Please use this thread for comments about the BBC’s current programming and activities. This post will remain at or near the top of the blog – scroll down for new topic-specific posts. N.B. this is not an invitation for general off-topic comments, rants or chit-chat. Thoughtful comments are encouraged. Comments may be moderated.
Anonymous…..’NIT PICKING’.I’m afraid I must disagree with you on this point.It is coordinated bias by the BBC.
Martin…..Further to your post on that mayo programme this afternoon.Mayo and his two guests were discussing ‘gas guzzlers’and how they are contributing to the end of the world.Now which gas guzzling vehicle did they highlight?A BMW, no,Bugatti,no,Bently,Rolls Royce,Range Rover,Maserati?Oh no.That smug little twerp mayo said “that ridiculous American ,military vehcle the Hummer”.No bias there then.I also noticed no opposing views to the points the guests were making.Get this tripe off the radio!
You don’t genuinely believe this blog or its posters either track or are remotely interested in right wing bias at the BBC do you?
p and a tale of one chip | 21.01.08 – 4:10 pm |
thats like telling us to go find a jabberwocky.
John Reith
If that post was a forgery you only need to alert the moderators.
They are very strict on personation and will delete the offending post and ban the poster.
I have to assume that this has not happened for a reason unless you show me otherwise.
p and a tale of one chip
I do say that it is about all bias.
All bias includes many things and not just left wing right wing.
You wear BBC blinkers if you think that is all this is about.
You should also be aware that merely stating an opinion as you have done does not convert that to being a fact, that includes whether it is from you, meant to be ‘humourous’ or if it is from the BBC.
I know that I do not limit myself to political left wing bias.
B-BBC, unlike the BBC has no organisation, charter or agenda.
I cannot speak for all the individuals and I do not wish to.
I agree a majority of posters, though by no means all, seem to highlight left wing bias, but perhaps that is also because there are more instances of that type of bias.
What does not hold water is your equating B-BBC as somehow the nemesis of the BBC with a similar organisation and resources.
It is not, it cannot be and that is no bad thing.
Jeff D: Yes it was the usual US bashing. I just wonder how many gas guzzling 4X4’s we would find in the BBC car park?
Oh and Arnie has a Hummer, although it goes run on gas not petrol.
Just how many Hummers are in the UK? A few hundred I suspect. If people want to own one and pay the tax on it what is the problem?
I’m getting fed up with Simon Nu Labour lover Mayo and his liberal bias.
Ben: The point is that it’s TAXES that make fuel expensive, not the lack of it, or the cost of getting it out of the ground.
If our fat grubby corrupt lying cheating unwashed untrustworthy politicians stopped spending taxes like children in a sweet shop we might not need such high taxes.
What these arseholes forget is that if you put up taxes on fuel it has a knock on effect on everything else.
I still maintain that the liberal media lie about the cost of fuel. They should tell us the TRUE price at the pump BEFORE taxes.
Petrol would be about 20p a litre, that is cheaper than beer and most spirits.
The real vile lie on the Mayo show today was these two liberal arseholes suggesting that somehow if you were a person who didn’t save energy in the future you would be seen as a “bad person”
Jesus ****ing H Christ. A bad person?
What go to prison because you left your bedroom light on?
Typical leftie scum on the BBC. They love to let rapists and child molesters out on the streets, but leave a light on and bang you’re gonna get locked up.
This Country has gone mad.
Ah, another day another example of contorted Beeb-speak.
They want to impress upon their readers that there were no rockets before Israel launched an attack. They also don’t want the readers to know that 14 out of 18 were “millitants”.
So here is how they put it:
“More than 200 rockets and mortars have hit Israel from Gaza since an Israeli operation against militants on Tuesday that left 18 Palestinians dead, the Israeli military says.”
What is it that “Israeli military says” here, we are left to guess:
1. “More than 200 rockets and mortars hit Israel”
2. Israeli operations against militants on Tuesday that left 18 Palestinians dead (almost certainly the figure came from Gaza, since they have the bodies, not from Israel)
3. The contorted combination of 1. and 2. that BBC is using to put words into Israel’s military mouth. Words I am certain they never uttered.
Come on, just put the quotes and report exactly what everyone says and a part of the accusations of bias will go.
