Martin Walker of United Press International had an interesting article in The Times a few days ago, beginning:
Despite a catalogue of examples to the contrary, the governors insist there is bias against the Palestinians
THE OFFICIAL REPORT for the governors of the BBC on its coverage of the Palestine-Israeli conflict found predictably that there was “was little to suggest systematic or deliberate bias” but then went on to list a series of measurements by which the BBC could be said to be biased in favour of Israel.
This produced mocking guffaws in my own newsroom, where some of the BBC’s greatest hits – or perhaps misses – remain fresh in the memory. There was the hagiographic send-off for Yassir Arafat by a BBC reporter with tears in her eyes and that half-hour profile of Arafat in 2002 which called him a “hero” and “an icon” and concluded that the corrupt old brute was “the stuff of legends”.
There was Orla Guerin’s unforgettably inventive spin on the story of a Palestinian child being deployed as a suicide bomber, which most journalists saw as a sickening example of child abuse in the pursuit of terrorism. Guerin had it as “Israel’s cynical manipulation of a Palestinian youngster for propaganda purposes”.
The rest of it is worth reading, though I’m not sure I’d go along with his conclusion entirely!
A very good example of the depths the BBC has sunk to. There is no way that any sane reporter can be unbias reguarding the Israeli and Palistinian situation. This should never be their aim. Israel is a democratic friend of the western world. We need all the friends we can get right now. The Palistian point of view can come from the Palistinians themselves. This can be broadcast and is anyway. We have the likes of George Gallaway on the box and radio all the time. We do not need educated members of a free sociaty trying to be “fair” to violent undemocratic terrorist theocratic socialist anti-western anti-semetic intimidation. But we have many more than is healthy already.
A paranoid friendless Israel is as dangerous to western interests as Iran. However it Dont stop the BBC trying to make the situation as bad as possible.
Obvious point is that if the BBC had the same obsession with being “fair in the reporting of WW 2” we not only would have been fighting it on our own. WE WOULD HAVE LOST.
BTW
We would be speaking German if we had lost we would be speaking Russian.
Andrew: “The rest of it is worth reading, though I’m not sure I’d go along with his conclusion entirely!”
Entirely? Where do you get ‘entirely’? Wake up andrew.
To Garry Powel,
Your statement: “A paranoid friendless Israel is as dangerous to western interests as Iran” shows actually that, despite all your protestation, you are internalising the BBC news and message of: 1. moral equivalence 2. Israel is a paranoid country without a reason, Certainly the BBC will be delighted. It also show your meagre knowledge of Israel (probably a result of taking in too much BBC news), have absolute no understanding of the meaning of life under constant terror re-“paranoid” Israel. Just think how you have reacted on 7/7 and multiply it manifolds.
BTW, this Walker was previously a reporter for the Guardian, or the like, hence the irrelevance of the conclusion to an otherwise correct analysis
The recommendation that the BBC use the dreaded ‘T’ word for acts of terror is generally viewed as a positive contribution by the panel of the Israel-Palestine Impartiality Report.
Click to access panel_report_final.pdf
But here’s the sting in the tail. (My emphasis in bold):
In fact the commission of a terrorist act, however reprehensible, may be the work of a moment, and it is a truism that many who have carried out terrorist acts have subsequently become respected politicians, even statesmen. (This is as true of those active in the Zionist movement before the foundation of the state of Israel as in others.) For similar reasoning, it would be a mistake to use the expression “terrorist” in respect of organisations, even though the terrorist act was carried out at their instigation.
This is a fine example of the disease of moral equivalence which has infected the West to an incredible degree. Here the learned authors of the Report compare Jewish actions like the blowing up of the King David Hotel with Arab actions like the blowing up of Jewish women and children.
Maybe they don’t know that the King David was being used as a headquarters by the British who were warned to evacuate the hotel, but chose to stay, declaring that they would not take orders from Jews.
Maybe they also don’t know that a Palestinian will typically seek out the time and place where he can kill and maim the greatest possible number of Jewish civilians, sparing nobody. And, of course, warning nobody.
Anyone who regards these two acts as equivalent has no moral compass.
bryan,
100% correct. 1. The British were all military. 2. They did all they can to obstruct Jewish holocaust refugees from entering the country. 3. helped in whatever way they could to enhance Arab butchery of Jews in the land. 4. they are one of the main sources for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by way of betraying all promises for a bag of gold. I wonder why the Jewish weren’t called activists or militant fighting a noble cause, is it because it was against the Brits and Arabs?????????
