The BBC likes to refer to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah, as a moderate. He is frequently positioned to us as the “good guy” on the Palestinian side compared to Hamas who are the more “militant” bad guys. What I found interesting from BBC coverage of this region is the complete absence of the news that holocaust-denying Abbas has decided is to award “The Al Kuds Mark of Honor”, the PLO’s highest medal, to two female terrorists who helped kill Israelis.
Ahlam Tamimi is a Hamas affiliate serving a life sentence for driving the suicide bomber who exploded himself in the Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem, killing at least half a dozen people, including a whole family. Amra Muna, seduced Ophir Rahum over the Internet and then lured him to Ramallah where he was murdered. Both terrorists will be given this great honour by the moderate Abbas.
Any thoughts on why the BBC seems unable to report this? Maybe because it’s just too busy providing space for Jeremy Al-Bowen to urge direct talks with Hamas?
The starting sentence to the “primary” source you are linking to is as follows:
“If reports that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas plans to present two female terrorists with a medal of honor are found to be true, …”
How do you square this with your assertion?
“What I found interesting from BBC coverage of this region is the complete absence of the news that holocaust-denying Abbas has decided is to award “The Al Kuds Mark of Honor”, the PLO’s highest medal, to two female terrorists who helped kill Israelis.”
Any ideas welcome.
Not only the pesky BBC is not reporting what is not known yet (according to JPost), but also the commie Telegraph, Times and SKY News don’t cover it. Bloody pinko-lefties all of them!
Simple, let the BBC report the “if” and we’ll all be happy. It’s as valid as any tripe spewed out by Al-Bowen. A bit like “if” Fatah has any interest in peace with Israel. I rarely see that caveat in BBC reports, do you?
When I last checked the BBC has not picked up the story. Neither have SKY, the Telegraph, the Times and Harry’s Place. Be proud, you got yourself a scoop.
Still, you have misrepresented the “If” in the JPost to an “Is” in your post. Pot, Kettle, Black?
Oddly enough though, when the barbarians in Hamas make their wild claims, these are soberly reported. Still, who believes the Jews, right?
gunmar, your arguent is fundamentally flawed.
1) SKY, the Telegraph, the Times and Harry’s Place can do what they like. They are private. The BBC is a public service obliged by law to impartial reporting. This is the whole point of this website.
2) David is right in his assertion that the BBC reports, sometimes as if fact, anti-Israel calims whose only source is Hamas, Jihad, Fatah or the like, all of them interested parties. But Jpost (previously “The Palestine Post”) is a lesser source. Right?
The BBC line is never trust a Jew and always trust a Palestinian? Always believe Hamas and Never believe Israel? Always trust a terrorist and never trust the victim?
The BBC sticks to the above like it was holy writ!
THE BBC: PROUD TO BE ANTI SEMITES SINCE LAWRENCE OF ARABIA!
Honest Reporting is also on the story:
Here’s an statement from the Jeremy Bowen link as part of his description of the mourning ceremony for the Palestinian boy:
Coffee is served and so is food at mealtimes.
Not sure what to make of this. Aside from being a staunch supporter of Hamas terrorists, which he so ably demonstrates in this article, Bowen is also a lousy writer. So perhaps his bland stating of the obvious is a schoolboy-type tactic of padding an essay with irrelevant stuff in order to get to the required length. Or maybe it’s just Bowen insisting that we share his perception of the average Palestinian in terrorist-riddled “refugee camps” as just like you and I. Hell, food is actually served at mealtimes. People eat. Imagine that.
But Jpost (previously “The Palestine Post”) is a lesser source. Right?
Anat (Israel) | 17.04.08 – 4:03 am
The BBC avoids the Jerusalem Post and favours Haaretz when quoting from Israeli sources. That’s been evident for some time. No doubt the BBC sees the JPost as right wing. Of course, it isn’t. It’s basically centrist and there’s a good deal of left wing as well as right wing opinion in it.
If the BBC had a search facility worthy of the name, we might be able to check out how many times it has quoted from both sources.
Any thoughts on why the BBC seems unable to report this?