Above is from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7201061.stm
“If you think your quoting of constantly quoting B’Tselem is giving you “unbias” points, you are dead wrong. B’Tselem is a group with an agenda. Just like Code Pink is in the US.” (Alan)
I find it interesting that our own British Foreign and Commonwealth office are donors to this organisation….
I also find it interesting that they say:
“B’Tselem regularly provides Knesset members with information on human rights violations in the Occupied Territories, and injustices caused by Israeli authorities.”
If they are independent then why do they not also tell us about human rights violations committed by the PA/Hamas/Fatah in equal quantity etc? They even admit this:
“B’Tselem does not distinguish between violations committed by Israel and those committed by the Palestinian Authority. The organization monitors the activities of the Palestinian Authority affecting human rights and deals in its publications with severe violations by the Palestinian Authority. However, as an Israeli organization, the majority of its efforts is directed at violations committed by our government on behalf of all of us.”
I’m sorry John but this smacks of another mob with an anti Israeli agenda…and their last activities report says NOTHING about PA violations.
So what is needed is this mob AND another lot that report PA violations to get a BALANCED picture.
That is all we want – BALANCE so WE can make OUR minds up. You report WE decide…hmm I’ve heard that one before somewhere…
Roland Thompson-Gunner:
How does anyone here know who is posting in their own time? I hope no-one else here who works in the private sector is using the firm’s time and the population at large having to fund it via its pricing stucture needing to cover staff costs.
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 21.01.08 – 5:15 pm | #
Roland the Brainless….
I guess you beeboids are all economic illiterates ‘cos you never have to worry about where the money comes from.
Back in the real world it works like this:-
1.Sloppy managers let staff goof around at work, leading to…
2.Organisation’s cost base increases, leading to…
3.Product price increases to cover costs, leading to…..
4.Customers buy more competitive products/services, leading to…
5.Organisation goes bust, leading to…
6.Goofing employees end up at Job Centre after useful learning experience.
It’s called real life – you should try it sometime.
“B-BBC, unlike the BBC has no organisation, charter or agenda
[emphasis mine]
Nurse, please pass the needle and thread immediately! My sides have split.
Perhaps I need to spell it out: the prevailing view both among the moderators and the commenters on this blog is that the BBC is variously anti Tory, pro Labour, especially pro-Labour, anti-Israel, pro Islam, pro green, anti American, pro Democrat.
I must have missed the posts decrying unflattering pictures of Gordon Brown or decrying some minute semantic detail that gave succour to the Israelis at the expense of the Palestinians.
Of course, the fact that no evidence can be found across the range of the BBC’s output to the contrary isn’t because the entirely neutral and objective observers of B-BBC have an agenda.
No, it’s entirely the BBC’s fault. Past form dictates that anybody disagreeing with this inalieable facts is either an idiot, a BBC employee, a shill and is certainly a leftist, or all of the above. They’re quite possibly muslim, and if so are certainly secretly rubbing their hands at the establishment of the caliphate in Croydon.
“Past form dictates that anybody disagreeing with this inalieable facts is either an idiot, a BBC employee, a shill and is certainly a leftist, or all of the above. They’re quite possibly muslim, and if so are certainly secretly rubbing their hands at the establishment of the caliphate in Croydon.”
So which one of these are you?
And if you think B-BBC is a fringe group with an clear agenda, than why do you spend all this time reading through 253 posts on this thread alone?
Martin:
Jeff D: Yes it was the usual US bashing. I just wonder how many gas guzzling 4X4’s we would find in the BBC car park?
Martin
Lots – is the answer.
When the Volvo XC90 was the “must have” chelsea tractor – Jeremy Clarkson wrote that Alan Yentob (BBC Creative Director) had pleaded with him to help beat the waiting list.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/bbcpioneers/
All bought on the BBC’s in house “Mydrive” subsidised car scheme of course.
Open to all employees, any car you like, delivered to your door, discounted price, no credit checks.
It’s a wonderful life on the licence fee!
http://www.alphabet.com/uk/ManagedStorage/RenderAssets/Core/default.aspx?cid=3157
“if you think B-BBC is a fringe group with an clear agenda, than why do you spend all this time reading through 253 posts on this thread alone?”
Firstly, fringe group is your term, not mine. Personally I’m not sure what fringe strictly means in these days of web 2.0, or even that “fringe” is an especially useful term.