So terrorism is justifiable as long as it has a suitable ‘moral cause’ behind it? Or if not justifiable then at least ‘understandable’ in some way? I thought that was the sort of reasoning that the Beeb frequently gets crucified for??
the point is it was NOT TERRORISM.
Mirriam Webster: terrorism:
violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
Many more definitions are here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism
NO WHERE WILL YOU FIND ATTACKING MILITARY TARGET AS TERROR. THAT IS THE POINT.
Terrorism is the use of force against CIVILIANS to intimidate.
That’s funny because I understood that most of those murdered and injured in the King David bombing were civilians. Presumably on your basis suicide bombings of Israeli army posts aren’t acts of terrorism then.
Cockney, if you actually read what I wrote you’ll pick up on the points I’m making.
It might be helpful for you to read Rachel’s points as well.
The British government had the Mandate to facilitate the establishment of the State of Israel. But its forces on the ground did everything they possibly could to hinder that goal while siding with the Arabs. They had to be driven out of Palestine.
But, to return to the subject of this post, here’s an interesting statement from the passage I quoted above:
In fact the commission of a terrorist act, however reprehensible, may be the work of a moment…
If any proof were needed, this is proof indeed that the authors of the report have no understanding of the meaning of terrorism. By its very nature, terrorism can’t be the “work of a moment,” since it relies for its effect on the threat of terror against civilians as much as the act itself. And implicit in the threat of terror is the knowledge on the part of its targets that there is not simply the likelihood but the certainty of repetition of terror.
It might be interesting and instructive to do some research into BBC reports of 60 years ago to see the stance they took on the bombing of the King David.
And then compare that to the stance they took on, say, Beslan or the bombing of the Park Hotel in Netanya during Passover.
Go to BBC News | Middle East today:
On This Day
1974: Dozens die in Israeli reprisal
Palestinians bombed after Ma’alot attack
That happened on the 16th, today is the 18th.
Bias or simply shoddy?
They were not terrorists. The King David Hotel was then being used as British military headquarters and so was a military not a civilian target. And furthermore, a warning was phoned into the hotel, but was ignored by the British officer in charge who thought it was just a bluff.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=36&x_article=299
I do not consider attacks on military targets as terror
I do not consider attacks on military targets as terror
So, a suicide bomber detonating himself at an Israeli check-point is not a terrorist?
A suicide bomber detonating himself at a bus-stop where soldiers are waiting is not a terrorist?
Cockney, I take your point:
Presumably on your basis suicide bombings of Israeli army posts aren’t acts of terrorism then.
It’s not terrorism, but it facilitates terrorism because the checkpoints are there fundamentally to prevent Palestinian terrorist infiltration into Israel.
the former is, by most definitions, not. The second is, by most definition, yes. They are not on duty, they are passers-by among other civilians, and as such are the target of the bomber.
btw,
the BBC dropped the Israel related article:
On This Day
1974: Dozens die in Israeli reprisal
Palestinians bombed after Ma’alot attack
————-
two of today’s headlines succinctly demonstrate a state of terror–no need for definitions here:
6 Kassams launched towards w. Negev; none wounded
J’lem on red alert due to terror warning
from: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/IndexList&cid=1123495333395
Bryan, some might argue that us Brits were attempting to facilitate the establishment of the state of Israel in an ordered manner rather than an unmanaged rush which one might predict could easily lead to border disputes, refugee problems and endless hostility….in any case doesn’t alter the fact that the bombing killed a lot of civilians. I take your point that it was more targeted than a Palestinian blowing up a bus but if you’re going to bring a ‘moral equivalence’ dimension into the labelling of terrorism (which the report doesn’t?) then where do you draw the line?
For the terrorist apologists,
When Britain was fighting Nazism, and liberating Jews from concentration camps, Irgun and the Stern Gang were fighting the British.
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/Kingdavid.htm
The King David may have been used as a command post, but what about the fact that it was still being used as a hotel?
And what about the 15 dead Jewish secretaries?
How can there have been a warning given, when there was a gun battle as the fuse was lit?
Then British soldiers were stoned and booed, and were delayed by Jewish roadblocks, as they made their way to the hotel.
By the way, having no uniform or recognisable command structure, is the definition of ‘illegal combatant,’ under the terms of the Geneva convention. That is what Gitmo is for.
