Orla Guerin’s truth.
“the more we walked, the worse it got… this town used to be home to 7000 people.”
Her report from the town of Bint Jbeil included an unmistakeable hint about prosecuting Israel for war crimes.
It’s a good job there are other sources. Drinking from Home has put her to shame, with the help of Channel Four’s Alex Thompson, who reported from the same town.
From Thompson we get the reality: “the centre of the town destroyed on a really wholesale scale, more so than since the last civilians left here, though it has to be said that on the outskirts, the suburbs – pretty much untouched by the Israeli attack and invasion.”
Hey, the outskirts, the suburbs- isn’t that where most people generally live? Yes indeed, Alex Thompson, it had to be said.
I agree with Ian Dale. The BBC Should Fire Orla Guerin.
(hat tip to Rog in the comments)
The above is me.
“You may not like Guerin, but she passes the test of factual reporting.”
Facts?
There is speculation and there are assumptions; oh, and there is a claim that Bint Jbeil has been “wiped out”. Yes, “wiped out” in the same way that Haifa has been “wiped out” (i.e. not).
Sorry, buddy: this report is crap. She is surveying the aftermath of a war-zone: there is not much to see, so she making a series of assumptions. There is – though to my biased ear – a tone of triumphalism in this report too.
Ed, It’s obvious, the BBC have devised a new method for calculating populations. Hence London has about 1 million inhabitants. Simple really.
“For George Bush, this is a bad chapter in the war on terror,” says Orla.
As far as I can tell, Orla is a cocking a snook at the US President and making a snide reference to the so-called ‘war on terror’.
Fine, but what does this tell us about the situation on the ground? What does it tell us about the events that led to this devastation? Hezbollah and their supporters are calling it a victory but what sort of losses has the organisation sustained? etc etc.
Tell me, how can a statement like this interpreted as a piece factual reporting?
So ORLA is back. Israelis must have a good chuckle if they bother watching the bbc. Do you know what ORLA means in Hebrew? Foreskin!
This report tells us one thing. It tells us that the BBC supports Hezb’Allah and Islamic terrorism against the west.
As much as I think Orla Guerin is biased, and am amazed that Channel Four News wasn’t, I suspect this is more sloppy reporting than actual bias.
I’m interested in the answers to a couple of questions.
1) Do you think that the general public in the UK are generally for or against Israel ?
2) My answer to the above question from personal experience is that they’re highly critical of Israel. Is this blogs premise that is because of biased reporting by the main news source i.e. the BBC ?
3) Follow on question that may not be relevant is that do you think this implies that the US media for example has a pro Israel bias since its assumed that it’s public supports Israel ?
4) Is the US public generally aware of the amount of their taxes spent there and do they support that ? It seems to be given scant mention in the press I see from there.
Thanks
Ralph | Homepage | 16.08.06 – 2:08 pm
…I suspect this is more sloppy reporting than actual bias.
More like sloppy in a biased way, ie her inner views mean that if she is sloppy it is sloppy in favour of hb.
A bit like in vino veritas without the alcohol.
I still think she knew she was lying.
walker
1. My feeling is a quarter for and a quarter against; half don’t have strong opinions. However, it should be noted that almost 3 times as many people read the Times and Telegraph (broadly supportive of Israel) as read the Guardian and Independent (invariably critical of Israel). However, perhaps crucially, the BBC is unequivocally in the latter camp.
2. In my experience those who are anti-Israel tend to be of the loud-mouth variety. For example in my local paper there have been about 8 letters criticising Israel recently, none supportive. I have written supportive letters in the past, but these invariably get vitriolic replies. I think those (usually affiliated to Stop the War or PSO) who write these letters write a lot of them. The same people write letters to the local paper about environmental issues, global warming and the “evils” of America. They also seem to get their photos in the local paper (e.g. getting on a coach bound for the latest Stop the War demo). Those supportive of Israel tend to be quieter and less “in your face”.
