When militants slaughter unarmed civilians, children and decapitate babies they cease to be freedom fighters and become terrorists.
BBC, you should call them out for what they are.
The people of the Gaza strip will suffer because of their leaders, who must have known that Israel will hit back with huge amounts of force, killing more innocents in Gaza.
It's a crazy circle of death, at least the IDF are giving advance warning of their attacks and warning the citizens of Gaza to leave.
I acknowledge there is a far wider history to this mess, but there is no getting away from what Hamas did last Saturday; it was evil!
|
>> When militants slaughter unarmed civilians, children and decapitate babies they cease to be freedom fighters
...........
>> I acknowledge there is a far wider history to this mess, but there is no
>> getting away from what Hamas did last Saturday; it was evil!
>>
The decapitation of babies is unsubstantiated. Apparently, one unidentified person said they saw a decapitated baby. If it happened, then of course, it is appalling.
The people of Gaza and the west Bank have suffered daily persecution and humiliation at the hands of the Israelis for many years. They cannot leave, the Israelis control 4 of the 5 crossing points and they are closed. The Egyptians control the fifth and are only allowing people to cross who have impossible to get documentation.
Quite what the authorities thought they were doing when they set up the state of Israel in 1948 beggars belief. People are still living in refugee camps.
The British and the Americans have a lot to answer for, from The Balfour Declaration of 1917 to 1948 and subsequently.
It is an incredibly complex situation and not simply a case of 'this side right, that side wrong.'
|
|
You can look at the pictures on the Telegraph if you want to.
|
The BBC has an explanation of the situation and history of the area. How accurate and balanced it is, I couldn't say.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-44124396
|
|
Awful. I found the thing quite emotionally overwhelming.
|
Agonising over how the Israel/Arab relations got to the current stage is utterly pointless. It happened. We cannot change history - but we may be able to learn from it.
Slaughtering then butchering unarmed civilians including children and elderly in an unprovoked attack is barbaric. Hamas who proudly take responsibility deserve no sympathy.
Israel cannot be expected to suck it up without responding. The new pois for a fundamental shift in the Israeli response. As conflict with Gaza seems to resurface every 6-10 years, evidently the previous responses have been largely ineffectual.
On the news at the moment - Hamas are still firing rockets, Israel has advised all citizens to leave Gaza city. Logistically the civilians have nowhere to go - certainly not ~1m.
If Israel follows through on the bombing and ground offensive there will be serious civilian casualties. If they stop the offensive, history is destined to repeat itself.
The Gaza civilians are caught in the middle. They have harboured Hamas for decades - but may have done so under considerable duress. They are partly responsible for current events.
The Arab states, the United Nations, the US and Europe, all of who have dabbled in seeking a solution, have evidently failed.
Israel is left few choices. Ceasing hostilities in the hope the UN or others can find a lasting settlement is to let history repeat itself. The alternative - wipe out Hamas with further consequential civilian suffering.
Not an easy choice but one that needs to be made.
|
What I don’t get, is the unequivocal support from many quarters for Israel.
Whether it be Biden, Sunak Starmer or whoever, none of the support has had any sort of caveat of “but Israel must avoid Gaza civilian casualties.” Indeed I saw an interview with Starmer, ex human rights lawyer Starmer, who was pressed on the legality of cutting off water and power supplies and he wouldn’t answer it.
What happened to Jews in past is horrendous but I have no doubt Netayahu would be happy to wipe out the whole of Gaza and Palestine if he could.
|
|
War has a habit of penalising the innocent for the sins of the guilty. Fish rots from the head, and until the leaders are brought to account the consequences of their actions will continue to devastate innocent lives on all sides.
|
I think they are worried about being labelled as Pro-Palestinian and therefore pro-terrorist.
have no doubt Netayahu would be happy to wipe out the whole of Gaza and Palestine if he could.
I'm sure many in gaza feel the same about Israel, which part of the problem. Too many in this conflict haven't realised the other side is going nowhere any time soon.
|
>> I think they are worried about being labelled as Pro-Palestinian and therefore pro-terrorist.
