian side, there is nothing covering the Palestinian attacks on Israel.

KyussBishop

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

The article basically states that the BBC should be positively biased in favour of the palestinians, that attacks on Israel should be minimized and attacks on Gaza exacerbated.

Quote that. Where exactly did it say that?

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

It also complains about the BBC interviewing Israeli government spokespersons and that the Israeli position should not be put forward.

Again, quote exactly where it said that, because it did not say that, it criticized the BBC leaving factually false claims unchallenged.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Electronic Intifada wants to muzzle objective reporting and replace it with Palestinian bias. EI's articles are ALL from the Palestinian side, there is nothing covering the Palestinian attacks on Israel.

Again, the usual whataboutery, exactly the same as what comes up whenever the US is criticized "What about Russia, China etc. etc."; their stated focus is on Palestine, that does not affect the factual accuracy of their articles in any way.

Once again, show me a single factually false claim in any of their articles; you can't show that, so you're spreading FUD to try and smear the source.

SeanW

Again, show me one article on EI that is critical of the Palestinians, or one critique of anti-Semitism like the promotion of the TV series Zahra's Blue Eyes.

BlaasForRafa

KyussBishop wrote: »

Quote that. Where exactly did it say that? Again, quote exactly where it said that, because it did not say that, it criticized the BBC leaving factually false claims unchallenged.

You might try reading my post again before reacting, I boiled down the screed on the link you posted to its essential conclusions.

Again, the usual whataboutery, exactly the same as what comes up whenever the US is criticized "What about Russia, China etc. etc."; their stated focus is on Palestine, that does not affect the factual accuracy of their articles in any way.

Once again, show me a single factually false claim in any of their articles; you can't show that, so you're spreading FUD to try and smear the source.

[/QUOTE]

I didn't mention anything about Russia, China or any other country. If you are going to post a link then you have to realise that the bias of the site and the piece in question is going to be challenged. If someone posted a link from an Israeli government site then the pro-palestinian side would challenge it. What you seem to be doing in your post is attacking the poster rather than the post ifself.

BlaasForRafa

Nodin wrote: »

Given that the West Bank has been peaceful for many years now, and has received nothing but settlements and abuse for its trouble, I think its Israel that requires a "Gandhi or Martin Luther King".

I wouldn't say many years but the West Bank has been better for a few years. And you should remember that I am implacably anti-settler so lets not do that dance, you'd get no argument from me on that score.

The palestinians do need a Gandhi or Martin luther king but you're right in implying how bloody awful the Israeli leadership is. Netanyahu is an absolute snake in the grass, Ehud Barak basically betrayed the Labor party and then left them, Liebermann is a nutjob, Tzipi Livni vacillates continually and Yachimovich has no public profile. The current crop of Israeli leaders is deeply uninspiring and needs a radical shakeup.

KyussBishop

SeanW wrote: »

Again, show me one article on EI that is critical of the Palestinians, or one critique of anti-Semitism like the promotion of the TV series Zahra's Blue Eyes.

Again, whataboutery; they don't need to, and the factual accuracy of their articles stand on their own merit.

BlassForRafa wrote:

You might try reading my post again before reacting, I boiled down the screed on the link you posted to its essential conclusions.

No you did not, you made claims about what the article was saying, without backing that up with quotes, and if you are refusing to back up your claims with actual quotes from the article itself, you are knowingly misrepresenting them and being dishonest.

BlaasForRafa wrote:

I didn't mention anything about Russia, China or any other country. If you are going to post a link then you have to realise that the bias of the site and the piece in question is going to be challenged. If someone posted a link from an Israeli government site then the pro-palestinian side would challenge it. What you seem to be doing in your post is attacking the poster rather than the post ifself.

People are trying to refute the factual claims made articles on the site, with reference to smears rather than dealing with any of the actual claims/facts presented in the articles; and I am attacking peoples posts, and heavily criticizing their arguments (particularly the methods of argument).

BlaasForRafa

KyussBishop wrote: »

No you did not, you made claims about what the article was saying, without backing that up with quotes, and if you are refusing to back up your claims with actual quotes from the article itself, you are knowingly misrepresenting them and being dishonest.

You don't get to determine the nature of the argument here, I can respond to your posts in any way I see fit as long as its within the board's charter. And you are attacking the poster by making claims about my honesty.

KyussBishop

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

You don't get to determine the nature of the argument here, I can respond to your posts in any way I see fit as long as its within the board's charter. And you are attacking the poster by making claims about my honesty.

If you're unable to back up your misrepresentations, it is a perfectly valid criticism of your posts; it's not an ad-hominem personal attack, it's a criticism based on the falsities in your post, which is based on something concrete unlike peoples smears/diminishment of the facts, in the articles I posted.