I expect the answer is practical but no less disturbing for that. BTW Breaking news Abbas: Awards for terrorists have been revoked
1) Western journalists work through ‘fixers’ who ensure that they report the story that the fixer’s employers (Fatah or Hamas) wants to have publicised. They don’t have sources or contacts of their own. This story was for Arab or possibly only local Palestinian consumption, so they weren’t told.
2) Most journalists are lazy (not exclusively the BBC) and frequently simply reprint press releases under their own byline. If the press release was written in Arabic, the Western journalist couldn’t read it and probably wasn’t even aware of it.
3) Despite the BBC’s obsessive coverage of this one area of the Middle East it apparently doesn’t have a staff dedicated to translating Arabic language media. This is in itself interesting because one valuable function of the Arabic Service would be to do just that.
4) Apparently the BBC mines the frequently hostile (to Israel) newspaper Ha’aretz in English much more than the more mainstream Jerusalem Post. A Google search shows:
About 4,230 results from bbc.co.uk for haaretz OR ha’aretz.
About 2,270 from bbc.co.uk for “Jerusalem Post”
About 33 from bbc.co.uk for MEMRI
8 from bbc.co.uk for “Palestinian Media Watch”.
5) The BBC believes that if they allow stories that seriously embarrass the Palestinian case they could lose the ability to report any stories safely. So they self censor. Surprisingly Israeli journalists, Arab and Jewish don’t seem to have that problem.
To the BBC it is very clear:
Israel = bad
Palestinians = good
The BBC is not primarily concerned with reporting the news but with shaping the public’s views to fit in with “the truth” or as some might say “the project”. The BBC is guilty of institutional bias.
There’s a report this morning that Abbas has “revoked” (whatever that means) the award. But his, and the PA’s barely-concealed hypocrisy and double-speak are out there on display for anyone who cares to read.
I am a parent of one of the children murdered in the Aug ’01 Sbarro massacre. This is why I pay more than the usual interest in what’s said about the killer. So I feel the need to react when I see a news report (the Jerusalem Post report that is the sole source for this reporting about the award) saying “The two were Ahlam Tamimi, a Hamas affiliate serving a life sentence for driving the suicide bomber who exploded himself in the Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem, killing at least half a dozen people…”
Fifteen people were murdered at Sbarro that day. Technically that’s “at least half a dozen” but it’s an odd way to express it. A sixteenth victim, a young mother, has been lying unconscious from that day until now. My daughter Malka Chana Roth, 15, was among those killed. 130 people were maimed and injured. That’s my first point.
The second is that, notwithstanding the Jerusalem Post’s report describing the murderous young woman as the driver, she wasn’t.
Calling her the driver gives the impression of someone relatively marginal to this barbaric slaughter. In fact, as the court that tried and convicted her found, this young woman personally engineered the massacre, procured the explosives, and accompanied the walking bomb-person from Samaria, via the Ramallah-area checkpoint crossing, into Jerusalem and right up to Sbarro. After the explosion, she coolly made her way back to Ramallah where she personally presented the evening news on PA television, including a report on the deaths she had herself caused to happen.
There’s more background at
You have still not answered my question. Why did you change an “if” to an “is”?
Perhaps you care to answer this time.
The veracity of this story has now been confirmed. David’s question as to why the BBC chose not to report it is therefore perfectly sound.
What is your reaction to Arnold Roth’s post immediately above yours? http://www.thisongoingwar.blogspot.com which he runs with his wife, Frimet is a must-read for anyone who wants to know what’s REALLY going on in the conflict.
Arnold Roth, thanks so much for your contribution. Yes, I thought there was something wrong with that JPost report. It’s really good to see you commenting here.
George R | 15.04.08 – 9:07 pm
“Iraqi author ‘Aref’ Alwan: The Jews Have an Historic Right to Palestine”
Melanie P has spoken about this on the Spectator, and as usual has attracted comments from her many fans and detractors. One of the Israel hating commenters questions the accuracy of the translation.