It’s interesting that you feel that disagreeing with something should automatically mean that you don’t think it’s worth reading.
‘Fringe’, perhaps. But I discuss the BBC’s bias with my friends and colleagues and they are getting the picture. The colossus is being undermined.
Firstly, fringe group is your term, not mine. Personally I’m not sure what fringe strictly means in these days of web 2.0, or even that “fringe” is an especially useful term.
You are correct about it, for better or worse, Internet is empowering what used to be fringe groups, from radical Islamists to BNP.
Whether fringe or not, B-BBC is an interest group – devoted to pointing out instances of BBC bias.
It is hardly a question of disagreement, however, as you put it.
I think that from the inside BBC is not a monolith. But from the outside some voices are certainly heard more than the others. Things accumulate – each out of context sentence, like that about Czech’s being “conservative and traditional” accumulates.
Ignoring it all, proclaiming that BBC is not biased causes many people to question one’s motives.
Andrew Marr eh?
What a dirty bugger.
John Reith Spins – I’m not a “beeboid”, although I do think people using the term and “al-Beeb” make fools of themselves in front of intelligent readers of the blog. Your prerogatve.
My point is that it’s absurd for anyone to say Smith or Jones is wasting his/her employer’s money if they post here from the office of a publicly funded organization, but fail to grasp that the same applies if you post from work whoever is paying your salary.
It’s not wasting employers money Headless,it is stealing,unless it is done under the auspices of one’s employer.
Fundamentally,all I’m interested in is whether the BBC sanctions those who make the comments,or if the license tax payers are being robbed.
I have no interest in whether Megablogs Ltd is being ripped off,that is a matter for their own internal management.
It is no coincidence that while the BBC has been repeating it anti-British, anti-Israel tv programme on the history of ‘Palestine’ over the past hour ( BBC 4), in exactly the same hour it has not been the BBC, but Channel 4 tv which has broadcast a critique of Livingstone’s record as London mayor; interestingly, the reporter was Martin Bright of the ‘New Statesman’ who did a fine demolition job. (For those with access, the Channel 4 programme is screened again on Channel 4+1, Sky 135.)
Just watched a brilliant ‘Dispatches ‘programme(Channel 4),which ripped red Ken Livingstone to pieces.I wonder if the Beeb has something similar in the pipeline?I think not.
jeffd – Nope, the BBC doesn’t really do documentaries any more. Despatches has done some great progs – Muslim extremism, Red Ken, and next week, violent crime.
All topics the BBC regards as taboo.
I just started watching the first segment of the BBC documentary “Clash of Worlds: Britain and Palestine”. I was able to stomach the parts where they portray the British as treacherous, mistrusting sods (except Lawrence) who promised every single Arab constituency in the entire Middle East that they would be liberated from the Turks and given self rule. And I stayed calm up to the point where it became apparent that, according to the BBC, the root mistake that started all of this was the failure to create one giant pan-Arab Muslim state under one ruler.
When I stop laughing, I’ll try to watch the rest of it.
But I discuss the BBC’s bias with my friends and colleagues and they are getting the picture. The colossus is being undermined.
Allan@Oslo | 21.01.08 – 7:16 pm | #
Bet you’re a barrel of laughs down the pub…
As mentioned above; Channel 4 produced an excellent Dispatches which minced Comrade Ken and his band of Commie-lites; what an excellet subject this would have been for Panorama. But alas, you won’t find Beeboid researchers leading an investigation into the profligate waste of millions of pounds of taxpayers money.
Not when their own organisation does exactly the same thing.
My point is that it’s absurd for anyone to say Smith or Jones is wasting his/her employer’s money if they post here from the office of a publicly funded organization, but fail to grasp that the same applies if you post from work whoever is paying your salary.
Roland Thompson-Gunner | 21.01.08 – 8:26 pm | #
Roland the brainless..
You really don’t get it – do you.
There is a huge moral and economic difference between an employee stealing from a private employer or stealing from the state.
A private sector employer has to stand or fall on its skill in hiring and managing people. If it fails and hires dishonest staff the enterprise eventually fails and another succeeds in its place.
Public sector organisations have no market mechanism to weed them out and therefore can’t fail. If people cheat them the loss can continue indefinitely and has to be borne by all taxpayers – rich or poor.