3. I think the US media is not that different from ours in terms of Israel coverage.
4. Probably not aware, but then they would not be aware of the amount of their money sent to the Palestinian territories or to Egypt.
Walker,
In my experience most of the general public don’t give a toss either way. Of those that do most who aren’t Jewish or Muslim come down in the middle of recognising that as a democratic state in a region of despots Isreal should be supported but also that some of the Arab hostility has a reasonable basis. There’s only a small minority of those that aren’t affiliated by religion of nationality who are hardcore “supporters” of either “side” – unfortunately the noisiest and most visible.
So from that perspective I don’t think the Beeb’s bias such as it is does much more than stir up a bit of worry from the non political humanitarians. The background it provides (or doesn’t) is too scarce to do otherwise and too complex for most to grasp anyway.
Dunno about the US.
Only slightly OT:
The 1976 film “Nashville” by Robert Altman featured Geraldine Chaplin as the character “Opal from the BBC”.
In one scene Opal is wandering around an American (yellow) school bus parking lot on a quiet Sunday morning and speaking into a tape recorder for a radio feature she is preparing for the BBC:
OPAL:
The buses!
The buses are empty….
and look almost menacing… threatening,
as so many yellow dragons watching me….
with their hollow vacant eyes.
I wonder how many little black and white children have yellow nightmares,
their own special brand of fear for the yellow peril.
….I can’t have… I can’t start….
Damn it, it’s got to be more positive.
No, more negative.
Start again.
Yellow is the color of caution.
No.
Yellow is the color of cowardice.
Yellow is the color of sunshine.
And yet I see very little sunshine in the lives of all the little black and white children.
I see their lives, rather, as a study in grayness, a mixture of black and….
Oh, Christ, no. That’s fascist.
Yellow!
Yellow, yellow, yellow.
Yellow fever….
Yellow…
SCENE FADES OUT
Dunno about the US.
Cockney | 16.08.06 – 2:54 pm
You dont know about the UK either.
There is no reasonable basis for arab hostility to Israel and any such perception is an artefact of the beeb and other tv channels continual anti-Israeli propoganda.
Thanks for your comments,
It’s perceived that the UK + US are “out of line” with rest of the world opinion of the war in Lebanon say (being the only two not to call for a ceasefire).
I tend to agree that most people don’t really bother too much about the middle east, but wonder whether the current ‘politicisation’ of people on the matter might be more a reaction against unpopular leaders (bush and blair) and their attempts to paint a naive picture of alomst any global struggle as being a battle of good (UK + US) and evil (see for example Blairs recent “arc of extremism” speech).
Anyone who has sympathies with any group deemed to be ‘terrorist’ for example chechen seperatist (probably don’t any longer following beslan etc though) would be lead to believe that they are part of a wider islamic extremist threat. I wonder whether you think this causes people to look more sympathetically at other ’causes’ who are villified by bush and blair ? Leading to the conclusion that UK + US policy maker have got it wrong. Combined with the BBC coverage people get themselves whipped into a frenzy over it all and pin the blame on Israel.
GB – bollocks. Any reasonably impartial reading of history would tell you that. Doesn’t excuse their being hopelessly impoverished and backward dictatorships in 2006 though hence why most sane people at least have sympathy for Israel.
@Eustoned
“Wiped Out” in the context of air raids means something like parts of London during the Blitz, or most of Germany after the War.
Israeli’s are experts at pinpoint bombings
walker –
It’s perceived that the UK + US are “out of line” with rest of the world opinion of the war in Lebanon say (being the only two not to call for a ceasefire).
Phew, that’s a relief. It’s when the UN supports us we should be worried.
Anyone who has sympathies with any group deemed to be ‘terrorist’ for example chechen seperatist (probably don’t any longer following beslan etc though) would be lead to believe that they are part of a wider islamic extremist threat. I wonder whether you think this causes people to look more sympathetically at other ’causes’ who are villified by bush and blair ? Leading to the conclusion that UK + US policy maker have got it wrong. Combined with the BBC coverage people get themselves whipped into a frenzy over it all and pin the blame on Israel.