As deegee ( 17.04.08 – 7:31 am) points out
“Despite the BBC’s obsessive coverage of this one area of the Middle East it apparently doesn’t have a staff dedicated to translating Arabic language media. This is in itself interesting because one valuable function of the Arabic Service would be to do just that.”
The press are always eager to take up the points made by dissenting Israelis and quoting them to support their case against Israel. But the dissenting Arab voice is overlooked.
Questioning the translation is one way of discrediting this article, but with so many Arabic speaking stations to choose from, verifying this does not seem like an insurmountable obstacle. Wouldn’t it be nice, in the name of impartiality, if the BBC offered to put this right. Then report it.
Of course, one would still have to be sure of the honesty and integrity of the translation. I suppose any ‘tweaking’ would in itself be of interest.
If you read back, my first issue was not with the BBC not reporting it, but with other commie outlets not reporting it either.
My second issue at the time, was David’s changing an “if” into an “is”. That the story has been confirmed now is a different matter. At the time he has been simply telling a lie unless he has a good crystal ball.
My reaction to Arnold’s loss of his child is one of sorrow.
An award that has been revoked has to have have been as “is”. You cannot revoke something that never was.
“It’s really good to see you commenting here.
Bryan | 17.04.08 – 11:20 am”
Yes it certainly is. Thank you Mr. Roth.
To have your 15 year old daughter blown to bits because of the evil deed of this unrepentant woman whose Al Kuds Mark of Honor was revoked only because it would ‘not be conducive to peace negotiations’ is unimaginable and intolerable.
Unbearably sad as his daughter’s murder is, I hope more people get to hear this from Arnold Roth’s perspective. The BBC usually reports human tragedies involving Israelis impersonally, ‘at arm’s length’. The invariable factual errors always downplay Palestinian culpability, or imply their justification.
There are factual errors in most news reports about anything, anywhere, seemingly even in the J’Post, but not many have such a destructive influence in the propaganda war against Israel as those by the BBC.
If reports that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas plans to present two female terrorists with a medal of honor are found to be true, …”
“What I found interesting from BBC coverage of this region is the complete absence of the news that holocaust-denying Abbas has decided is to award “The Al Kuds Mark of Honor”, the PLO’s highest medal, to two female terrorists who helped kill Israelis.”
DV yesterday (see time of my post if interested).
Please expand on how to square this.
PS: David couldn’t and avoided to answer directly.
You haven’t done this very well David.
Two out of five minor parties support Ken, one supports the Conservatives but not Boris, and two support nobody at all. And we’re supposed to be outraged that the BBC reports on two out of five minor parties supporting Ken, one supporting the Conservatives but not Boris, and two supporting nobody at all.
In this case it looks less like the BBC is biased and more like the facts are biased. Sorry!
Tits, wrong thread. What I meant to say here was:
This is a deceptive post here David. The BBC calls Abbas a “moderate” in 2005:
(Last updated: Monday, 10 January, 2005, 18:59 GMT)
How is this relevant to a story that only showed up three years later? Or did you have to go that far back to find a story that met your criteria?
And sorry to go for the hat-trick, but is this the best you can do for “urge direct talks”?
“More and more voices are saying that it is time for a change, for a different kind of policy that would aim for a mutual and lasting ceasefire, and the reopening of Gaza’s borders…Neither side trusts its enemy. Nobody is suggesting they will talk peace. But perhaps there is a small opening, as both want to take the pressure off their civilians, and a ceasefire would be a start.“
Alex | Homepage | 17.04.08 – 4:11 pm
“is this the best you can do for “urge direct talks”?
” mutual and lasting ceasefire, and the reopening of Gaza’s borders………..Neither side..”
Those little dots in the middle of your quote from Bowen’s article missed out the bit that came next ……….
“A major reason that has not been tried up to now is that it means doing business, directly or indirectly, with Hamas, and accepting its control of Gaza as a fact of life.”
Alex has just landed from another planet.
The BBC relentlessly pushes their “talk to Hamas” agenda at all interviewees, great and small, which Alex would know if he took the slightest interest in the subject.
It is not the BBC’s job to sort out the middle east with their misguided theories. They should just report the news.
Beam Alex back up to planet tedium, Scottie.