The Jewish terrorists then, were as immoral and murderous as the Palestinian ones today.
“The Americans were strongly pro Jewish and very anti British. One Hollywood motion picture Mogul declared in the British press that he had a holiday in his heart every time a British soldier was killed in Palestine. and large sections of the American media echoed this sentiment. At one point early in 1945 Winston Churchill became so irritated with continual American shouting about Palestine that he suggested that since the Americans were so unhappy about the way Britain was handling Palestine, “the best solution would be for them to take the job over themselves, I’m not aware that Britain has to vaunt about this painful and thankless task, he said, and someone else should have their turn and the sooner the better”.”
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Palestine/kidnap.htm
“Maybe they don’t know that the King David was being used as a headquarters by the British who were warned to evacuate the hotel, but chose to stay, declaring that they would not take orders from Jews.”
Now I did a search for “king david” in the PDF document and found nothing – so (unless I missed it) they didn’t even mention the King David hotel, or say that the bombing of it was a terrorist act.
“This should never be their aim. Israel is a democratic friend of the western world. We need all the friends we can get right now.”
So Gary, you don’t have a problem with the BBC being biased, as long as it’s biased in a way that you agree with.
Rachel, the “On This Day (before yesterday)” story is still there linked from here, both the UK and International versions:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/default.stm
The Jewish terrorists then, were as immoral and murderous as the Palestinian ones today.
Please adjust your moral compass.
Rachal
I think you missunderstand my meaning. However I was in Israel only 3 months ago and “paranoid” is a good description of the people of Israel in general, for the reasons you give. This situation is not helped by the British media, it is also not intended to. The goverment is also paranoid for the good reasons that you yourself give. I am not “internalising,” the BBC broadcast all over the middle-east, in Arabic and English I know because I have been their and seen and listened to it.
Are you saying that a Israeli state surrounded by enemies that have a history of wanting the destruction of any Jewish state should not and do not feel paranoid? When one in particular wants to get nuclear weapons when Israel has them already. Are you saying that this situation should not concern the western world. Lett alone the fact that something like 2 fiths of the entire worlds oil supplies come from the region?
Just because you are paranoid, does not mean they are not out to get you. Or that you should not feel paranoid, when you have every thing in the world to feel paranoid about.
To TomL,
Wistrich, the leading Holocaust historian, in his book “Hitler and the Holocaust”, in a whole section documents THE INDIFFERENCE OF THE WESTERN ALLIES to the plight of the Jews (pp 190-215). His message is, both the UK and US could, but did not, do anything until it was too late.
Re-the state of affairs in British occupied Palestine–read Fabricating Israeli History, by Efraim Karsh of London University.
Both books are well documented
to GP.
You misunderstood me, what I mean is, it is not paranoid accodring to the dictionary definition;
1 : a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
2 : a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others
THE FEARS ARE REAL. THEY ARE NOT DELUSIONS, NOR IRRATIONAL
I think that Rachel and others make a good point when they attempt to differentiate attacks on civilians as opposed to attacks on military units.
Blowing up a bus full of civilians is an act of terrorsim – attacking a military post/tank/patrol is not a terrorists attack – the fact that the attackers are out of uniform would make them “irregulars” but not terrorists. The King David bombing was an attack by irregular forces – just as attacks on german occupying forces by french maquis were. Even though the Germans called them “terrorists” this does not make them so.
There are many definitions of terrorist floating around – no-one can agree because everybody naturally tries to push for a definition which will suit their ends.
I have the impression that for many people on this blog (and on the street), a terrorist is one who deliberately targets civilians – someone who targets soldiers may still be considered to be an “enemy” but could more accurately be termed as a guerilla or irregular.
I don’t necessarily consider a palestinian who attacks an israeli military unit to be a terrorist – but the suicide bombers who blow up buses and pizzerias certainly are – and the BBC should start to call a spade a spade.
I never heard of jews blowing up british civilians – on purpose – that’s teh difference between them and teh palestinian organisations who consider jews to be worthy targets simply because they are jews.
Mister Mint
Yes I do not believe that being honestly unbias is humanly possible. So it should not be claimed that it is. If you want honest reporting it must be bias. Other opinions are welcome and should always be put forward, but I would like to believe that people working for the British People whether the British people like paying for it or not, would mostly always be on the side of democracy civilisation and freedom. Is that really to much to ask?
rachael
I hold by the dictionary definition as well. The Israeli people are under many very real threats, but there is a human tendency to overstate or “feel” ones problems greater, as a natural way of defending your exsistance. Terrorism is a method of deliberately increasing a democratic peoples paranoia. That is to cause the people to feel that they are under even more threat than they are in reality. Jews are just the same as all the other people in the world.
