I picked this up care of a Biased-BBC reader DB on the most recent open thread and wanted to amplify the point made. You will recall the murderous assault on innocent Israelis that took place in Jerusalem on July 3rd. A Palestinian psycho hijacked a bulldozer and killed three people and critically injured several more before being shot dead. Then, on July 22nd another Palestinian tried a copycat murder, injuring several people before his rampage was cut short care.
So, guess who the real victims of this Palestinian instigated carnage is? Yes, Palestinians! Or so the BBC says. Read the nauseating biased article as a classic example of how the BBC twists every event in this region to portray the Palestinians as the poor victims even, as in these cases, where they are the obvious murderous aggressors.
From the linked BBC report:
“While suicide attacks on the city by bombers from the West Bank have been greatly reduced in the last few years, the three recent attacks have sparked Israeli concerns that workers from East Jerusalem pose a new threat from within.”
Q1. Why has there been a great reduction in the suicide bombings recently?
Q2. Do the Israelis have any grounds for believing that Palestinians may pose a threat within Israel?
Q3. Construction workers? Does that not usually indicate a booming economy?
The three points above simply do not enter the closed mind of the BBC and its staff. Yet such poor quality ‘journalism’ is what we are forced to pay for.
Or alternatively it could have offered a fairer assessement such as the attached. Perhaps this is too much detail as far as the BBC are concerned.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331076803&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Mailman noticed this brief follow-up notice about the death of an Israeli policeman from wounds he received in another random rampage by a Palestinian victim:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7521592.stm
He pointed out the last paragraph, which is a blatant BBC effort to justify the attacks. There is no legitimate journalistic reason to add this line, as everyone on the planet is aware that there is conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. However, the BBC felt it necessary to remind everyone that the Palestinians are the real victims here. Any protests to the contrary are now completely wiped out by this new piece, which is just laughable. And sickening.
Never mind that Israeli Jews are being maimed and murdered again, BBC. They’re subhuman, and so not actually worth worrying about.
David Preiser,
Yes, I saw that offensive last line. The BBC really hates the Jews.
I loved the line about a “right-wing” neighbourhood though. It made me think of a street full of people brandishing Daily Mails! Surely they meant an orthodox Jewish neighbourhood?
That’s beside the serious point that they reported secondhand anecdotal evidence from their interviewee as if it were fact.
In BBC world
Jews = evil
Muzzie’s = Good.
And this crap about the attackers having no “militant” motives…yeah, right! The first one was heard to be shouting “Allah is great” as he crushed people in his bulldozer, and the BBC stresses his links with “crime and drugs”.
God help the BBC and every single one of the dullards who work for it.
Its just so typical of Palestinians, did you see any condemnation of the actual act itself in this article, just his own sick presumed victimhood.
They should stop issuing these pesky subversives with these blasted constriction vehicles. To avoid the danger of a backlash, natch. Especially as
“the motives of the attacker remain a mystery”
These poor victims of the inexplicable Israeli discrimination against them described so sympathetically by BBC’s Heather Sharp must be wondering why “We have seen an increase in checkpoints. You have to wait, you are late to work. You end up paying more on petrol.
Don’t we all.
“Israel says the checkpoints are a necessity for security”
( – but we don’t believe them, children, do we?)
“But Abu Ahmad says the Israelis are using the wrong approach. “They’re just creating more pressure and frustration,” he says.
Yes Heather Sharp, the Palestinian narrative is the one to go for.
Neither the Palestinians nor the BBC have any medium term memory. Before the First Gulf War some 300 000 Palestinians worked in Kuwait. When Saddam invaded they sucked up to his occupation forces. After the Iraqis were expelled the Palestinians followed in short order.
Another case of blatent victimisation?
The BBC has consistently received the highest net approval rating of all the institutions included in the PHI5000 tracker,and currently has a score of 30. However …
Maybe a separate thread for this: http://www.politicshome.com/#2069
Gordon | 24.07.08 – 4:26 pm
This is untrue.
There were 300,000 Palestinians before the invasion but most did NOT suck up to the occupation forces.
In fact 200,000 fled at the time of or during during the occupation.
Of the 100,000 remaining, 70,000 were Jordanian citizens of Palestinian extraction.