Now most people in here would have me down as a sane voice of sanity, one who looks at an issue from both sides before arriving at a considered position. Having done this I can tell you that what you are seeing is the same old anti-western drivel from the the same old left wing filth. These people campaigned for us to unilaterally disarm whilst hoping for the Soviet Union to win the Cold War.
Having seen their Moscow paymasters lose, the marxists have cast around for another contender and their eyes have fallen on the camel jockeys. Now remember, the left has long campaigned for and on behalf of wimmin and homos. So, when you see Mayor Livingstone share a stage with and embrace Sheik Yusuf Quaradawi, a man who explains why a husband should beat his wife and for homos to be killed because of their ‘crime’, you have to say – “what the -?”
It’s a war for civilisation going on here, and the left has always backed the other side. They hate individuality, individual freedom and an individual free to live his life as he sees fit. That’s why the left always backs the totalitarian horse.
The southern Beirut suburbs were the Hizballah stronghold – apparently the rest of Beirut is untouched. Some reports talk about an area of 12 city blocks or one square kilometer of Beirut only being affected.
Biodegradable | 15.08.06 – 7:02 pm
See here: http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2006/08/targeted_bombar.html and here: http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2006/08/rebuilding_leba.html
I agree with cockney.
The problem as I see it is that in an attempt to unite arabs against israel, many groups which may have started life 50 years ago as being justifiably angry with the way events had panned out are now full of fanatics who regard what essentially began as a local dispute over land into a clash of civilisations. It’s a mess. It becomes harder for an independant observer to locate reasonable voices on “the other side” who can be negotiated with. That doesn’t mean we should stop trying. It disgusts me to see Bush and Blair doing just the same as the extremists on the other side and telling us all that this actually is a clash of good and evil and we must spread our values etc and there are no legitimate voices to be heard on the other side.
I think it’s this sort of perspective that people react to and what manifests itself as anti-israeli feeling really stems from aetheists who hear talk of clashes of civilisation on both sides and regard the conflict as a religious dispute where dogma ultimately exists as the backbone of both sides of the argument.
yankeemychain – I watched some of Nasville for the first time a couple of weeks ago.
The BBC character was portrayed as an insensitive, pushy (cos she’s BBC), know all/know nowt, snob.
Wonder what the BBC had done to get up Altman’s nose? He could be an honorary member of this site.
walker –
It becomes harder for an independant observer to locate reasonable voices on “the other side” who can be negotiated with.
Do tell us, how can you negotiate with “We will kill all Jews”? Nazrullah, the very hairy leader of Hizballah, once siad that he’s grateful that all the Jews have gathered in Israel, as it means they won’t have to look all over the world from them.
One thing which will prolong this is the view in the West that there is something to negotiate with. When is comes to Jews, they want them dead. When it comes to the rest of us dirty kuffir infidels, we submit to Islam or we die. There is nothing to negotiate over.
Cockney | 16.08.06 – 3:21 pm
GB – bollocks.
Obviously no point in attempting a debate with you then.
Pete_London | 16.08.06 – 3:38 pm
I think you can summarise left wing ideology in regard to the Jews as: We didn’t complete the job on our first attempt (we only got 6million of you) but we’re supporting the arabs with plan B and we’ve got the beeb onside with plan C.
but Pete_london – what is the solution, all out war ? You admit yourself that many of the “presidents” who make these statements head up unelected govts. They don’t represent the people whom they govern and bombing them only serves to strengthen their argument that the west is trying to occupy their lands. Although you may find this controversial, much of the violence of these fanatics is infact targeted against countries who they perceive to be trying to expand their ideals. If it were about “infidel” behavior surely they would bomb Amsterdam and get it over with. Hizbollah had a fairly uncontorversial fouding doctrine which was to liberate palestine from not only Israel but other occupying forces and to establish a govt which was of the peoples choosing, it even said it didn’t advocate an islamic state. The only reference I could find to the “Israel must be destroyed” stuff was on the ICT website. Debate goes on as to whether they actually always were or even do want to utterly destroy Israel as most realise that it’s impossible.
