Israel / Palestine

The right are criticising them for describing Hamas as militants rather than terrorists, even whilst the defence editor of the Telegraph is on GB News, also calling them militants rather than terrorists.

This is a minor technicality, especially in the context of the BBC's coverage of this escalation, and says a lot about the media environment in the UK around this story.

I couldn't agree more with what @samrensho wrote really. Israel and Israeli voices have so much air time, so much share of voice, so much soft power. We hear almost nothing from Palestinians.

We constantly hear families of the Israeli victims and hostages, eyewitness accounts of people who were at the Supernova festival, or in the Israeli villages which were attacked. We hear the Israeli military pretty much continually and they are almost never properly challenged by the presenters.

We don't hear from the families of the over 800 people killed in Gaza. We don't hear the perspectives of people living in Gaza who might help us understand the context of the Hamas attacks. We certainly don't hear from the families of the 1500+ Hamas fighters who died about what motivated them to embark on what was effectively a suicide mission into Israel (to understand is not to glorify).

The headlines on the BBC homepage right now versus Reuters says a lot:

BBC: "Hamas attacks on Israel 'an act of sheer violence' - Biden"
Reuters: "Israel pulverises Gaza after Hamas attack as it collects its dead"

The BBC would never use the p-word, but that is what's happening.

As an aside - but one I feel says a lot - if you want to see the photos of the hostages they're everywhere. If you want to see photos of the record number of children Israel killed last year you have to visit sites like Human Rights Watch or DCI Palestine.

I hope Hamas don't kill the children they've taken hostage. But if they do (they have already in this war) do you think we'll have to hunt down their pictures on humanitarian websites?

This is an unbalanced, unequal war, David versus Goliath. Unfortunately the media simply reflects this.

Doubt that my comment about the circumstances in the film Munich are valid.

Sorry I will no longer comment on this.

.

1 Attachment

As I understand it, there were calls to boycott Munich from Jewish groups and criticism from Israel due to the blurring of the Mossad hero/terrorist line.

Perhaps there should be more films like this, particularly from Jewish directors and filmmakers.

Possibly posted earlier, here’s the Home Sec’s letter to police:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-chiefs-asked-to-protect-communities-from-provocations/letter-to-chief-constables-in-england-and-wales-following-the-israel-hamas-conflict-accessible

I have also been absolutely clear that online offending is as serious as offline offending. You will be aware that we have robust legislation in place to deal with terrorist content online, as well as threatening and abusive behaviour or behaviour which is intended or likely to stir up hatred. I urge you to ensure that this continues to be taken into consideration in the upcoming days and that any reports of online offending are dealt with promptly.

I expect online referral units to respond swiftly to any content that breaks the law. In particular, I expect the CT Internet Referral Unit to monitor the situation and respond quickly to any online content that breaches the thresholds for terrorism legislation (TACT), working with tech companies to ensure its removal. I similarly expect the Online Hate Crime Hub to respond to any reports of online content that contravenes hate crime legislation to ensure the perpetrators can be brought to justice.

Obviously there’s a difference between discussion here and the bile associated with the chan forums.

See I can't help myself.

The film was based on a book which in itself may have blurred the lines between fiction and fact. Therefore no really a valid comment.

The whole Jewish thing has been going on for millennia. Am mixed full of cafiene and Duval. So my memory isn't great but one of the English kings (not sure how it worked with kings of England Wales and Scotland) borrowed money from the Jewish lenders could not pay the money back so killed/forced them to leave the country. Don't see how you can gently ask people to leave unless the choice is you do or your dead. Then the pogroms in the area of sort of modern day Russia USSR.

I wish to talk more, to learn from others as I know so little. But I want a definitive black and white answer when all there are are shades of grey.

Think that is why I love Bill Hicks...

Sorry if I'm ranting. Feel like I have a privilege that those in Ukraine, Russia, Palestine and Israel do not have. Feels a little lost on me.

This is an unbalanced, unequal war, David versus Goliath. Unfortunately the media simply reflects this.

Agree with this and also samrenshos excellent post. For a long time I thought this was a "complicated issue" but this framing is just untrue. It's not complicated.

The issue itself isn’t complicated. Palastinians want to exist and live free of oppression. They are represented by an extreme group who believe that this can only be achieved by the destruction of Israel and Jihad (though they updated their charter to be more moderate in 2017).