Of the 30,000 stateless Palestinians left, 15,000 were originally from Gaza. Kuwait expelled them, but Israel would not let them return to Gaza.
Who knows where they are now?
May I remind you that this is the same BBC that creams it’s jeans over Nelson Mandela. The template is that if your are oppressed, (in the BBC’s opinion) you are entitled to murder if you so choose. May I also remind you that Barack Obama is personal friends with 2 terrorists that bombed the NYC police department and the Pentagon. THEY ARE REAL LIVE TERRORISTS and OBAMA IS THEIR FRIEND.
And it doesn’t shock liberals in the least.
Israeli police called it a “terror attack”
Don’t you just love the BBC’s quotation marks.
I think if I was sitting in a small car and some Arab was ramming a steel digger bucket through the side of the car, “terror” wouldn’t be the half of it.
The BBC: Double standards and no credibility.
Alex,
Very interesting – will open up on a new thread. Approval is in the eye of the beholder!
Of the 30,000 stateless Palestinians left, 15,000 were originally from Gaza. Kuwait expelled them, but Israel would not let them return to Gaza.
Who knows where they are now?
Anonymous | 24.07.08 – 5:48 pm | #
Kuwait after it’s liberation expelled the Palestinians because of the Palestinians ‘sucking’ up to the Iraq army. Once more history repeating itself with the Palestinian ‘diaspora’.
What I do miss from your post is your ‘Moral Outrage’ at the poor plight of the ‘innocent’ Palestinians expelled from Kuwait, where is your outrage?, if it had been Israel doing the expelling you would have been screaming ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ and ‘Islamaphobia’.
You also seem to have forgotten to condemn the murderous scum who killed and injured innocent Israeli civilians?, again, I have to ask where is your condemnation of these terrorist attacks?.
When an Islamist or a Palestinian commits an act of violence it seems the immediate concern of the Muslim community is to ‘fear a backlash’.
So honest, and so telling.
A similar headline appeared in the press when the retarded Islam convert failed to explode diners in Exeter. A condemnation of violence did eventually surface several days later together with an indignant proclamation that Islam is a religion of peace.
Heather Sharp’s article typifies the BBC’s habit of reiterating just the Palestinian narrative. Their reports are recounted from that perspective as if it has never crossed their mind that there may be another side to the story. A different and legitimate perspective.
Total objectivity is almost unattainable. We can only try. It’s so easy to listen selectively, hear what you want to hear and dismiss what you don’t.
But this persistent siding with the Arab case defies logic, ignores verifiable facts and glosses over distasteful realities. It has resulted, drip by drip, in influencing swathes of listeners and arming them with propaganda with which to fuel their already held prejudices, and create new ones for good measure.
The report I mentioned earlier has been dealt with by Melanie.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/855221/a-lonely-voice-of-principle.thtml
We have a new voice of sanity in the conservative party in the form of Stephen Crabb. As Mel would say, “he gets it.”
Alongside the appreciative majority of comments that appear on her blog there are the inevitable persistent, repetitive and hostile ones, always ill informed and full of venom. These are the ones whipped up by our friends at the BBC.
Headline reminds me of the Guardian classic:
“Community leaders fear backlash after tomorrow’s bombing”
.
Al-BBC – they never met an anti-semite they didn’t like.
Frankly, both sides are as bad as each other. Claim and Couterclaim, Terrorist Missle and State Assisination of Children it doesn’t make much difference. They are both killing each other.
The conflict turns Muslims all over the world into apologists for terror. And a state that justifies the continual bombing of civilians is beneath contempt.
No matter what side you are on (personally I would nuke the entire area and when the melted sand has cooled down, paint white lines and turn it into a car park) the BBC by default are going to use language that reflects a bias for the side with the most innocent victims. In this case, at the moment that is the Palestinian side. If the situation changes then the language will change.
For an example, consider how the BBC used to report the PKK in Turkey prior to the establishment of a Kurdistan in northern Iraq to how the terrorist activity is presented now.
It is this victim-empathy (not really a bad thing) that dictates how the BBC presents itself. In the activity of Nelson Madela was reported on in 1961/1962 and it bears no relation to what is said now.
It would be better if the BBC were to just report facts but I dont know how to remove emotion from a human.
That said, the continual promotion of the welfare state above all else is bloody vexing!
D.
Sue, you expect logic from demented antisemites?