Arnold Roth | Homepage | 17.04.08 – 10:01 am |
Sorry for the late posting,but can I offer mine (and the vast majority of uk citizen`s)support and sympathy for you and all Israelis people.
The people of England are behind Israel,no matter what the BBC and Left wing press may claim.
So the whole thing reads:
“More and more voices are saying that it is time for a change, for a different kind of policy that would aim for a mutual and lasting ceasefire, and the reopening of Gaza’s borders. A major reason that has not been tried up to now is that it means doing business, directly or indirectly, with Hamas, and accepting its control of Gaza s a fact of life.”
And you call that urging? With not a single positive value judgement on the part of the writer at all? If that’s “urging” in your book you must be extremely suggestible.
@ Arnold Roth – my heart goes out to you for the loss of your child.
Is the Beeb complicit in disseminating more Pallywood tactics?
Alex, if you were interested in the subject you ought to know that not one, not two, but many BBC interviews have been orchestrated towards getting Israeli spokespersons to agree that talking to Hamas would magically provide a peaceful solution to the violence in Gaza.
The example you think doesn’t constitute ‘urging’ is not alone. It is one of many others. Not one, not two, but many.
Yes I am extremely suggestible when I see something happening not once, not twice……..
anton | 18.04.08 – 2:19 pm |
The unconscious boy has made a good recovery by the time this
photo was taken a few seconds later it seems, if the car behind is the same as the one in the distance in the first one.
everything on that page including the ‘key stories’ is designed to whip up the baying mob of Israel haters out there.
Sue | 18.04.08 – 3:26 pm,
Well, precisely. Young Alex fails to understand that the BBC has been putting its weight behind Hamas for some time now. Besides, if he took an unblinkered look at the second part of his quote from the terror-friendly Bowen, he might notice what’s going on here:
A major reason that has not been tried up to now is that it means doing business, directly or indirectly, with Hamas, and accepting its control of Gaza as a fact of life.
And the major reason that it has not been tried up to now is that Hamas is an Islamic terrorist group committed to the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel. For Israel, doing business means negotiating the terms of Israel’s surrender since Hamas is not interested in any other business.
Until young Alex finally understands that talking of terrorists as if they are reasonable people is putting them in a positive light he will come to no understanding of the issues involved here, or of the BBC’s reprehensible stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Sue | 18.04.08 – 3:43 pm
Clicking on the link to the kahen site takes me to the site for a while but then it gets taken over by a Christian site called Bravenet traffic exchange which sells books. Weird. It slowed down my other open windows and was impossible to close, so I had to shut down the computer. I tried again and this time it did the same thing but without the problems.
I saw from the Pallwood photo from the kahen blog that the shoes that had apparently been blown off by the blast looked like they had been stepped out of and then just spread apart a little to give the impression of having been blown off. What are the odds of them landing neatly like that?
One thing I’ve noticed about Pallywood is how unconvincing the staged shots are. Almost childish.
“Young Alex fails to understand that the BBC has been putting its weight behind Hamas for some time now.”
For good reason. Your claim that the BBC is pro-Hamas is generally based on a vague gut feeling that you occasionally try to put into words and a few flimsy examples that don’t stand up to close textual analysis. No wonder I can’t get my head round it.
“Until young Alex finally understands that talking of terrorists as if they are reasonable people is putting them in a positive light he will come to no understanding of the issues involved here, or of the BBC’s reprehensible stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
And until the B-Beeboid community understand that talking of elected political parties as if they were irrational maniacs is equally showing them in a negative light, you will not understand why the BBC fails to agree with your assorted crackpot opinions and agendas on every single issue.
Bryan, I had a similar rogue Christian site after closing the window from the first link, but it went away obediently when I closed it.
Alex would argue with his own shadow if there was nobody else there. It’s obviously obsessive compulsive.
He has forgotten about all the times we have discussed the ‘Talk to Hamas’ issue, in particular the Hard Talk interview with Sarah Montague and the Mayor of Sderot, and many others.
Not a gut feeling at all. Talking of which
I get a distinct flavour of insincerity about
your comment-diahorrea Alex. It’s you who comments about everything and anything.