That exactly.
Think what happened to anyone in politics/public life who suggested during the Troubles era that Irish nationalists might have a point
|
A mistake is made in assuming Palestinians = Hamas. Hamas are terrorists who need to be exterminated.
Palestinians are a downtrodden group who as civilians need support. Politicians need to ensure their comments are not mis-interpreted - as support for "Palestinians" undoubtedly would be.
It is a practical problem. Hamas are physically integrated into the civilian population, apparently often using public buildings (hospitals, schools, apartment blocks etc) to conceal their activities.
Not only have the civilian population been complicit (possibly unwillingly) in allowing this to happen, I also suspect that international agencies (UN, WHO, Red Cross etc) are also fully aware.
It is not possible to dismantle Hamas without impacting civilians who either need to leave (difficult) or will be caught up in fighting.
There is a choice - fully protect civilian populations which allows Hamas to regroup, or accept there will be collateral civilian deaths. Not an easy choice but one that need to be made and responsibility accepted.
Israel seems to have made a choice - they are the target of Hamas aggression and have every right to do so.
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAs5EOBUDcs
Worth a watch. An "explainer" from two reasonable sources.
Last edited by: R.P. on Fri 13 Oct 23 at 13:24
|
>>Hamas are terrorists who need to be exterminated.
And the sad truth is that many, many innocent Palestinian people; men, women and children will be killed.
It's crap. It's dreadfully upsetting.
Colleagues who have several Jewish business clients and several are saying that relatives or friends have been lost.
|
Whatever the rights/wrongs/history one thing remains:
If Hamas put down their guns there will be peace.
If Israel did that they'd be annihilated.
The current endgame of this throw of the dice will be a troops-on-the-ground attempt to destroy Hama's infrastructure, tunnels, and manpower.
Hamas were the Palestinian ISIS and still appear to be. Remember Israel and the PLO joined against Hamas some 20ish years ago. - Gaza has no future with Hamas.
|
>> If Hamas put down their guns there will be peace.
Not sure I share your confidence. Hamas has gained support because the peace process has failed.
Israel is, or was until the new govt of National Unity arrived governed by a coalition put together primarily to keep Netanyahu in office and thus out of gaol.
Until the West is prepared to hold the Israeli government's feet to the fire Palestinians will see little hope but to support Hamas. At the moment they're rooted in Gaza. If you look at what 'life' is like in Gaza that begins to make some sort of sense.
If Israel is not restrained there's a serious risk that the West Bank will similarly see no choice.
|
As I say - the rights/wrongs are irrelevant.
Israel can deal with Netanyahu itself, and likely will.
The reality trumps the handwringing.
If I was Netanyahu I'd probably aim to take over executive control of Gaza and reinstate a moderate Palestinian govt eventually.
Echoes of Ukraine perhaps, but in this instance Israel have a vastly superior military, and can actually point at a gross act of horror as a 'starting point'.
Failing all of that Gaza becomes a Jewish province and 2mn Palestinians find a new home.
Not saying it's right but it's what I suspect may be the outcome in my grubby crystal ball.
|
Until the West is prepared to hold the Israeli government's feet to the fire Palestinians
>> will see little hope but to support Hamas. At the moment they're rooted in Gaza.
>> If you look at what 'life' is like in Gaza that begins to make some
>> sort of sense.
>>
e.
>>
Don't forget it's very much in. hamas interest to keep the gaza strip as poor as possible. Israel puts in water pipes they are stolen to make home made rockets etc.
The west bank is an example of there being some sort of workable day to day as fatah aren't performing attacks like hamas.
Then there's iran, they'd be happy to fight Israel down to the last Palestinian.
>> If Israel is not restrained there's a serious risk that the West Bank will similarly
>> see no choice
Possibly or they might think if hamas end up in charge we'll be put under siege. Best if they remain elsewhere.
|
>> What happened to Jews in past is horrendous but I have no doubt Netanyahu would
>> be happy to wipe out the whole of Gaza and Palestine if he could.