BlaasForRafa

KyussBishop wrote: »

If you're unable to back up your misrepresentations, it is a perfectly valid criticism of your posts; it's not an ad-hominem personal attack, it's a criticism based on the falsities in your post, which is based on something concrete unlike peoples smears/diminishment of the facts, in the articles I posted.

I have responded to your link in the way I see fit, you don't get to dictate how I or any other poster respond. You have engaged in a personal attack on my character as a tactic to smear my argument.

KyussBishop

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I have responded to your link in the way I see fit, you don't get to dictate how I or any other poster respond. You have engaged in a personal attack on my character as a tactic to smear my argument.

Heh; look, you misrepresented the article, knowingly, and if you take offense at me stating that, that doesn't magically make it a personal attack.
Such a ridiculous tactic, to try and restrict me from criticising your post, by taking personal offense; come off it.

Lets go back to one of the quotes (regarding this article):

KyussBishop wrote:

BlaasForRafa wrote:

The article basically states that the BBC should be positively biased in favour of the palestinians, that attacks on Israel should be minimized and attacks on Gaza exacerbated.

Again, quote exactly where it said that, because it did not say that, it criticized the BBC leaving factually false claims unchallenged.

Nowhere does that article say attacks on Israel should be minimized, and attacks on Gaza exacerbated. That is not just a misrepresentation, that is a lie.

SeanW

KyussBishop wrote: »

Again, whataboutery; they don't need to, and the factual accuracy of their articles stand on their own merit.

So you're not denying that EI is one-sided?

Jelle1880

KyussBishop wrote: »

That truce was brokered the day earlier, as outlined here:
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/how-israel-shattered-gaza-truce-leading-escalating-death-and-tragedy-timeline


You haven't contested a single fact from the article I originally linked (which happens to be the one I link above); you have done nothing to back up your claims here, you have just asserted, and appear just to be trying to dishonestly smear the factual claims of a perfectly valid source.

Try contesting any of the actual facts; you arguments so far have been totally unbacked assertions (some of which have turned out to be quite enormously false) and smears.

Do you know what 'informal ceasefire' means ?

There was no official ceasefire, no armistics, nothing of the kind.

You seem to forget that Israel has been officialy at war with Hamas for years now.

There has almost never been peace between them, so the fact that they supposedly broke some sort of informal ceasefire means nothing.

Just like it probably wouldn't mean a thing if Hamas had done the same.

KyussBishop

SeanW wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

SeanW wrote:

Again, show me one article on EI that is critical of the Palestinians, or one critique of anti-Semitism like the promotion of the TV series Zahra's Blue Eyes.

Again, whataboutery; they don't need to, and the factual accuracy of their articles stand on their own merit.

So you're not denying that EI is one-sided?

That they primarily focus on reporting on Palestine is not anymore one-sided than an Irish newspaper focusing primarily on reporting about Ireland; it's the accuracy and factual correctness of the writing that matters, and that alone.

If it were one-sided, EI would lie, make false claims, and misreport facts, to present Palestine in a more favourable light; they do not do this, and nobody has shown that there are any factually false claims in the articles I posted.

What EI (and MediaLens) have criticized of the BBC, is that the BBC did not contest factually false claims in their shows, and presented many factually false claims themselves, thus the BBC have been one-sided, through factually false claims.

Chuck Stone

SeanW wrote: »

So you're not denying that EI is one-sided?

He's saying that if you believe what EI have written is inaccurate:

1. Pull the quote you believe is inaccurate/dishonest/biased.

2. Refute it by finding credible evidence to the contrary.

Is it really that hard to get?

KyussBishop

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Do you know what 'informal ceasefire' means ?

There was no official ceasefire, no armistics, nothing of the kind.

You seem to forget that Israel has been officialy at war with Hamas for years now.

There has almost never been peace between them, so the fact that they supposedly broke some sort of informal ceasefire means nothing.

Just like it probably wouldn't mean a thing if Hamas had done the same.

Heh; ya I guess Israel can attack Gaza at any time, for any reason then, and they'll be free from fault.

Even though I disagree with a lot of the details here, at least we've finally agreed that Israel is responsible for breaking the truce on the 14th, and thus for re-initiating and escalating the conflict.

Jelle1880

Only if you think that events of 3 days earlier have absolutely no part in this...

Which tends to be the usual way of things in all of this, people choosing to ignore events that happened prior just so they can blame one of the sides.

Merk35

I think at this juncture with the hyperbole flying and people unwisely using a biased source like Electronic Intifada (you'd have thought the clue is in the name) it's worth remembering some facts over accusations of Israel not wanting peace or the excuse of 'settlements' being the issue.