My gut feeling is that you don’t really give a toss about any of it.
My gut feeling is that you don’t really give a toss about any of it.
Sue | 18.04.08 – 7:53 pm
I second that Sue. Alex has this airy disdain for the hard facts we post on this site based on our considerable exposure to the BBC.
And the moral equivalence is breathtaking. Alex, don’t tell me you meant Hamas here:
And until the B-Beeboid community understand that talking of elected political parties as if they were irrational maniacs is equally showing them in a negative light…
Now young Alex, extend your short attention span, show some grit, come down to earth and produce compelling evidence to show that we are wrong about the BBC’s devotion to Hamas, instead of making vague assertions.
You could start by making a comparative study of the BBC’s reporting on Fatah and Hamas over the past few years. You might be surprised at the results.
Hard facts Bryan? Really? I’ll search Hamas on B-BBC and see what I get.
Standard militant/terrorist argument. Discussed already.
Occupied vs Disputed. Mentions Hamas as “Jew-hating barbarians”, words not BBC’s.
“There was an interview with Jonathan Powell, the man who is so steeped in appeasement care of his work with the murderous IRA that he thinks we should be talking to Al Qaeda, Hamas et al.”
Does not provide any quotes in favour of Hamas. Invites a man onto Newsnight who thinks talking to them might be a good idea. I talked to a massive racist once.
“You have to read down quite a bit to you get to the “Hamas praise” heading. Indeed Hamas do praise those who have brought death to these religious seminary, but the BBC helpfully adds that those who study here identify with the leadership of the Jewish settlement movement – who believe the West Bank should be in Jewish and not Palestinian hands.”
At worst anti-Israel and pro-largely unaffiliated maniac. Not really relevant to Hamas. “Praise” turns out to be by, rather than for, Hamas.
“the best that the BBC interviewer could come up with was the suggestion that perhaps Israel and Hamas were equally to blame for the alleged deprivation!”
Hardly a glowing review for Hamas, is it? They’re just as bad.
Just the BBC getting information from Hamas, doesn’t actually say anything good or bad about them. Oh and plus m/t gripe.
Story unrelated to Hamas speculatively linked to them by the writer.
Someone sneaking into Gaza. Not really much to do with Hamas, not even much to do with the BBC.
“Finally, I note that both Hamas and Fatah get to comment on this, both of them predictably explaining that the bad Jews brought it upon themselves.”
Equal weight given to Hamas and Fateh. If equal weight isn’t bias, I don’t know what is.
Hamas alleged to direct editorial policy. Unproven.
Whatever happened to ed thomas? This seems a fairly rational and well-thought out post. Get him back.
“Egypt’s opening of Rafah legitimizes Hamas as the leader of Gaza Palestinians; they ignored the wishes of Abbas and the PA, let alone Israel.”
Interesting political point, but thomas’s words and not the BBC’s.
“Israel, like most of its Western allies, regards Hamas as an unreconstructed terrorist organisation bent on the destruction of the Jewish state.”
BBC castigated for saying something B-BBC agrees with. Plus ‘regards’.
About the Guardian.
Someone says ‘Hamas’.
“Alan Johnston, a BBC reporter who was kidnapped in Gaza until released, with the aid of Hamas, or so the media, including the BBC, have portrayed events”
Speculation that Johnston kidnapped himself, and more unsubstantiated claims that the BBC bums Hamas. Mentions portrayal of events not by the BBC but by the “media, including the BBC”.
Crocodile tears of joy for Johnston’s release. He kidnapped himself you know.
“Melanie Phillips on the interconnections between all the BBC’s Hamas “experts”…at tip to commenter “holiday in hamastan””
Not actually about Hamas.
“Hamas can now claim to speak for the majority of Palestinians. This means an end to the conflict is inconceivable without their involvement.”
This possibly could be construed as one example of pro-Hamas bias. It could also be just how election victories work, plus modal verbs and claims. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and award you a point.
Aaaand…that’s it. One pitiful ‘hard fact’ on a rather large blog and you castigate me for ignoring it a year ago when I didn’t come here.