Defrauding the public purse has always been regarded more severely in law.
Amazing that all the World Service’s Tim Franks could come up with today on Gaza was, in this order:
a) Life is tough in Gaza – power cuts, bread queues.
b) Israeli PM Ehud Olmert says Gazans wont have life easy while Israelis are being rocketed.
c) Life is tough in Gaza – doctors fear for the health of their patients.
Elsewhere on the World Service we hear that Israel is hoping the power cuts will turn Gazans against Hamas. But they don’t mention that Fatah is hoping for exactly the same thing:
Palestinian Authority officials in Ramallah expressed hope that the looming humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip would prompt Palestinians to turn against the Hamas government.
“We hope the residents of the Gaza Strip will now realize that Hamas has only brought disaster upon them,” a senior PA official told The Jerusalem Post. “The only way to resolve the crisis is by getting rid of Hamas.”
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1200572496382&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Ah, but wait. Later on the World Service mentions that Olmert also said that he doesn’t want to cause a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Now if they would mention the 43 people who were allowed into Israel from Gaza today for medical treatment and ponder the possibility of Egypt getting off its collective butt and helping its Arab brothers in Gaza with humanitarian aid, the BBC might almost start sounding like a reputable news organization.
I must be feeling optimistic tonight.
Meanwhile Honest Reporting helps expose the myth of Israel being responsible for the power cuts:
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/new/Lights_On,_Nobody_Home.asp
That’s clearly a forgery. Not the first time someone’s appropriated my identity here.
John Reith | 21.01.08 – 4:15 pm
Yes, clearly, Reith. I suppose you are going to tell us we can see the difference in the font if we look closely.
As for some of the other posters here, I can only say grow up, the BBC does many things very well, and yet I find no comments of support.
London | 20.01.08 – 7:39 pm
We do try to give the BBC credit where it is due. I have posted a number of instances of reasonable journalism from the BBC. I thought of filing them in a BBC OK file and occasionally dipping into it to make a point here but I decided that wasn’t a good idea. I don’t want to jeopardise the future of the few remaining unbiased journalists at the BBC. It wont do them any good at all to be praised by B-BBC. Rather let them work on quietly.
I say this in all seriousness.
People were complaining that there is nothing good ever told about the BBC on this board.
As I mentioned before, I think this article to be fair
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7200194.stm
Not pro-Israel, not pro-Palestinian, not distorting what people said. Accurately presents what is driving Israelis to do what they do. Accurately stating that there is an element of Hamas PR stunt in the power outage. After presenting the facts, it leaves to the reader to judge as to the morality of Israel’s response, etc. It doesn’t report what is going in Sderot in the past two weeks, but that can be left for another article if it ever appears.
John Reith,
I thought my posts demonstrated pretty clearly how the BBC subtly slants its reports relative to other major news organizations such as CNN, MSNBC and even, in this case, the English language version of Al Jazeera.net. I would at least like the courtesy of a response.
I’ll give you another example of no spin against US or Israel from the BBC:
“Islam-West rift widens, poll says”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7200514.stm
I want, now, to point out something coming clearly from the poll in the article above, especially to you John Reith:
Consider this, from the article and very very clear from the poll itself – about the feeling of growing rift:
I find This belief was strongest in the US, Israel, Denmark – where the publication of cartoons about the Muslim Prophet Muhammad caused worldwide controversy – and among Palestinians.
That means that US, Israel and Denmark are now well aware of the Islamist threat, after being hurt directly.
But also, as acknowledged by the BBC:
But people in the US, Canada, Israel and the Muslim world said more contact would be a good thing.
“Although some might expect the United States, Israel and the Middle East to be more likely than Europe to be threatened by the ‘other’, the opposite is the case,” the report said.
I have lived in continental Europe, and both US and Canada, and I can with certainty tell you this:
US/Israel/Canada are immigrant societies with large minorities, accustomed to differences, but also very strong in creating a binding overall culture and patriotism.
Contrary to the popular belief in Europe, Americans and Israelis are NOT DEEPLY RACIST.
Continental Europeans, on the other hand, are homogeneous (just go visit Norway), not accustomed to differences, and are only pretending to accept the “other” – just ask any Turkish gastarbeiter in Germany, or Eastern European in Switzerland (I know several of both – and their horror stories – they do not expect to integrate – ever!). Europeans, however, are very good at pontifying to the Americans about how racist they are.