That might or might not be true. I think probably not. What is known is Hamas's avowed desire to remove Israel from the map entirely.
There can be no solution until there is recognition and dialogue. Israel already had treaties with Egypt and (of a kind) Syria. There was a developing relationship with Saudi and UAE. Hamas's action has come at a critical time.
|
This is just a stick to beat the BBC with.
There's nothing sinister about the way the BBC does or doesn't use the word terrorism. I don't think anybody, BBC or elsewhere, would deny that Hamas's actions were terroristic, if that's an adjective.
However, there are shades of this and you'd need a very careful definition. If Israel bombs Gaza, knowing that innocent civilians and children will be killed, does that constitute terrorism?
Remember, man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The BBC refers to Hamas militia, and reports the events. Their interviewees refer to terrorism, they do not censor that.
It's a simple and sensible policy as far as I am concerned. Provided it is applied with reasonable consistency.
What does make me cross is the conflation of Jewishness with the actions of the Israeli government. And the conflation of all Palestinians with Hamas. The tragedy is the slaughter of innocents on both sides.
As Blinken has said, Israel has a right to defend itself. But it must think carefully about how it chooses to do that. If they aren't careful they'll end up doing exactly what Hamas wants them to do.
Beyond that I can't be sure of much. It's very complicated.
|
>> What does make me cross is the conflation of Jewishness with the actions of the
>> Israeli government.
That's the flip side of the idea that almost any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic.
Another example of 'As You Sow so Shall You Reap'....
|
Hamas are unambiguously responsible for an act of terrorism. Those doing so are terrorists.
For the BBC to do other than describe them as terrorists is misreporting, not the application of "balance" or the avoidance of "bias"
Israel in response want to exterminate Hamas and eliminate the risk of history repeating itself in the future. This may be reasonable in the absence of plausible alternatives.
Netanyahu by Monday put in place a complete siege and warned that anywhere Hamas was based would be "turned into rubble".
If there is inadequate time for evacuation and Israel pursues its plans, collateral death of civilians unable to evacuate is inevitable.
From both a military and political perspective time is of the essence - delaying an assault or following an alternative path to resolve the conflict is a judgement call which may be unconvincing.
|
|
The whole fuss around the word is odd, but then so is the bbc's response. They claim not to use the word and let people make their own minds up, I can't say I've looked back online but if I were a betting man they'd have used that word before.
|
I think you are quite wrong on this one Terry. It's a confected attack on the BBC and I'm pretty sure ministers are being briefed to say it. The oleaginous Shapps produced it this morning in Mishal Husain's interview in the ten past eight slot, and Mishal's rebuttal is a thing of beauty.
Topic starts at at 2:10:15, Mishal exposes his ignorance about 10 minutes later.
www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001r7pv?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile
Before the interview Husain even describes Hamas as an organisation designated as terrorist by the government. To report factually and impartially does not imply equivalence between the Israeli government and Hamas and I detect no leaning towards Hamas.
|
Yeap heard it and Shapps was totally roasted.
|
There is nothing Anti Semitic about criticising the action of the State of Israel. The state will always try and camouflage its more extreme and illegal actions by screaming anti semitism.
It is Anti Semitic to relate the extreme actions of the State of Israell with the label "Holocaust" because that title is unique to a particular action. You can instead use the descriptors Ethnic cleansing or genocide.
I feel sorry for the Palestinian and Israeli people who have both ended up with extremist radical governments.
The BBC is reporting, to the best of its abilities, attributable facts, with no colouring, hence not using the word "Terrorists"
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 13 Oct 23 at 19:26
|
>> It is Anti Semitic to relate the extreme actions of the State of Israell with
>> the label "Holocaust" because that title is unique to a particular action. You can instead
>> use the descriptors Ethnic cleansing or genocide.
The term Holocaust is, I agree, rightly reserved to the actions of Nazi Germany.
OTOH the concept of Lebensraum and the actions of Israel on the West Bank are, arguably, different only in scale.
|
O have previously been critical of the BBC but consider its news generally balanced and professional. Equally their genuinely high quality output is something to be preserved.