Israel protect their borders with extreme prejudice and take self defence beyond what most people would consider reasonable. They have gaslit a lot of nations that their occupation of Palestinian Territories is for security and stability, and not a form of apartheid.
If there wasn’t international condemnation or oversight, threat of war from all surrounding nations then Palestine would not exist, and all Palestinian or Muslim peoples would be forced out.

Similarly, if Palestine was bigger, and had more strong support, then Israel would be wiped off the map.

The stance of being happy to coexist is nice to offer, but not what the leadership of either country want.

Both sides have and continue to do horrible things to each other.

The solution however, if there even is one, is one of the most complicated political problems there has ever been.

BBC being told off by the government for being trying to be impartial and not using the word terrorist….

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67076341

I struggle a bit with this "it's not complicated" narrative.

On the one side you've got a modern democratic state built on the principle that the world is antisemitic, and at some point will try and wipe them out. Their society is made up of a range of factions - religious extremists that don't believe Israel should exist, secular racists, liberals, Arabs, sausage eating ex-soviets who blagged their way in to escape communism. Helpfully, their governments are formed of coalitions so there is no way to reach consensus. They're funded by the most powerful country in the world, who handily they then spend most of that funding with.

On the other you've got a split population ruled by two parties - one of which is a democratically elected Islamic extremist antisemitic organisation that wants to destroy Israel. The other is hapless and corrupt.

All are surrounded by a mix of states with a mix of aims, delivering a mix of funding - some terrorism, some humanitarian, who change their positions and backing as and when.

Yeah well they can fuck off can't they.

The idea that anyone in government has the moral authority to comment or make judgments on anything other than what they had for breakfast is risible.

From the BBC timeline. Sadly the killing is only beginning, as Israel is setting up to invade and flush out Hamas.

I find it interesting that Israeli national defence psychology is well-reflected in their chosen combat system, Krav Maga. (which is an effective base system, fantastical YouTubers and fraudsters aside)

Developed by a young, Jewish, fighting-sport champion, son of a police chief, specifically to help defend his neighbourhood from anti-Semitic youth raids around WW2, Krav Maga (and it’s military variant Kapap) emphasises the use of extreme violence against your opponents’ soft spots to neutralise them as quickly as possible. As a modern self-defence system, it’s incorporated a lot of psychology around understanding and avoiding violence, and about subduing instead of crippling or killing, but it hasn’t changed it’s core principle of 0 to 100.

Israel’s been wounded by an opponent it had stopped taking very seriously. Barring political intervention at the top, they’ll respond with violence so extreme that it sends a message to everyone else.

1 Attachment

religious extremists that don't believe Israel should exist

That isn't right, it is why should be give our land that was promised to us by other invaders be given to others. Remember they were given the choice of somewhere in Africa (oh that would have been good) or some of the USA..

Also the democratic bit does play well

Also mossad, law unto themselves...using enough distance to kill and destry anything that could allegedly endanger the state.

Don't forget the religious extremists in an entirely different country (with a lot of influence) who think the Israel needs to be Jewish in order for the rapture to come about or some such tale.

Israel protect their borders...

And if those borders weren't so aggressively expanded perhaps the situation would be much less inflammatory than it is now.
Contemptible, indefensible acts have been committed by all, that is undoubtedly true especially recently. But I'm yet to be convinced by any argument that Israel is not the root aggressor in the overall conflict. The current leadership is terrifying, but it's been hopeful seeing the protests in Israel as recently as a few months ago. Hamas will have damaged that momentum hugely, much to the detriment of all Palestinians.

I think this escalation has probably pushed a resolution out of reached unfortunately, but we can hope.

That isn't right

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neturei_Karta

Oh I didn't know about that group, thought you meant one of the many fundamentalist islamic groups.

As recently as a few months ago? Every week more like...

democratically elected Islamic extremist antisemitic organisation

When were the last elections?

A long time ago. Which seems a factor making this more complicated, not less, doesn't it?

they were given the choice of somewhere in Africa (oh that would have been good)

What do you mean "oh that would have been good"?

2006 I believe (if not a rhetorical q)

Sarcasm, as it would cause the same issue in dispossessing those living there.

What do you think I meant?

I really didn't know, tbh. Most people on this thread seem relatively unsympathetic to Israel and that would seem to be an issue with anywhere habitable, so I didn't guess that's what you meant