And as for the rest of your post:
“And the moral equivalence is breathtaking. Alex, don’t tell me you meant Hamas here”
Hamas is a party, it’s heavily involved in politics and it won an election. I don’t see what part you disagreed with.
Now the moral equivalence bit is important. If you don’t see parties as morally equivalent, you start taking sides, which is considered bias by many. The BBC’s supposedly not meant to do that.
“Now young Alex, extend your short attention span, show some grit, come down to earth and produce compelling evidence to show that we are wrong about the BBC’s devotion to Hamas, instead of making vague assertions.”
See above. Just to remind you that you asked for it.
“You could start by making a comparative study of the BBC’s reporting on Fatah and Hamas over the past few years. You might be surprised at the results.”
Too late to start with it, but I might have a look. Funnily enough, if you want to see it in terms of Hamas vs. Fateh, read what Vance has to say in the original post. He reckons “The BBC likes to refer to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah, as a moderate. He is frequently positioned to us as the “good guy” on the Palestinian side compared to Hamas who are the more “militant” bad guys.“. So if you think the BBC is pro-Hamas it’s not just me you’ll have to take it up with.
Goodness Alex, all that information breezily posted and dismissed in such a short time, except for the “one” point you so graciously acknowledge.
Without clicking on the links and just from your comments, much of what you have posted seems to have nothing to do with the BBC’s attitude to Hamas. I’m sure you know that you are only dealing with a very small fraction of the discussion on Hamas on this site since the blog search is only a partial reflection of the main posts and also doesn’t extend to the comments. I understand that you are eager to rush from thread to thread here dismissing conclusions that in some cases have taken years to arrive at, but your style is unimpressive. From previous debates you know very well that I have posted numerous examples of the dhimmi BBC bowing to Hamas. So if I can find the time to dig them and others up again and repost them, and deal with the ‘arguments’ you have posted above, I’ll do it for the benefit of those who are genuinely interested in debate on this issue rather than deluding themselves that the BBC is not biased in favour of Hamas and then trying to force fit the facts to that delusion.
“Without clicking on the links and just from your comments, much of what you have posted seems to have nothing to do with the BBC’s attitude to Hamas.”
Naturally. A lot of the stories that contained the word ‘Hamas’ were not actually about Hamas. This is standard on the internet, and especially on sites such as this one which quite often invoke the name for effect. I counted about six or seven that claimed the BBC was in with Hamas, and of them only three backed this up with quotes. Of these two complained that Hamas was treated too neutrally and one, as acknowledged, may have had a point.
“I’m sure you know that you are only dealing with a very small fraction of the discussion on Hamas on this site since the blog search is only a partial reflection of the main posts and also doesn’t extend to the comments.”
It would take much more time than even I have to trawl through every single comment involving Hamas.
“From previous debates you know very well that I have posted numerous examples of the dhimmi BBC bowing to Hamas. So if I can find the time to dig them and others up again and repost them”
I will be genuinely interested in seeing that. Don’t expect me to agree on all of it mind.
In a laboratory somewhere on planet tedium Professor Xela has triumphed! He has successfully created a genetically moderated embryo from a human stem cell and some sperm serendipitously donated through the 1959 Walt Disney Bumper Annual, which, unbeknownst to the prof., had accidentally got mixed up with the catalogue from the sperm library.
The resulting hybrid combo, part human, part Pinocchio, part Mary mary quite contrary, was accidentally teleported to planet earth due to another of Prof’s careless mistakes, arriving suddenly as an understandably furious foetus.
Maturing very rapidly, and despite suffering from a debilitating, unpredictable and intermittent trans gendering disability, the unfortunate being was genetically programmed to argue relentlessly and if I may say so monotonously with everything he/she saw.
Rather like Jeremy Bowen, he/she was unable to differentiate between elected religious fanatics who throw those who disagree with them from tall buildings, from other elected politicians.
Professor Xela wonders if anyone on planet earth knows the whereabouts of his protégé whether in the original form or as alter-ego Victoria.
Substantial reward offered for info leading to swift return to planet of origin.