“but I would like to believe that people working for the British People whether the British people like paying for it or not, would mostly always be on the side of democracy civilisation and freedom.”
But that would mean that the BBC would have to make a judgement call on whether the Israelies are more on the side of “democracy civilisation and freedom” than the Palestinians.
And if you ask me, the BBC should do its best to report the news and offer differing opinions etc., and avoid making any decisions over morality where possible.
And also, just because a country is democratic, should that mean that the BBC should side with that country in any conflict that it has?
But that would mean that the BBC would have to make a judgement call on whether the Israelies are more on the side of “democracy civilisation and freedom” than the Palestinians.
How hard is that?
The BBC have told us constantly that Hamas was elected “democratically” but has remained mostly silent on how that “democracy” is applied on the ground in Gaza under “Palestinian” control, ie: chaos and destruction.
I see that the moral revisionists are out in force today in which to paint the aspirant Jewish nation as terrorist in nature. To that end could somebody please explain why the Liberals who love to taint the Jews as evil, kind of look towards the following as freedom fighters;
Indian freedom hero;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4989868.stm
British atrocities;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4318277.stm
Russian atrocities;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/817249.stm
As to the asinine comment that attacks on soldiers cannot be classed as terror. Really? What happens when those soldiers are there to protect civilians? Say as in Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Iraq or Afghanistan. How do we class a failed attack on a military position which results in the deaths of innocents? As we saw in Bosnia, Northern Ireland and are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that not terrorism.
Funny how the political elite (and I include the BBC in this) are so quick in which to condemn the military for any mistake they make. But on the same token are more than happy to excuse any act of terror as justified.
(Well they are fighting for the right to be independent? Tell me again how blowing up a bus full of school girls, chopping off the heads of two school girls or even setting off a bomb in a Hospital isn’t terrorism)
By the way in Iraq a popular tactic in which to strike fear (terrorism) is by detonating a bomb in a public place. Then when the police arrive along with the Fire service, ambulances etc detonate another. I suppose according to the lilly whites that as the so called security services are involved that is OK.
pounce
You’re 100% right and contrary to your belief in an earlier thread, you are eloquent, not so sure about the beauty bit though.
Unfortunately I haven’t time today to bait my BBC friend jr. Hope to return tomorrow or Saturday.
Mister mint
No it would not. The BBC would be well advised to stop trying to be unbias,( which on some subjects in particular is totally impossible) and let uncensored preporters say what they really believe and let the British public deside what they believe and what they dont. If the BBC employed a diversity of political opinions in the first place this would not be such an imposible thing for the BBC or the MSM to acheive.
All you have to do is give information as Editorials attributed to a named and properly identified source. Not claim that the BBC itself is the fountain of all truthfull wisdom. Which of cause nobody or organisation can possibly be.
Sorry to drift O/T but it is sort of relevent.
The BBC can and does sometimes do what I have described.
Only a day ago the BBC run a story on newsnight about the countries immigration problems. I cant remember the wistleblowers name but he made very anti-government accusations on the subject, but we were told that it was not the opinion of the BBC.
I did not know that the BBC was supposed to have an opinion, in the first place. The arragance and disreguard of the BBCs Charter by the BBC itself, is forever increasing.
“…let uncensored preporters say what they really believe and let the British public deside what they believe and what they dont.”
I couldn’t agree more.
However, what your comments suggested to me is that the Israeli side of the conflict should be given more preference as they are “on the side of democracy civilisation and freedom” and that “The Palistian point of view can come from the Palistinians themselves.”
Please tell me if I have misunderstood what you have said, but it seems that you advocate a pro-Israeli stance which couldn’t be further from “uncensored preporters saying what they really believe and letting the British public deside what they believe and what they dont.”
Despite a catalogue of examples to the contrary, the governors insist there is bias against the Palestinians
Such as the latest “From Our Own Correspondent”?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4991478.stm
Once again another “cry me a river” piece on the poor downtrodden “Palestinian” people full of the worn out canards, and no mention of corruption in the PA playing any part at all in causing their misfortune. Instead the BBC’s bottom line and conclusion is:
But Hamas itself has largely observed a ceasefire for over a year. It has played the democratic game that the West advocates.