Just think about it, when 3000 Americans were murdered on 9/11, the American right wanted to do what? To kill everyone in the Middle East – No! The horrors – they wanted to bring democracy to the Middle East!
I think it is becoming increasingly clear that multi-culti is not as good as a melting-pot in the long run.
I remember the derisive and sneering comments in Europe about the dreadful American “melting-pot” that equals no culture at all! Pompously declaring about it being ah – so nouveau riche.
Strong symbols of an adoptive country are not insulting if you want to live there and integrate! If you don’t, you can just leave.
There is no way to create unifying symbols if your state media (i.e. BBC) constantly projects how ashamed you should be of all the aspects of your own heritage.
The immigrants hear this, too – and look for identity elsewhere. Hence the mulahs.
bodo:
jeffd – Nope, the BBC doesn’t really do documentaries any more. Despatches has done some great progs – Muslim extremism, Red Ken, and next week, violent crime.
All topics the BBC regards as taboo.
bodo | 21.01.08 – 9:50 pm | #
Indeed, the BBC avoids subjects such as those, but it will still do documentaries. Indeed, we can look forward to the next Horizon:
“What happens if you are left alone in the dark in solitary confinement for days on end? The result is called sensory deprivation and the human mind struggles to cope with it.”
Hmm, why do you think the BBC chose that subject…
“Sensory deprivation is a controversial subject, with allegations the technique has been used at Guantanamo Bay as an interrogation strategy. And thousands of prisoners around the world are kept in solitary confinement, often with a significant degree of sensory deprivation.”
Well done BBC, PC to the nth degree, and couldn’t care less. It’s what we do.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7199769.stm
John Reith
Try to defend this http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/01/21/bbc-misreads-the-rock-crisis/ if you dare! That is a clear case of revolting bias, with no doubt or possible justification. Sickening.
Four in 10 bikers dodge road tax
A bit like one in three men born in 1953 has been convicted of an offence before the age of 46.
Most old bikes are SORN so don’t need tax at all, the reason the rest are “untaxed” is because they take them off the road during winter and ride in the summer, or 6 months duty instead of 12 months.
They did say evade not avoid, which is the only clear statement in the article. And I can’t see it being true.
Most of the cases are hassles with SORN where the bike is off the road, so also explains why they aren’t catching them. It goes on to say
“Large parts of the biking community are cocking a snook at the law” I hope there are some big bad criminal bikers around to respond to Edward Leigh
Public Accounts Committee
random:
John Reith
Try to defend this http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com…he-rock-crisis/ if you dare! That is a clear case of revolting bias, with no doubt or possible justification. Sickening.
random | 22.01.08 – 3:01 am | #
Don’t expect Reith to reply to this – he’ll be up to his cherrypicking antics again.
I have replied on the appropriate thread.
Allan@Oslo:
“….. and we all know that it would probably have fostered rather than reduced terrorism – and turned the Republic of Ireland from an unreliable ally to an outright enemy. Actually this is pretty much what’s happened in response to Israel’s policies.”
Egypt, Syria: unreliable allies of Israel? What is anononymous trying to say? If I had posted that, I too would remain anonymous.
Allan@Oslo | 21.01.08 – 2:38 pm | #
Actually I wasn’t meaning to be anonymous – any more than you are by just using the name “Allan@Oslo”. My computer had crashed and I hadn’t noticed that Firefox was no longer inserting my “name”. What I was saying was that in its unremmiting use of disproportionate retribution (probably a war crime) against Palestinian communities and by blasting the government institutions of the Palestinian Authority to the extent that they have become almost completely ineffective, Israel has done just that with the people who might have been coaxed – as the Irish Republic was – to help to supress terorism.
p and a tale one chip:
“personally I’m not sure what fringe strictly means in these days of web 2.0”
I love this comment!
What on earth does web 2.0 have to do with anything. p is clearly spouting his marketing rot to sound “right on” and “savvie” which we all know BBC employees are not. They’re just spoiled, insular public schoolkids who’ve never done a days work in their life.
Web 2.0!! Oh how hip and cool. Shame p doesn’t have the slightest clue what web 2.0 actually means.