I also understand that both Muslims and Jews often regard the BBC as biased in its reporting probably reinforcing the proposition that it is generally balanced.
However Hamas are proscribed terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000, to which they were added in 2021.
There is no ambiguity as to their status and appropriate descriptor. Terms alternatively used by the BBC have quite different connotations:
Fighter - often complimentary to describe one who fights, struggles, resists, with will, courage, determination. Often applied to sport, those resisting terminal disease, as well as military
Militant - active, determined, and often willing to use force. Often used in the context of trade union and political actions.
Neither term is usually associated (other than by the BBC) with acts of complete barbarism.
|
As you haven't touched on Husain's comments perhaps you haven't heard them.
The government can't, as Shapps seems to think, legislate facts. And it isn't just the BBC, it's just the BBC that the government is trying to undermine. C4 news reported "murderous attacks" and "violence", not (as far as I heard) "terrorism". AFAIK C4 has not been subject to a twitter hate campaign or criticism by Shapps, who prefaced his remarks with "the national broadcaster...". If the BBC said what the government told it to say would that be OK?
As it happens it is my opinion too that these were terrorist attacks. Opinion because it appears that there was no military objective as such. They came, they killed, they went away and hid. I'd call it genocidal as well as terroristic.
That's not the point. We don't want the BBC's opinion. They have reported people and agencies describing the events as terrorism, what more do you want? It's not just about this story. Does the BBC have to debate whether something is terrorism before it reports facts? No - it gets on and reports the facts. The facts here, as you eloquently say, speak for themselves in this case but it is not always so.
FWIW, I think the objective of Hamas was probably to try and remove any possibility of a peaceful settlement. Its declared aim is the obliteration of Israel, not reconciliation of any kind. Sadly I think Israel seems to be getting behind the idea of putting a settlement beyond reach for a lifetime.
|
I am now noticing a definite difference in reporting and political input, that is now referencing the need for protection of Gaza civilians.
Hopefully that focus will continue and actions follow the words.
|
|
I can't believe any land occupied by the ground forces will be 'given' back to the Gaza people - for 'security' reasons.
|
>> I can't believe any land occupied by the ground forces will be 'given' back to
>> the Gaza people - for 'security' reasons.
I'd suspect that too. Effective confiscation of Palestinian land is potentially a trigger for a wider conflict:
Jordan has warned that displacement of Palestinians would push the region to the “abyss” of a wider conflict according to Reuters.
|
Yes I suspect this will spill over into the relatively stable regions of Jordan and Egypt.
As for terrorist, was the IRA ever labeled as such by the BBC, and if they were not, were they ever castigated by HM gov for it? Suspect not, far to close to home
|
>> As for terrorist, was the IRA ever labeled as such by the BBC, and if they were not, were they ever castigated by HM gov for it? Suspect not, far to close to home
The Beeb did not label them as "terrorists" and Thatcher did indeed give them a hard time for this after Brighton.
|
>> As for terrorist, was the IRA ever labeled as such by the BBC, and if
>> they were not, were they ever castigated by HM gov for it? Suspect not, far
>> to close to home
So far as I can remember the IRA and other paramilitary participants in The Troubles were referred to by their names. The IRA, as any fule kno, were 'terrorists' and I think for clarity other outfits, on either side, we referred to as paramilitary with the word proscribed or similar in the mix where that was the case.
The bit of government irrationality there was to ban us from hearing the voice of Gerry Adams et al. Deny them the Oxygen of publicity as the PM (or was it the SoS for NI?) had it at the timeInstead their words were spoken by an actor.
The actors speech and the lipsynching was so good as to render the thing meaningless but it may well have persisted into Blair's era before being revoked.
|
Where do they find these F-wits?