The danger is I’m afraid that talk of “clas of civilisations” sounds like it comes from fanatics. It’s known that hizbollah are hostile towards al-quaeda but as far as the bush and blair are concerned they’re one and the same thing.
gordon_bennet : I’m sure that you don’t really beleive that madness and statements like that do nothing for any debate. The BBC want to massacre the jews, what a waste of a post.
I would like to pick up on pounce’s point above – 1108 Lebanese were killed, the overwhelming majority civilians, they say. Well what I wonder (and what a decent news agency should be able to tell me) is: how many of these 1108 (a surprisingly exact figure) were Hezbollah? If “none” or “a very small number”, then either I don’t believe you or there are undisclosed Hezb casualty figures. Also the IDF seems to have lost about 100 servicemen and women – bearing in mind the typical ratios in battle between real soldiers and rabble, one would expect actual Hezb casualties to be anything from 500 upwards. So a lot more probing on the make-up of those 1108, please.
Secondly, 1108 dead (though of course a terrible figure in general human terms) is an incredibly, astonishingly and remarkably small figure if the southern half of Lebanon has actually been reduced to rubble. Could the BBC comment on this?
Finally, one might reflect that, during the 28-day period of this “war”, something like 1800 people, mainly Muslims, were killed by other Muslims in Baghdad alone.
Perhaps the main aim of the IDF hasn’t been to kill as many Lebanese civilians as possible, after all, eh BBC?
GB, sorry that indeed wasn’t particularly enlightening. Your statement was…
“There is no reasonable basis for arab hostility to Israel and any such perception is an artefact of the beeb and other tv channels continual anti-Israeli propaganda.”
Whatever overiding justification for Isreali behaviour there may be in the context of the overall situation I think that;
A previous occupant of the land now constituting Israel forcefully ejected from that land during the creation of the state;
A civilian whose relations were killed/property destroyed by collateral damage arising from Israeli military action;
A civilian whose property was forcefully annexed for the purposes of providing security to Isreali settlements or constructing the security wall;
Then I be pretty reasonably p*ssed off by developments without needing recourse to the BBC or Al-J to tell me to be.
ed –
“You agree with me that Orla’s figures and her words don’t match, thereby misleading viewers around the world. I am sure you will join me then in calling Orla Guerin a liar.”
As I’m sure you’re aware, I most certainly DON’T agree with you. She was clear in the impact of the conflict on the town, and how many it had effected.
Anonymous –
“Given that dear Orla is married to an Egyptian/Palestinian, how can it be considered possible for her to give a balanced account of the Middle East? How stupid do the BBC think we are?”
Firstly – she isn’t married to a Palestinian, nor an Egyptian. Her husband is French, if possibly a little swarthy for some tastes here.
Secondly – let’s turn this around. Would you allow for balance from a Jewish owned newspaper, or from a Jewish journalist – say Mike Wallace?
This is just the kind of kneejerk racism/bigotry that shows up stupidity very nicely thank you.
“1108 dead (though of course a terrible figure in general human terms) is an incredibly, astonishingly and remarkably small figure if the southern half of Lebanon has actually been reduced to rubble. Could the BBC comment on this?”
I can’t speak for the BBC, but I haven’t seen them claim anywhere that the “southern half of Lebanon has been reduced to rubble”.
I doubt anyone know the exact figure of dead in Lebanon yet, and there’s certainly no-one who can provide an accurate figure for how many are Hizbullah fighters. Judging from the acknowledged screw-ups in IDF/IAF targeting, it might be lower than you imagine (and I’d wager it’s nothing near 500)
Lets just see this amazing post again.
