Israel / Palestine

damage has been done and is measured in thousands of innocent lives lost.

Holding the BBC, not Israel, accountable for the deaths is wild.

Like I said BBC 'bias' will be found in both sides, and that tweet is not it.

So somehow the BBC is super influential but its subpar reporting here is just hand waved away.

Moral responsibility. Millions of people around the world who are citizens of govts supportive of Israel’s disproportionate tactics feel it, and are out demonstrating and getting arrested for it. What’s wild is how you can outright deny any responsibility by a globally recognised arbiter of truth who chose to tell a one-sided history.

The tweet may be too much, but the BBC have definitely not given Israel a ‘hard time’ throughout this invasion.

The tweet may be too much

Glad you can see this. It's part of an attempt to discredit the entirety of the BBC output. They definitely get it wrong sometimes, your link is a good example. But with lies coming constantly from both sides in this conflict we need reporting that at least attempts neutrality, and is open to scrutiny.

The tweet may be too much

Glad you can see this.

Yeah no, that’s not going to fly. I said may because I didn’t want to give my opinion, which is that the BBC’s title is inappropriate, and Allday’s points are partially valid.

-Going to add, my quick attempt at a title would be ‘ Controversial Palestinian author, family killed in Israel air strike; intended strike target unclear ‘.

But with lies coming constantly from both sides in this conflict we need reporting that at least attempts neutrality, and is open to scrutiny.

Couldn’t agree more.

Presumably you also think Al Jazeera is biased in it's reporting then?

I think it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that it's offensive to say "[nation] mourns death of [someone from there]" - it doesn't mean only they do or could. Was it offensive to say "Britain mourns the queen's death"?

I think it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that it's offensive to say "[nation] mourns death of [someone from there]" - it doesn't mean only they do or could. Was it offensive to say "Britain mourns the queen's death"?

My response from above:

my quick attempt at a title would be ‘ Controversial Palestinian author, family killed in Israel air strike; intended strike target unclear ‘.

What’s actually important about that event? The fact that Palestinians are mourning him, that he was controversial, that his family died too, that Israel hasn’t clarified whom or what it was targeting with the strike that killed them all…?

The fact he is well known (and therefore more people are mourning him) probably is what makes this specific news item noteworthy though, isn't it?

And the tweet is daft - it's not slander to say that someone is controversial. It seems to be true - saying "only controversial in some people's eyes" sort of proves the point, controversy implies different views

In the context of many journalists being killed by Israeli forces (see especially Reuters’ latest report on the Israeli tank that double-tapped a very obvious journalist post in Lebanon, killing one and injuring several), I’d argue that the most important parts are what I said above.

My opinion on the tweet:

In the context of continued mass bombardment by one of the parties, the title does a clear enough job naming who killed Refaat.

Allday’s claim of slander is outright wrong. Refaat deplorably, unjustifiably, controversially called the 7/Oct attack ‘just and right’ (iirc). The title did well to mention it, for the reason that his statement was deplorable but also due to my next point.

There are reports of multiple journalists and authors dying with their families in bombardments. The title should’ve mentioned that they were killed too.

The BBC and other media haven’t been pressing hard enough on the continued lack of clarity from Israel about the specific targets of these strikes that have killed nearly 20,000 and razed thousands of homes, both of which are unacceptable. Yet another author and their family dying, presumably all non-combatants, is suspicious when there’s no indication of what the legitimate target was. The title should mention that.

I feel I’m leaving something else out but basically that’s what I meant by the tweet has partial merit. The BBC, in telling the history, isn’t telling the hard truths that need more attention if unjustified killing of innocents is to be stopped.

Of course you would, that's your view, but that doesn't mean that the approach the beeb has taken is biased just because it doesn't reflect what you'd say

My opinion on the tweet: (one moment)

I wrote this hoping that you’d allow me time to give a complete answer. Please see my previous post if you’re at all interested: main takeaway is journalists and authors critical of Israel, and their families, are still being killed in strikes that have no identified military targets (add: by a military that knows where they live). I’d consider this the most newsworthy part of the incident.

Please don’t interpret anything I’ve written as a defence or minimisation of what Refaat wrote, which I condemn in the strongest terms.

(also add: not just journalists critical of Israel have been specifically targeted and killed)

So tonight's BBC London is interviewing people affected by the the war in Gaza.