Ofcom, the outfit who are supposed to police broadcast impartiality, has had to suspend their Director of Online Safety for anti-Israel posts on Instagram and the BBC are still 'urgently investigating' several journalists from their Arabic network for some rather unsavoury posts supporting the Hamas attack.
|
www.itv.com/news/2023-10-25/starmer-seeks-to-rescue-muslim-vote-amid-talk-of-front-bench-resignations
Seems to be one of the few issues that most members of the government can agree a policy on. However its causing a bit of a split in the Labour. I wonder if it'll cause issues with the election 12 months out, i suspect not. At least not widespread.
www.itv.com/news/2023-10-25/starmer-seeks-to-rescue-muslim-vote-amid-talk-of-front-bench-resignations
|
>> Looks like it's not just the PM with a party discipline issue.
I am constantly amused that a bunch of people, with no power think they can influence the actions of a nation thousands of miles away. Get a grip people, they aint and wont listen to you.
Starmer is in a hole. After Corbyn He is walking a tightrope in a no win situation* trying not to appear anti-Semitic by supporting the State of Israel's right to defend itself, and trying to appeal to the Labour parties traditional pacifist stance and support of suppressed people.
*if you simply ignore all the history that got us here and concentrate on the now, We have one heinous act being met with an equally heinous response.
|
It's clearly a matter of conscience for some of them. I don't see why it couldn't have been a free vote, with Starmer making his position clear, given they were going to do it anyway.
It won't make a hap'orth of difference to the conflict, the force of the UK opposition leader's views on Hamas or Netanyahu being negligible.
FWIW, and my opinion is of even less importance, the obvious urgent need is for water, food, fuel, medical supplies and facilities and sufficient 'humanitarian pauses' will be of much more use than waiting for however long it takes to achieve an agreed ceasefire, if it can even be done.
I don't think it's doing Starmer much harm. The stirrers in the lower rank have marked their own cards, and the ones who matter can be rehabilitated later. Meanwhile Starmer avoids looking weaker, which would be the downside of a free vote.
It's easy to be in the wrong going anywhere near this topic. Shapps put his foot in it, saying it is inevitable that "people lose their lives" in wars and citing the 35,000 that died as a result of British raids on Dresden. That would actually be a war crime now, under conventions agreed in the 1950's. twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1723651580484846039
|
>It's clearly a matter of conscience for some of them...
And a matter of the number of pro-palestinian voters in their constituency.
|
>> >It's clearly a matter of conscience for some of them...
>>
>> And a matter of the number of pro-palestinian voters in their constituency.
Indeed. Jess Phillips perhaps. But it's possible she has more than one reason.
|
Shapps put his
>> foot in it, saying it is inevitable that "people lose their lives" in wars and
>> citing the 35,000 that died as a result of British raids on Dresden. That would
>> actually be a war crime now, under conventions agreed in the 1950's. twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1723651580484846039
>>
I don't think he put his foot in it, just a statement of fact.
|
>> I don't think he put his foot in it, just a statement of fact.
It can hardly be a justification when it would now be a war crime, can it? This was immediately before or after, I can't remember which, his qualification that Israel must of course act within international law.
|
But wasn't at the time, it was more an example rather than justification. That's how it seemed to me.
His broader point was people in war die, often without logic or fairness.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 16 Nov 23 at 11:59
|
>> But wasn't at the time, it was more an example rather than justification. That's how
>> it seemed to me.
>> His broader point was people in war die, often without logic or fairness.
Fair enough. My broader point was that whatever you say on this will offend somebody, as I think he has. I think I would have kept well away from Dresden.
|
>>
>> Fair enough. My broader point was that whatever you say on this will offend somebody,
>> as I think he has. I think I would have kept well away from Dresden.
>>
Who has been offended by his comment on dresden?
|
>> Who has been offended by his comment on dresden?
If you were Palestinian I think you'd hear Shapp's words as "35,000 people died in Dresden, so tough nuts".
You can find offended people easily enough yourself.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 16 Nov 23 at 13:27
|
>> Who has been offended by his comment on dresden?
At the end of the day, big major wars are won by logistics. In the greater sense to inc Industrial capacity, finance, natural and human resources. makes them all legitimate wartime targets.
|
>> Fair enough. My broader point was that whatever you say on this will offend somebody,
>> as I think he has. I think I would have kept well away from Dresden.