Douglas: “State Assassination of Children ” is another blatant Pallywood lie. Don’t repeat it here, please.
“Frankly, both sides are as bad as each other”
Another ignorant, dumb prat who thinks that the Nazis and their victims are all much of a muchness.
feline: really? If the state of Israel has not wilfully bombed children then I withdraw the remark. However, even Fox News reported it during the Israel vs Lebanon war which is not known as a left wing organisation. And I dont know what this boards opinion of Unicef is: Unicef Report on Dead Children
Nearly Oxfordian: ah now see you have fallen for the most mundane response possible. Thusly, criticise Isreal = anti-Jew = Nazi. Intellectually weak.
Nazi Germany killed over 6m Jews, none of whom deserved it. The Jewsih people have endured millenia of oppression and, frankly, deserve to have their state. I am, in no way, an anti-semite or an anti-zionist.
I just obeject to a state killing children. Does that make me a bad person only worthy of your contempt?
Yes, it does, because of your loathsome comment about ‘state asassination of children’, a standard Arabo-Nazi lie (which, incidentally, is what the Arabo-Nazis specialise in – both of those things, lying and murdering children). And your comment about nuking the region.
Don’t lecture to me about WW2. I know more about it and about the ME than you ever will.
Antisemitic lie = criticise Israel, eh?
And you whine about ‘intellectually weak’ …
sigh
1. The State of Israel, through the policy of targeted assassination kills children. It is contemptable to use children as human shields but I happen to feel it is also contemptable to kill them becuase they are used as shields. Thus state of assissination of children.
2. Nuking the region – fair enough, you may not like that comment but since the board is not high on intellectual rigor I thought that as an aside it might be left alone. Oh well.
3.Arabo-Nazi lie – see my response to feline. To deny that Isreal kills arab children is on the same intellectual level as David Irving. Dont freak out now, I know the Nazis did clearly kill *a lot* more Jewish children than Israel has killed arab children. But it does happen.
4.Quote my WW2 lecture would you?
5.Antisemitic lie = criticise Israel, eh? – That, I dont get.
Anyway, I thought that this board was about the Biased-BBC and I put forward my thoughts on that which seem to have been ignored.
Oh well.
D.
But Abu Ahmad says the Israelis are using the wrong approach. “They’re just creating more pressure and frustration,” he says.
So Ahmad would prefer that Israel do nothing, for whatever they do to ensure their safety from murderous attacks, it only increases the frustration of Palestinians, and hence more terror attacks.
This same argument is used in Britain and the USA by Muslim pressure groups, when we do anything to safeguard ourselves from terror plots.
It really is time for the Conservatives to sort out the BBC’s systemic and institionalised prejudice.
Douglas: i asked you not to repeat lies. All Pallywood propaganda about “evil Jews killing poor children” was shown to be a lie here http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/corruption-of-media.html
If love of pallies for their children is so strong that they see no other use for them beside being human shields it’s their problem not the Israel’s.
IDF do not deliberately kill children, unlike your pally friends.
Oh Douglas, why do you put such drivel here where it certainly will be demolished. Time after time, Israel has postponed or cancelled operations against terrorists because the consequences could be civilian casualties. The terrorists know this and that is the entire point of them using children as human shields. If the policy of using human shields didn’t work, they wouldn’t do it.
feline: when you have proved they are lies then I will stop saying them. I have scanned over your link and am not surprised at the media management of the situation. It is indeed contemtable. That said, I note that a lot of analysis is about the various lead ‘characters’ in the media images. Why no analysis of where the dead children came from?
I think your hatred for the ‘pallys’ is blinding you. Read what I say and you will see that I think that both sides are wrong. If you think that Israel is beyond reproach then you are as bad as the people shown in your link.
D.
Allan@Aberdeen: Because I am interested to see if fact rather than dogma can demolish my belief that both sides are as bad as each other.
Personal opinion and ‘group-think’ are not fact.
The BBC clearly suffers from group think and I find it interesting that its opponents are similarly afflicted.
D.
Douglas | 24.07.08 – 11:46 pm |
1. The State of Israel, through the policy of targeted assassination kills children. It is contemptable to use children as human shields but I happen to feel it is also contemptable to kill them becuase they are used as shields. Thus state of assissination of children.