First of all, palestinian terrorism (and that's exactly what it is) pre-dates all settlements. It pre-dates any occupation and most crucially, pre-dates Israel's founding. For example, in 1929 the Jews of Hebron who had lived there for Millennia, were massacred and driven off their land. The palestinians still live in their homes.

Secondly, Israel is about 70% smaller that it was after its wars. Contrary to popular belief about expanding - Israel has handed parts of the Judea & Samaria (West Bank) over to palestinian control, has handed southern Lebanon over, has handed the Sinai over and has handed Gaza over.

That's 4 major land concessions bearing in mind Israel was the victor. In return for these concessions, Israel has faced terrorism, attempted attacks and threats every single day of its existence.

It's also worth remembering that far from being this land-grabbing state lauding it up on large swathes of land, Israel is the size of Wales. Israel sits on roughly 0.6% of middle eastern land, whilst Arabs sit on 99.4% of middle east land.

There are 56 Islamic countries, 22 Arab countries

There is 1 Jewish state, 1 Israeli country.

It's time the Irish started to actually educate themselves and THINK about this, instead of succumbing to emotional and instinctive support for a people they think they share an affinity with - because you couldn't be further from the truth.

SeanW

Chuck Stone wrote: »

He's saying that if you believe what EI have written is inaccurate:

1. Pull the quote you believe is inaccurate/dishonest/biased.

2. Refute it by finding credible evidence to the contrary.

Is it really that hard to get?

Consider, for a moment, that it might be possible for one to take the view that the current dispute is the result of faults on both sides.

Then consider that a source as clearly biased as something with "Intifada" in the name, is no more credible than those anti-Palestinian ads that appeared in parts of the U.S. characterising the Israelis simply as "civilized" and the Palenstinians exclusively as "savage."

That they primarily focus on reporting on Palestine is not anymore one-sided than an Irish newspaper focusing primarily on reporting about Ireland; it's the accuracy and factual correctness of the writing that matters, and that alone.

Question: If EI is simply the equivalent of an Irish newspaper, does it resemble the Irish Times or more so that of An Phoblacht or Indymedia?

Suff

Merk35 wrote: »

First of all, palestinian terrorism (and that's exactly what it is) pre-dates all settlements. It pre-dates any occupation and most crucially, pre-dates Israel's founding. For example, in 1929 the Jews of Hebron who had lived there for Millennia, were massacred and driven off their land.

Bold statement.

It is justified IMHO when a foreign group settles on your land and declare it as their own. Only I would use the term self defence, and not terrorism!

Correction, The Jewish causality in that incident were new settlers / arrivals to Palestine, they weren't part of the Arab population - therefore it wasn't their land. That's why they were labelled by their faith rather than their nationality. You know, Arabs doesn't necessary mean Muslims.

The violence was largely due to a protest organised by the Joseph Klausner's Pro-Wailing Wall Committee who had assembled at the Western Wall in Jerusalem shouting "the Wall is ours" raising the Jewish national flag and singing the "Hatikvah" song (Hope). Rumours spread that the Jews had attacked local residents and had cursed the name of the Prophet Muhamad PBUH. In retaliation an Arab demonstration marched to the Wall. The rioting spread and escalated into violence.

The palestinians still live in their homes.

Indeed, squeezed into the slivers of what was once their home land, while others forced into refugee camps in neighbouring Arab countries, and the rest got scattered all over the world.

Secondly, Israel is about 70% smaller that it was after its wars. Contrary to popular belief about expanding - Israel has handed parts of the Judea & Samaria (West Bank) over to palestinian control, has handed southern Lebanon over, has handed the Sinai over and has handed Gaza over. That's 4 major land concessions bearing in mind Israel was the victor. In return for these concessions, Israel has faced terrorism, attempted attacks and threats every single day of its existence.

Zionism talking here.. anyway, that land wasn't theirs to 'give it away' in the first place, they had occupied it by the use of force.

It's also worth remembering that far from being this land-grabbing state lauding it up on large swathes of land, Israel is the size of Wales.

The following image would be a good reply to your claim 'land-grabbing'

There are 56 Islamic countries, 22 Arab countries
There is 1 Jewish state, 1 Israeli country.

This is silly, its like saying there are 189 Christian countries, 137 English speaking countries. Again Arabs means Christians, Muslims and Jews.

Israel is a sate established on colonial and religious doctrine.

It's time the Irish started to actually educate themselves and THINK about this, instead of succumbing to emotional and instinctive support for a people they think they share an affinity with - because you couldn't be further from the truth.

I would suggest you do the same.

Nodin

Merk35 wrote: »

I think at this (.........)because you couldn't be further from the truth.

Half truths and misdirection, I'm afraid. The fact is that Israel is illegally occupying & colonising the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem, and controls Gazas resources, borders etc.