That’s a lot of effort to put into one insult. Twat.
Mr Arnold, my heart goes out to you.
Sue, the BBC’s institutionalised antisemitism goes hand in hand with their institutionalised inability to comprehend that they are supposed to report, not to shape international or social or economic policy; and both go back at the very least to 1982. I say 1982, though it probably goes back much further, because I first noticed it during the 1982 Lebanon war. They did not report on Israel’s actions: they sneered at them and criticised them in what were supposed to be factual reports. They don’t understand the difference between reporting and editorial comments: there seems to be some synapse missing in the brains of all BBC staff.
Of course, that is not say that criticising Israel as a matter of editorial policy is justified, or even permitted under their charter, which they are in breach of every single day (in this, as in many other ways). They are a statutory state broadcaster, levying (in illegal ways) a statutory state tax. What a privately-owned broadcaster or newspaper can legitimately do, is precisely what the BBC is not permitted to do under its charter, and does all the time.
“Hardly a glowing review for Hamas, is it? They’re just as bad” – this equating of Hamas, a genocidal Nazi organisation, and Israel, says pretty much all we need to know about Mr ‘twat’ Alex.
“this equating of Hamas, a genocidal Nazi organisation, and Israel, says pretty much all we need to know about Mr ‘twat’ Alex.”
At no point did I equate Hamas and Israel. You really need to learn to read things before reacting to them. It’s a great life skill. Like a lot of people here, you seem to have difficulty distinguishing “equate” from “mention in the same sentence”. It will come with time.
Sorry my flattering tale didn’t explicitly comprise sufficient insults. No insufficiency was intended.
Not sure which ones you missed, but some of them were meant to be:
Pomposity, Insincerity, Verbosity, Contrariness, Deliberate Misunderstanding of simple points, Intransigence, and the fact that you are usually compulsively argumentative to the point of meaninglessness.
Argue with that. Or just call me another twat. Save effort.
Is there actually something I posted that you disagree with, or do you just not like me?
“You really need to learn to read things before reacting to them. It’s a great life skill. Like a lot of people here, you seem to have difficulty distinguishing “equate” from “mention in the same sentence”. It will come with time.” — Like all brain-dead antisemitic beeboid tossers (“Hamas is a party”, said Mr ‘twat’ Alex), you have great difficulty understanding what actually goes on in the Middle East. Not surprising, really, seeing as how you are a not very bright 7-year old who is still struggling with the Ladybird books your mother urges you to read with your cocoa, and not having ventured beyond the M25 in your life, never mind spent time in the Middle East – not surprising, but still pathetic that you attempt to lecture about something you know eff-all about.
Nearly Oxfordian, are you denying Hamas is (among other things) a political party?
And for your information, I have been on the other side of the M25 five times in my life, but aside from those I’ve never had much call to visit London.
Just because I don’t engage in direct debate with you Alex doesn’t mean I can’t see your posts.
I read lots of comments, especially the ones concerning the BBC’s bias against Israel. The one that has been going on for many more years than you have been around for.
This bias, together with the BBC’s continual normalising of the sometimes outrageous demands Muslims make, has profound ramifications.
Because there is a receptive audience out there, ready willing and able to join in the vilification of Israel. So much so that it now also encompasses antisemitism, which, the BBC pretends not to notice, is at the heart of Islam and one of the driving forces behind the conflict in the Middle East.
I see that you comment on any subject at all as long as you think you can find fault with something someone has said.
I admit quite a few other people do that as well, but you are like a dog with a bone who will never give up. You always answer back even if it means changing tack. Sometimes you intrude on formerly serious discussions and prolong them by deliberately misunderstanding or introducing something irrelevant.
I don’t think you care one bit about any of this. Your only passion seems to be with arguing itself. That is my explanation, it is my opinion, you asked, so I gave.
“Just because I don’t engage in direct debate with you Alex doesn’t mean I can’t see your posts.”
In that case, I would ask you to also refrain from indirect debate with me, and save yourself three square feet of useless typing. Further ad hominem arguments will be ignored or greeted with “Fuck off Susan”.