I certainly don’t like it when any child is killed. But most of the time these children are deliberately placed in harm’s way.
So, if we are to take your position seriously, let’s follow it to its logical conclusion. If all Israeli military actions should be halted if there is any possibility of endangering children, what’s left? Are there any military actions the Israelis could use at all which would never have a risk of harming a child?
If not, then I have to ask: How many Israelis must die before you will allow them to defend themselves at all? This is a serious question, and please don’t read the usual accusations of anti-Semitism in it. This is a question of pure logic, which can be extrapolated to many situations. In this case, you have stated that any Israeli action which endangers children is wrong, regardless of any provocation or, one assumes, of any claims of Israeli self defense.
Can you answer this question? Is it even something you ever considered before?
Adding to David Preiser’s comment.
David Preiser (USA) | 25.07.08 – 3:34 am | #
Even the ICRC is beginning to realise that people under the age of 18 who carry weapons (and to my surprise, that includes rock throwers) or who interfere with military activities lose the category of ‘children’ or for that matter ‘civilians’.
Douglas | 24.07.08 – 11:22 pm
And I dont know what this boards opinion of Unicef is: Unicef Report on Dead Children
The link you posted says nothing about ‘willfully targeting children’. A brief scan of the article only shows that children suffer in war. While I don’t accept the UNICEF figures correct (and they are certainly not defined) if 30% of the dead civilians are children then that is less than their proportion in the Lebanese population.
Douglas, you have avoided a response to the question which I put. If the Israelis did not attempt to avoid casualties amongst children, why would the terrorists deliberately put children in danger?
Oh – and try answering David Preiser’s question too.
David Preiser: An interesting question from a legitimate point of view. Even without you actually stating it, I would not have accused you of accusing me of anti-semitism.
If I am really, deep down honest, I dont know the complete answer. For me though, the answer to terrorism is not military action. My history is not great but I cant think of a terrorist campaign similar to that in Palestine and Israel that has been solved with military might.
If I were the father or the brother (or increasingly sister) of a baby that had been killed by a foreign state then I would hate that state with all my soul.
You would think that I would also hate the people that used my child as a shield but, perhaps through daily indoctornation that had been going on for years, I could be manipulated very easily into focussing that hate elsewhere.
There are many children who are brought up in Palestine who see their immediate world and suffering, ask why they should suffer and are told that the problem is Isreal. They grow up with hate in their hearts. They turn to terrrorism as they are brainwashed to do.
The only answer is for the triggers that make brainwashing so easy far less prevelant in Palestine. Only Israel can do that. But killing a brianwashed mans child is not going to make your country safer.
Israel can defend itself, I am not even opposed to it bombing Irans nuclear capability as Iran has clearly stated that it wants to destroy Israel.
Don’t get me wrong, I dont look at pictures and film of Israelis suffering from rocket attacks and suicide bombers and think ‘they deserved that’. There is an undertone in the left wing media that clearly believes that. I am just saying that killing children is not a way to secure peace.
Hamas doesn’t want peace so is happy to kill babies in pushchairs. Hamas is a terrorist organisation that has, unfortunately, gained many of the hearts and minds of the people in Palestine. Missles and invasions, no matter what the provocation, will not change hearts and minds. That will only change through other means.
deegee: My use of language seems to be an issue here. Allow me to change ‘willfully’ to ‘recklessly’. As a human being, for me the issue is not the proportion of dead children to population size but instead that there are, in fact, *dead* children. You can argue ‘statistics’, I will argue ‘dead children’.
Allan@Aberdeen: I have answered David Praisers question.
I dont quite get your question. Of course the use of children as human shields is, from a terrorists perspective, a good idea. They know that Israel will adopt a ‘cautious’ approach to retribution. Thats why they do it.
They also know that Israel is not 100% effective in their cautious approach, which just means that they can brainwash the families of the ‘vicitms’ of Israeli attacks into hating Israel. Thus creating more terrorists.
Perhaps I am just rejecting the ‘Just War’ approach for a more Absolutist moral ethic.
“Perhaps I am just rejecting the ‘Just War’ approach for a more Absolutist moral ethic”
You are saying that Jews do not have just cause to defend themselves from genocide; and that they should practice your ‘Absolutist moral ethic’ and refrain from any such defence if Arab children might be killed.