It won January’s election fairly.
And Hamas is an Islamist militant group that is ready to engage – at least on its terms – with Europe and America.
But if it is turned away, there has to be a danger that other Islamists in the Middle East and elsewhere may conclude that – for them too – the path of dialogue and democracy will take them nowhere.
Rachel,
I’m not interested in your source, as I am aware of the facts – amongst which are – with the cost of blood, an alliance of nations defeated Nazi Germany. Then the Irgun bombed us.
WHY DO YOU KEEP SHOUTING?
Bio
That piece by Alan Johnston is a pack of lies plus a lot of pro-Palestinian bleating – exactly the sort of stuff that shows the moral equivocation of the BBC. This is the latest in a series of pieces in print and on air by Johston – he seems to have adopted the Orla Guering line.
His lies include :
1 “Most people…are haunted by memories of homes and fields and orchards losat to Israel in 1948”. By far the greatest number of people in Gaza were not even born in 1948. A sizeable proportion of the people in Gaza don’t have family links with Israeli territory anyway.
2 “In its confrontation with Hamas the chosen weapon of the West has been economic isolation.” No it hasn’t. Hamas can get stuff from abroad – including aid from its Arab supporters. It has no God-given right to stick its terrorist paws in the pockets of Western taxpayers.
3 “People here ..are appalled that (the West) has sided with Israel.” It has not sided with Israel. It has sided against terrorism and the charter threat of Hamas to destroy Israel. If it was siding with Israel, it would be saying that there will be no dealings with Hamas whatsoever it does.
4 “Hamas is an Islamist militant group”. No it isn’t. This is the core of the problem. It is an Islamist terrorist group. Until it renounces terrorism, we should not deal with it. A hudna is not enough. And meanwhile it is doing nothing to stop attacks on Israeli civil settlements.
He says “the new Hamas government is utterly broke.” But it can find money for arms ? And can anyone believe anything said about the corrupt finances in Palestine ?
Maybe its time to get back some of the funds that were corruptly scammed off the Palestinians in past years. Maybe its time they asked why so many people are employed – effectively at our expense – in the public sector. Look at the mess and disorder there – what are they doing ?
The real answer to Palestine is the rule of law, real freedom of expression for all opinions, capitalism and the renouncement of violence. All that has been in their hands for decades, but they have been shielded from self-responsibility by endless foreign aid that has been largely syphoned off. A people that can live in “refugee” status for more than 50 years there has to be something direly wrong with the whole UN support system.
So they are now having to face reality ? So ?
Mister mint
Yes; if you think that, you do missunderstand me. It is not in the BBC charter that they should have, as an organisation, any “stance” at all. But free uncensored journalists can and should and dont working for the BBC.
Ask John Reith he is perfectly happy with the BBC censoring the opinions of anyone directly conected to the BBC. Because he believes that being unbias is not only possible but also desirable. It is not, but honest truthfull uncensored information and therefore properly informed grown-up debate, is.
TomL,
you are not worth my efforts.
BTW in the space of two messages you did manage some contradictory remarks
Dumdcisco
All very true very well put. One thing to remember that this is all also true about Cuba, and Castro is STILL in charge. So something more proactive will be neaded one day, to sort out this mess. What; I am not payed to work out. One thing is for sure the BBC has no answer at all, and never even comes out with a proposal.
Power and lots of your cash without any political responsibility is always a bad thing.
The BBC tries to suggest that all the slip in support for Pres. Bush is over Iraq. Real polling suggests that there are other factors – and the mainm one is the illegal immigration chaos an the sense that the US has lost control of its own borders. (Shades of the UK situation)
This is now the top topic in US politics, finally being reported (after a fashion) by the BBC. It will remain a top topic right up until the November mid-term elections.
Don’t expect the BBC reporting to reflect what the people in polling actually think – just like they don’t reflect it in the UK. For background, here are some results from a reliabl;e polling firm that suggest that most people in the US want the borders fixed first, before they start thinking about an amnesty for the 12 million illegal immigrants already inside.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/May%20Dailies/Immigration%20State-by-State.htm
Rasmussen is also a good source for state-by-state polling as the elections approach. Probably too many facts for the lefties at the BBC.
Gary – that reminds me of the aphorisms “Power corrupts”….
And “Power without responsibility has been the prerogative of the harlot down the ages”.