>>
As a primary school child I sat in air raid shelters at home from 1939 and at school from 1940, daytime and night time. Later in the war we listened to the V1s spluttering overhead and I can remember we commented when the engine on the V1 stopped and we waited for the "CRUMP" as it exploded.
The Germans were completely indiscriminate with their bombing of civilians, so anyone who says 'what about Dresden' can Foxtrot Oscar. They started it. They shouldn't have invaded Poland.
No sympathy.
|
>> As a primary school child I sat in air raid shelters at home from 1939
For one moment I thought you were going to tell us about the Zeppelin raids......
|
Interesting you should say that Duncan. What if Shapps has used Coventry as his example?
To put Dresden into perspective BTW, c. 600 people were killed in the big German raid on Coventry of 14 November 1940, and the total from all raids about 1,300. The accepted estimate of Dresden deaths is 25,000 from a population of 600,000. The 8 months of the London blitz is said to have cost 43,000 lives.
I think the consensus view on Dresden in the period immediately after the war was that it was justified, but disproportionate.
|
> I think the consensus view on Dresden in the period immediately after the war was
>> that it was justified, but disproportionate.
>>
You wouldn't have to wait after the war, views were raised in the immediate aftermath in the HoC and elsewhere. Were they the prevailing view, hard to say so far from that time. But it wasn't a few on the fringes. Churchill backed away from it afterwards despite being in favour before the raid.
Harris was left swinging in the wind, politically speaking, the biggest supporter after the fact was stalin, the more dead germans the better. The German government was probably less outraged than some in the uk. They fully expected huge city wide raids.
I think Spear noted 2 or 3 raids like that on berlin or the ruhr and the war would have been over.
|
>> It can hardly be a justification when it would now be a war crime, can
>> it?
Only victors ever decide what is and isn't a war crime.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 16 Nov 23 at 13:27
|
Get a grip people, they
>> aint and wont listen to you.
>>
>
The only country that could put the reins on them chooses not to. Pretty much the rest of the countries are just background noise.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 16 Nov 23 at 11:57
|
Hosea 8:7
"For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.”
|
....to me it looks more like:
"For they sow the wind, and a few of them and a lot of bystanders shall reap the whirlwind.”
|
Has there ever been a war in which the side, which would otherwise have been victorious, capitulated for fear of killing civilians or committing a war crime. I can't think of one.
Dresden and the Blitz pale by comparison to Hiroshima and Nagasaki where deaths at the time and subsequently run comfortably to six figures. Justified by the assumption of greater deaths had the war continued conventionally!
War is nasty. Israel suffered a brutal attack on 7th October. They have a right to defend themselves.
Their strategic priority is the complete elimination of Hamas, regarding inevitable civilian casualties and suffering as "collateral damage" in pursuit of their objective.
Current media attention is now focussed on the suffering in Gaza. The pressure is increasing upon Israel's supporters (US, UK, Europe) to call for a ceasefire - no surprise there!
None of this is new - merely the predictable unfolding.
Hamas as an ideology remains. Events will be repeated, albeit under a different name. The efforts of the UN, US and others in the middle east to create a lasting settlement in the region over the last two decades is woeful.
Events over the last 5 weeks are unsurprising, albeit extreme. What is required are solutions to a long term conflict, not handwringing apologists for that which was close to inevitable.
|
Israel won't stop. They will presumably have to seal off as far as they can and occupy Gaza to have any hope of eliminating Hamas there.
So I don't think they are minded to have a ceasefire if that means giving Hamas more time to dig in, hide attack Israel with rockets or whatever.
We all know that there has to be dialogue if there is to be a settlement but that will not be with Hamas.
I know next to nothing about this but that's my apprehension.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 16 Nov 23 at 19:33
|
>> I am constantly amused that a bunch of people, with no power think they can
>> influence the actions of a nation thousands of miles away. Get a grip people, they
>> aint and wont listen to you.
Me too, I was disappointed some weeks ago when the SNP were demanding a ceasefire. I thought that would have sorted it !
Ted
|
Israel, Hamas and the BBC - Duncan