I call that antisemitism.
“To deny that Isreal kills arab children is on the same intellectual level as David Irving”
You said ‘kills wifully’. And then you whine about ‘intellectual level’.
Oh, dear.
.
Douglas, let’s threw a glance on Palestinians’ history:
1. Thrown out of Jordan after attempting a coup.
2. Thrown out of Lebanon after starting a civil war.
3. Thrown out of Kuwait after collaboration with Saddam forces
4. Egypt refusing to open Gaza strip border.
It’s all their Arab brothers who did it not the evil Israelis.
Still living in so-called camps on foreign aid after 60 years.
On the other hand Israel in 60 years became a developed democratic stare with a first class science and technology. What about Israeli refugees: the Jews who were forced out of Arab countries?
Nearly Oxfordian: I cant really take your first comment seriously becuase I dont think that the Jews in Israel are facing genocide. Terrorism, yes. Threats from Iran that need a strong, even military response, yes. But genocide – no.
My Absolutist ethic applies to all sides so I supposed that makes me Anti-Arab Muslim as well.
Your second comment: I have already addressed that with deegee. But since you have called me antisemitic without due consideration of what that really means, I suppose my concerns about ‘intellectual levels’ stands.
Feline: I am not here to defend Palestinians. I have never said that Israelis are evil.
I have said that the State of Israel is guilty of killing children. De honest and tell me – is criticism of Israel, by default, antisemitic? If so, they I know that there is no point to continuing with this thread.
I have said that Palestinian terrorists are contemptable for using children as human shields. You seem to confuse my criticism of the state of Israel as support for terrorists.
I think it could be argued that the Jews, to a greater or lesser extent, have been refugees for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Douglas: Sorry, I do not buy your argument that Israel is guilty of killing children. Was Britain and Allies guilty of killing German children during WWII? The Germans inflicted it upon themselves as well as Palestinians are now inflicting it upon themselves.
Douglas is another one who has come in halfway through the film and gives his opinion nevertheless. It is wearisome to have to start from the beginning all over again.
Douglas,
If you need to voice your opinion, please do more research before doing it again here. Apparently you know nothing. You are heavily influenced by what we are complaining about on B-BBC. There are too many misconceptions in your various comments to deal with, but I’ll start with a couple or three.
“”The conflict turns Muslims all over the world into apologists for terror. And a state that justifies the continual bombing of civilians is beneath contempt.”
The conflict does not turn Muslims into anything. The conflict has at its root anti-semitism which is at the very heart of Islam.
“A state that justifies the continual bombing of civilians” ? – what are you talking about? Give evidence.
“No matter what side you are on (personally I would nuke the entire area..”
Ha ha. A joke.
“It is this victim-empathy (not really a bad thing) that dictates how the BBC presents itself.”
Victim empathy does not dictate how the BBC presents itself. The way the BBC presents the matter dictates who the public perceive as victims. In this case, historical research will show you that reality has been turned on its head.
“It would be better if the BBC were to just report facts but I dont know how to remove emotion from a human.”
Yes it would be better if they were to just report the facts. No need to remove emotion. Just stop manipulating it.
From your comments to David P.
“For me though, the answer to terrorism is not military action.”
No one has yet come up with the answer to terrorism.
One thing Israel has done is construct a barrier. Condemned by the rest of the world, as is every defensive action taken by Israel, it has reduced suicide bombings effectively.
Another thing Israel has done, also condemned by the rest of the world, is what you call targeted assassinations. Controversial, but who knows what misery would have been caused if these people had been left to plan more atrocities.
Then there is the blockade of Gaza. Another measure that has earned them the disapproval of the rest of the world. That there is also a border with Egypt is conveniently ignored when collective punishment is condemned as an unfair measure. That Israel is supplying a great deal to Gaza despite numerous acts of sabotage by Hamas is rarely noted by the world.
So what are your suggestions for dealing with terrorism? All very well to say what they are not. Now say what they are.
“My history is not great ..”
Agreed, but why then are you so adamant about the morality of this conflict and so trusting of the misinformation that you have been fed by the BBC?
You say you are here to criticise them on other issues, why swallow their version of Israel / Palestine?
“There are many children who are brought up in Palestine who see their immediate world and suffering, ask why they should suffer and are told that the problem is Isreal. They grow up with hate in their hearts. They turn to terrorism as they are brainwashed to do.”