———————————
From Wikipedia:
“Guerin left RTÉ to run as a Labour Party (Ireland) candidate in the 1994 elections to the European parliament.”
From the Labour party (Ireland web site):
“The destruction of the lives of civilians in Israel has to be condemned unequivocally. The response of Israel however, supported by the most powerful country in the world, is OUTRAGEOUS both in terms of the killing and injuring of civilians and the destruction of civilian infrastructure, which is occurring in such fashion as to make impossible the delivery of humanitarian relief by the United Nations and its agencies.”
Given that dear Orla is married to an Egyptian/Palestinian, how can it be considered possible for her to give a balanced account of the Middle East? How stupid do the BBC think we are?
And, just for a laugh, go and see what the youth section of Orla’s old party are up to:-
http://www.labour.ie/youth/news/ …0712195438.html
http://www.labour.ie/youth/ campa…0908125109.html
Al:
It is not “balance” to say you can get prejudice from another source. The problem is BBC is publicly funded (they take every year from the British tax payer almost _3_ times as much as the US gives to Israel, about which they are so indignant), and claim to be neutral when it is extremely clear they are very left wing.
If they want to be so left wing that is fine, but extorting the British public to support it and claiming they are neutral, that is not so fine.
When I used to complain about something I frequently didn’t even get a response. Now I don’t even bother complaining.
They really need something done at the board level. Some life long Tory figures need to be appointed and given real executive power to make changes. All reporters should have to give their answers to very political questions, then some balance should have to be kept across the answers. Tough yes but the current situation is utterly out of hand. The British public are spoon fed their opinions by this organisation instead of simply being told ALL the facts.
Orla Guerin hates Israel and is used as a principle reporter on Middle East issues. Doesn’t that ring some alarm bells for you ? Do you really think that all the complaints, her exagerations, her factual omissions and her always anti-Israel emotive emissions are just some weird aspect of BBC quality and non-partisan coverage ? It’s ridiculous.
Sorry al, I was guilty of overstating the case. You are almost certainly right that the BBC hasn’t claimed in those specific terms that the “southern half of Lebanon has been reduced to rubble”.
But looking at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4795109.stm
or
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4797719.stm
might have been responsible for fooling me into this misunderstanding…
I got the figure of 1108 from a BBC TV broadcast, so it must be true and accurate.
Could you maybe say why you think that nobody can provide an accurate figure for the number of dead Hizb “fighters”? Couldn’t be because they dress in civilian clothes and mix in among civilians, by any chance…?
And finally, “the acknowledged screw-ups in IDF/IAF targeting” – could we have a reference for that?
Many thanks and sorry again for over-egging the pudding. I now fully accept that the southern half of Lebanon hasn’t been reduced to rubble.
One day you will understand that the BBC is not a domestic broadcaster feeding into British homes. That is the captive market.
BBC now thinks it is global so tailors its news to a global audience – it strips out local references – Britain is now “UK”, it talks of “militants” of “fighters” because it wants to seem ‘neutral’ when it supplies feed into Arab stations – it used to specify reports for “Six O’Clock News” but no longer – since Birt it is all a digital package to be used, cut, edited, and digitally bundled to other users.
You still think it is you that it is aimed at – far more likely it is being sold on to Muslim audiences in Indonesia or Chinese satellite channels.
Orla Guerin’s husband works for Reuters in Baghdad – she probably has her stuff pooled at Al-Jazeera where BBC now has a News-JV.
You really must understand that for the BBC this is business
Its comapare and contrast time again!
BBC: Lebanon approves army deployment
(Note: “Hezbollah” is only mentioned in the very last sentence of the report)
Vs.