Both apply to the BBC.
And as regards economic theory, it is an axiom that any sort of monopoly becomes pernicious, whatever the high-falutin’ justification. The essence of much of Thatcherite economic policy was to try to break the state monopolies – to get rid of the feather-bedding, the easy sinecures, the appallingly low productivity, the casual or dismissive attitude towards the customers, the assumption that it doesn’t matter if things go wrong because the taxpayer will always bale the business out. The aim was to get steadily better products or services for less cost, by breaking the stranglehold of “public” industries that didn’t actually give a hoot about the public.
The BBC has monopoly access to the billions collected by the licence tax. That is at the root of the problem. Monopoly is pernicious and wasteful – therefore so is the BBC. It really doesn’t give a hoot what people say about it, as long as it can get its hands on our money. It is under no pressure to avoid systemic bias – because it can get away with it, there are no sanctions against it.
The BBC is a throwback to a past age, when like mugs we believed in the benevolence of large institutions. Any licence tax settlement should be on the basis that there will be no further settlement on today’s pattern – and tha5t the BBC should start adjusting itself to reality, should stop trying to crowd into any market it chooses, by having its licence tax income reduced by X% per annum.
bryan, 100% correct. 1. The British were all military. 2. They did all they can to obstruct Jewish holocaust refugees from entering the country. 3. helped in whatever way they could to enhance Arab butchery of Jews in the land. 4. they are one of the main sources for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by way of betraying all promises for a bag of gold. I wonder why the Jewish weren’t called activists or militant fighting a noble cause, is it because it was against the Brits and Arabs?????????
Rachel:
Your anti-British rant is ridiculous.
I and many other British soldiers and NATO nation officers were in Israel during Gulf War 1 dodging SCUDs with the Israelis. I spent my birthday in 1991 diving into a shelter at 0500 in the morning along with three Jewish familes, an Israeli Arab plus a mad Italian Navy officer!
Did not Orde Wingate (a British Officer) help set up the forerunners of the IDF? I know that many other British officers (including two from the Seaforths) disobeyed orders and helped the local Jewish settlements by NOT handing over police posts etc to the Arabs on Partition.
What flaming bag of gold? Did Britain get preferential oil deals or something? Did they heck! What a load of rubbish.
The reason the settlers were stopped from getting into what was Palestine was simply to try and stop what is happening nowadays: two lots of people fighting for the same land. Some Jewish settlers wanted to come home after WW2, fair enough but there were settlers already on the land, Arabs, Jordanians, Palestinians call them what you will. And whose land was it before Moses got there?
So if the Carib Indians in South America, the first inhabitants of those nice Caribbean islands want their islands back do the current occupants have to leave and go back to Africa? Of course not!
Get a grip. Israel has a right to exist but the way you are ranting it appears you don’t think anyone else does and that the British caused the problem when they spent decades trying to solve it and get the hell out of there!
Real polling suggests that there are other factors – and the mainm one is the illegal immigration chaos
Followed closely by the price of gas?
Unbelievable:
reporter on Five Live’s Drive talking about Hamas putting armed thugs on the streets of Gaza:
“This is a government intent on exerting its authority in a robust manner”
to Dave.
1. everything I said above about the UK is facts (if you know what I mean), not “ranting” nor “load of rubbish
2. Gulf War, the main reason you were there is to defend Israel, otherwise Israel would have retaliated, which would have complicated the coalition forces stand re-the war supporting Arabs.
3. Wingate et al-correct, great people and so remembered,
4.all the rest, including “Some Jewish settlers wanted to come home after WW2”, total nonesense, too much rubbish to comment. You surely do not know the facts
Dave t
Yes and also the lands before the British took over administration were occupied by the Otoman Turkish Empire and lots of Germans. Israelis and Palistinians should both bare this in mind.
However Rachael makes my point for me about how Israelis now are seeing the role of the British in the middle east. This is to some extent a reaction to the BBC and the British and European medias long term propergander. Remember Rachael is a Jewish name and their is hardly any Jews in Britain that dont know someone settled in or travelling often to Israel.
May I add that my grandfather was attached to the 8th Army during 1941-1946. He spent most of his efforts after peace in 1945 assisting the settlement of Jews in Israel. Contary to orders, but these orders were frequently ignored by many in the forces.
The British people always did know whos side they were on. Even if our new socialist Labour government at the time did not. They did before the BBC and their state schooling got to them, anyway.