Is it a Palestinianan, or a few of the doctors that were in Gaza? Families in London with People with family in Gaza? No. Not at all.

With no source, people who already agree that BBC are pro Israel will unquestioningly take this as more evidence they are right. People who don't agree will think this is yet another example of people crying bias based on nothing. This thread is kind of going up its own arse

Source is BBC London post 10pm on the 11/12.

Those photos of mass captures of hamas fighters striped and kneeling on the ground

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-12-10/ty-article-live/israels-ground-offensive-in-gaza-deepens-as-arab-eu-leaders-push-for-a-cease-fire/0000018c-5187-df2f-adac-ffaf03700000?liveBlogItemId=1308272871&htm_source=site&htm_medium=button&htm_campaign=live_blog_item#1308272871

It's also conflating decolonial with anti-colonial.

Oh ok. So stripping those pesky people to their underwear, transporting them in that state to somewhere else isn't a war crime according to Israel officials.

Unfortunately the Geneva convention, seems to disagree.

So is the Geneva convention anti Israel? Or should there be a trial, is a trial need as there is proof beyond doubt? Is there still the death squad penalty as operated by mossad?

It's possible to believe the creation of Israel was a necessary thing, and it has a right to exist, but also that it has been executed badly.

I think the hardest thing about the current conflict is this:

Israel cannot defeat Hamas because it is an ideology, and integrated into Palestinian society to some extent. So Hamas, or supporters / ex members of Hamas, will have to be part of a negotiated solution. For this to happen Israel will have to drop the stated aim of eliminating Hamas entirely, and the Hamas ideology will have to drop the stated aim of killing all Jews. And we are desperately far from any de-escalation in the mutual hatred.

They have also totally undermined the PA to the point that it'll be hard for them to assist in any near term settlement.

Ezra Klein's discussion with Nimrod Novik has some interesting suggestions on what could be done to bridge the gap, amongst other things.

should there be a trial, is a trial need as there is proof beyond doubt?

Every person accused of a crime deserves a fair trial. For myriad reasons, from deeply philosophical to the most pragmatic, this is one of the red lines that society shouldn’t allow to be crossed except in the most exceptional and urgent of circumstances.

I just looked up the assertion about Hamas. You could equally state Hamas are an islamist or jihadist group commited to armed resistance against occupation and whose official position is that they intend to live in peace with Jews whose place in palestinian territories pre-date the Nakbar and also that they accept 1967 borders which tacitly allows for the existance of jewish presence in the region. My source is the NYC-based anti-defamation league website. defamation being a key word here

I am sure that there are militants and religious figures in and associated with Hamas whose words seem to justify your statement but it is not clear that HAmas, as an organisation have these as their official stated aims. It really sounds like you are pushing an agenda here.

You could also refer, for balance, to the widely commented on reference by Benjamin Netanyahu seeming to invoke genocidal violence. I am cutting and pasting a short text by Noah Lanard from mother jones here but it was widely reported on in the media and I don't think contestable.

'[Netanyahu said] in Hebrew in a recent address : “You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember.”

There are more than 23,000 verses in the Old Testament. The ones Netanyahu turned to, as Israeli forces launched their ground invasion in Gaza, are among its most violent—and have a long history of being used by Jews on the far right to justify killing Palestinians.

As others quickly pointed out, God commands King Saul in the first Book of Samuel to kill every person in Amalek, a rival nation to ancient Israel. “This is what the Lord Almighty says,” the prophet Samuel tells Saul. “‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”'

EDIT on second thoughts, given the context, @velocio, could I report William.'s post as offensive and potentially an incitement of hatred.

And the Islamic Revolutionary Guard is just a proportional reaction to historic British and American meddling in Iran.

Sure there are some bad apples, but overall their heart is in the right place.

EDIT on second thoughts, given the context, @velocio, could I report William.'s post as offensive and potentially an incitement of hatred.

Done by mere pointing it out to me.

However, I don't know which post you mean and when I read the last post that doesn't read as offensive, and neither as potentially an incitement of hatred... of which I'm not even aware there is a threshold agreed by law that would compel me to act on it even if it weren't "potentially".

Perhaps I am missing some context, but reading the last message from a perspective of coming in cold and just considering it stand-alone and without the context of the news (I have no idea what's happening as I've turned off the news)... it looks fine, am I fundamentally wrong?