Alan | 22.01.08 – 12:31 am |
Yes, well said.
But I discuss the BBC’s bias with my friends and colleagues and they are getting the picture. The colossus is being undermined.
Allan@Oslo | 21.01.08 – 7:16 pm | #
Bet you’re a barrel of laughs down the pub…
Ben | 21.01.08 – 10:00 pm | #
Quite, Ben. We talk about matters other than football and house prices, and the BBC’s BS is frequently commented upon. Naturally, a BBC sock-puppet such as yourself would be a little vexed by such a fact.
It always amuses me when B-BBC’s less hinged commenters can’t help themselves but assume any dissenters in the ranks work for the BBC.
But, The People’s Front of Judea, since you dismissed web 2.0 so blithely we can safely assume you don’t think blogs have a role in bringing people with common interests together, that this blog must be a curious figment of our collective imaginations, and that B-BBC’s blog owners are part of this right on, “savvie” new media generation you appear to despise.
p and a ale of one chip
I’m getting very tired of this so I’m only going to point out the reality once more.
B-BBC has no prevailing view, it is a blog of individuals, how can it have a prevailing view, you are confusing it with an organisation like the BBC which it is not.
Is it true a majority post on bias of similar subjects, yes of course.
Why is there this emphasis on those subjects? Because they are the ones where the bias is showing most.
You damn your own condemnations as you kept saying how everything was about left wing bias but then the list you give is mostly not of a left wing right wing nature.
Your attempts to attack this blog seem to consist of you are a bunch of right wing nutters who attack ‘us’ (BBC) only because you say we are left wing. There is no we. I personally reject utterly being called right wing, but it doesn’t matter if a number or even many are, they wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for the bias.
The fact that certain points of view are not expressed or certain things claimed to be bias is not my fault orthat of B-BBC.
You are all welcome to post.
You would not be moderated off assuming you stayed on subject and did break the rules.
Perhaps the lack of these posts is because they are so minor or indeed do not exist.
If you are so concerned about bias from the BBC for example in favour of Israel as you claim why aren’t you posting it with your evidence. Clearly you believe no such bias exists, so why would others post about a non existent bias?
“I’m not a “beeboid”, although I do think people using the term and “al-Beeb” make fools of themselves in front of intelligent readers of the blog.” Roland Thompson-Gunner | 21.01.08 – 8:26 pm
Personally I think you making such an issue of beeboid (there has to be some BBC epithet) and al Beeb (they are emphasising their view that the BBC is bias in favour of islamic and or arab interests) makes a fool of you.
You expressed your opinion and I expressed mine, both made without evidence but just on our belief.
Perhaps it would be better to keep this sort of opinion to a minimum and stick to a more evidence based aproach.
“Your attempts to attack this blog seem to consist of you are a bunch of right wing nutters who attack ‘us’ (BBC) only because you say we are left wing”
As I said, it’s amusing that so many B-BBC commenters simply can’t conceive that dissenting voices don’t work for the BBC.
“If you are so concerned about bias from the BBC for example in favour of Israel as you claim”
I’ve claimed no such thing.
John Reith, when you say you have replied on the appropriate thread – where do you mean. No comment below Redwood thread on BBBC or on Redwood’s own blog – so can you tell us where your response is please?
Thanks
Ewan Wauchope: I’ve seen Reith’s response under the original Redwood post. But it seems to me Haloscan is having some sort of nervous breakdown. Sometimes I can see comments, sometimes I can’t. Sometimes there are 270 responses and sometimes 0 for the same post. Is there a problem?
p:
I didn’t dismiss web 2.0 blithely so don’t trip over your desperation to prove your intellectual prowess on the matter.
I merely asked you to define web 2.0 which you – and probably a million other fad obsessed marketing drones – are incapable of doing.
I just found it amusing that you would use what in reality is a vague term, but the darling of marketing pinheads, in such an esoteric way in one of your arguments.
Just sounded like a typical Beeboid attempt to sound clued up and intellectual when in reality you know absolutely fuck all.
“What I was saying was that in its unremmiting use of disproportionate retribution (probably a war crime) against Palestinian communities” – oh, great, another dimwit who thinks the Jews should not be allowed to defend themselves.
Do link us to the bit where you mention unremitting rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, quite certainly a war crime.