Jerusalem Post: Hizbullah: Disarmament not on agenda
See also: Lebanese PM Siniora is in no position to guarantee the disarming of Hizballah as stipulated by France and other donors of Lebanon peacekeepers
Like I said, it ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings…
Its compare and contrast time…
Ok somebody help me here;
Is this woman;
In the flattened town of Bint Jbeil, some wounded elderly residents unable to flee had spent 10 days stuck with the dead and injured.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41436000/jpg/_41436569_bintjbielinjuredafp220.jpg
the same as this woman;
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41436000/jpg/_41436585_survivorbintjbeil416.jpg
taken from;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/4795109.stm
cassander – yes, you link to a BBC report with the sub-heading “Utter devastation”. It’s easy to fall into the trap that there is utter devastation.
“It is not “balance” to say you can get prejudice from another source.”
Never said it was. I’m pointing out the blinkered bigotry that assumes a marital connection to a Palestinian or Egyptian equates to an automatic bias. I’m pretty sure Mike wallace can retain his journalistic neutrality on issues relating to the M.E. despite his religion.
I also dispute your view as to a left-wing bias on the part of the beeb, and that the British public is spoonfed from any source. Credit people with a bit more savvy than that.
cassander –
“I got the figure of 1108 from a BBC TV broadcast, so it must be true and accurate.”
It’s a fluid situation – who knows how many more bodies will be unearthed or show up alive.
“Could you maybe say why you think that nobody can provide an accurate figure for the number of dead Hizb “fighters”? ”
Because the IDF have no idea, but are likely to inflate the actual number, and Hizbullah aren’t likely to A. know for sure, and B. provide a credible answer given the propaganda war underway.
“Couldn’t be because they dress in civilian clothes and mix in among civilians, by any chance…?”
That’s obviously a factor. Most insurgency/resistence/guerilla group do. Did the Irgun wear uniforms or barrack themselves away from the civilian population? Did the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan? This ‘cowardly’ meme doing the rounds has a selective memory.
“the acknowledged screw-ups in IDF/IAF targeting”
http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/ap/2006/08/02/ap2923719.html
Then there was the self-conceeded mistaken IAF attack on the convoy of cars, and the claim by Olmert to Kofi Annan that the targetting of the UN post and death of 4 UN soldiers was “a mistake”.
Rick –
“Britain is now “UK””
You DO understand the distinction? Britian was never the UK. The beeb can’t change that fact.
walker | 16.08.06 – 4:49 pm
The BBC want to massacre the jews, what a waste of a post.
I didn’t say that or intend to mean that.
However, I do think the beeb helps the arab cause by creating a climate in which it will be acceptable to attack Israel and wipe them out.
That in the end is what all the pro-hb and anti-Israel propoganda leads to. That is what I mean by plan C.
Having watched Orla’s report from southern Lebanon on Wednesday’s 6 o’clock news it seemed that someone had tightened her leash and reined in him blantant bias — at least a little.
will –
“you link to a BBC report with the sub-heading “Utter devastation”. It’s easy to fall into the trap that there is utter devastation.”
Indeed – a report that many refugees are returning to the utter devastation of their homes and shops (which I’m assuming you don’t dispute?) – which would help explain the low mortality count that cassander insinuated should have been greater for the infrastructural damage.
Cockney | 16.08.06 – 5:04 pm
2 points.
1. When referring to the beeb and other tv channels I was talking about their effect on UK citizens. That was the context of the debate.
2. Israel was founded under UN approval and turned a desert into a garden. (The palis by contrast, despite record amounts of aid money continue to live in slum conditions. When Israel pulled out of Gaza the palis were given the gift of some greenhouses they could have developed but they smashed them to smithereens.) If the palis want to go on picking away at their scabs their wounds will never be healed. If they have any sort of a case they should pursue it by legal and diplomatic means and not by terror.
“I also dispute your view as to a left-wing bias on the part of the beeb”
Alas there is no hope then. Their years of advertising job vacancies almost exclusively in the Grauniad, the support of New Labour (pre-Iraq at least) by its board, the affiliations of its journalists etc… all count for nothing apparantly. The cries from the right about them being very biased are also just coincidence. The broad absence of perpetual claims of bias by the left, also coincidence.
A lot of people on the left can’t see the bias, because it’s largely their opinions being reflected and they of course see themselves as bias free.
The few on the right (ie conservatives) who say they (usually) can’t see it are the europhile + more critical of israel side of the party. Again no surprise.
1. All media post advertising is in the Guardian. Even the most died-in-the-wool Tory knows that that’s where the media jobs are advertised.
2. The journalist’s affiliation? To the NUJ you mean? Sinister stuff!
3. You’ll also note the cries from the left/any other lobbying group you care to mention. It’s also woth noting that the right-wing are ideologically opposed to publically funded broadcasting, so whatever the content of the BBC, they are going to complain about them anyway.
4. So let me get this straight. If you don’t cry Bias! at the beeb, you’re either A. a lefty, or B. a fake conservative? Nice neat little packages you’ve summoned up there.
Wait a minute, al – you are linking to a report about the famous bombing of a building in Qana (actually just outside) as evidence of “the acknowledged screw-ups in IDF/IAF targeting”? In order to show that the IDF hasn’t really killed that many Hezbollah terrorists?
The IDF statement (in “acknowledging the screw-up”) indeed restated their policy thus: “Had the information indicated that civilians were present … the attack would not have been carried out”.
In other words, where the Hezb live up to the “‘cowardly’ meme” and hide behind civilian human shields, the IDF does not attack them. The IDF does not deliberately attack civilians (unlike some others).
(There are lots of interesting other aspects to this particular event, as I’m sure you know. Not least that the number of dead bodies removed from the building was half the 56 first reported and still usually quoted.)
As a consequence, there remains a big question mark over who these 1108 dead Lebanese actually are, which was my point from the start. What other massacres of civilians must there have been, which have gone remarkably unreported, in order to add up to this figure, if it doesn’t include the Hezb?
(And yes, I do appreciate that this cannot possibly be an exact or final figure. I was trying sarcasm but it’s hard to do in writing 🙂 )
Cockney –
A previous occupant of the land now constituting Israel forcefully ejected from that land during the creation of the state;
Wrong. On the very day that Israel was created (by the sancted UN’s mandate)on three tiny bits of unconnected land, five Arab armies invaded. According to the UN, 472,000 Arabs fled to escape the fighting, in anticipation of returning after the anticipated slaughter of the Jews. Unfortunately for them, that particular story had a happy ending.
It’s very simple: when you start a war and you lose, you get a loser’s settlement.
cassander –
You miss the point. Demonstrably the IDF/IAF targetting was not what it should have been. If it had been better you would expect either lower civilian casualties or higher Hizbullah casualties. Neither you, nor I know how many Hizbullah fighters were killed, but I’d not bank on it being a particularly high proportion. Time will tell.
There’s no need for ‘secret’ massacres btw. A simple month long, and gradual killing spree builds up to a thousand dead without any ‘spectacles’ like Qana in ’96.
Walker,
If your only way to an agreement is compromise and consensus, they the best way to get what you want is to move to the extremes to move the “average”.
There are times for compromise, but even off to compromise with islamofascists is lunacy.
It’s very simple: when you start a war and you lose, you get a loser’s settlement.
Pete_London | 16.08.06 – 7:25 pm | #
Correct hence why Alsace Lorraine keeps changing hands twixt the French and the Germans for example, Poland another. So why ain’t the Beeb whinging about that? And as we’ve already said countless times Israel existed BEFORE Palestine etc and was only removed from the maps after the Crusades/imposition of the Caliphate etc. Jordan Iran and Iraq to name but three were all created by the UK/French carve up of the Middle East after WW1 yet no-one seems to question their right to exist by dint of conquest etc….in fact since Belgium serves no use whatsoever and never has done should that ridiculous country not be split back between France and the Netherlands? Many countries such as Israel actually have more right in history etc to exist than most of the EU!