You obviously know of the propaganda that is incorporated into the education of Palestinian children. They do not even really need to see any suffering to “know” that the problem is Israel. You imply that all Israel has to do is be nice and they’ll realise that they have made a terrible mistake.
Every concession Israel has made has only been taken as a sign of weakness and has been taken advantage of each time. Your ignorance of any of this is very clear. But you typify a BBC indoctrinated member of the public, and the “I am the voice of reason” angle that pervades your comments is not unusual.
I’m sure you mean no harm.
But your opinionated misconceived rhetoric does cause harm.
Douglas | 25.07.08 – 10:07 am |
Don’t get me wrong, I dont look at pictures and film of Israelis suffering from rocket attacks and suicide bombers and think ‘they deserved that’. There is an undertone in the left wing media that clearly believes that. I am just saying that killing children is not a way to secure peace.
Well, not if you put it like that. But that’s really a gross misrepresentation of reality. The children are killed because they are human shields, or in the wrong place at the wrong time, similar to innocents killed by drive-by gang violence in our own city streets. If you are also talking about the occasional teenager who is killed while attempting to enter Israel illegally, or things like that, well, I admit I’m sympathetic to that view.
However, if you’re asking Israel to stop firing back at those who fire rockets and mortars, simply because the Palestinians encourage their children to play around the launchers after they’ve been fired at Israel, then, my question still stands. And then what if teenagers are armed, and have the ability to kill Israeli soldiers or citizens? This happens as well. Where can one draw the line?
Just talking about “killing children” muddies the waters way too much to reach a useful solution.
Douglas,
You said that if you were the father of a child who was killed by a state that you would hate that state with all your soul.
What about this then. Instead of hating the state that killed your child, how about you hate the organisation that put your childs life in danger in the first place?
Recently we saw Al Beeb carrying a story about Israel killing a baby, which of course Israel denied. It wasnt until a few days later that Hamas owned up and said it was their explosives detonating in a home that killed that baby. YET Al Beeb carried the story, blamed Israel and fanned the flames of hatred…simply because Al Beeb wanted the story.
Also, there is a VERY real difference between when israel and the palestinians kill civilians.
Palestinian groups like Hamas and Hisbulla DELIBERATELY target civilians. They WANT to kill civilians. That is their reason for existence, to KILL civilians. Just go and ask someone who lives in Sederot or maybe go ask the family who’s 8 year old child was killed by a Palestinian rocket recently?
Israel does not delibreately kill vicilians as a matter of policy. Israel has nothing to gain by deliberately killing civilians. If Israel really wanted to kill civilians then all they would have to do is adopt the Palestinian mindset and bomb the f8ck out of Gaza and the West Bank…BUT Israel does not do this.
Even when it appears Israel has delibaretely targetted civilians, the truth often says otherwise (Al Dura anyone).
Now, you are the one who waded in accusing Israel of deliberately murdering children…it is you who has to prove that this is the truth!
Mailman
The other thing you need to ask yourself is this. What kind of organisation would wilfully put the lives of children at risk just so they can carry out their jihad against jews?
I love my children, yet woe betide the person, persons or group that puts the safety of my children at risk!
Just a pity Palestinians dont value the lives of their children like those of us who live in civilised parts of the world do.
Mailman
Given that I get most of my international news from Fox (and FX is far better entertainment than BBC)and the Telegraph (and occasionally the WSJ) I am surpised to find that they are to the left of opinion here. Oh well.
Feline: WWII was State vs State which I consider a different concept but to answer your question – yes the Germans brought it upon themselves. When have I said that the Palestinians are blameless in their actions?
Sue: I read as far as ‘anti-semitism which is at the very heart of Islam’ and decided to stop.
Mailman: Read what I said after the sentance you first quoted. And B’Tselem.
David Preiser: As ever, the most considered response. Given that I dont believe, nor can find evidence for, the effective use of military strength to defeat terrorism, the answer to your quesion would be – no there is not any military actions the Israelis could use at all which would never have a risk of harming a child.
Winning hearts and minds, combined with enhancing security (unlike the BBC and others, I have no problem with the Wall and Checkpoints), is better than killing children, even if those children have been put in harms way on purpose.
If an armed teenager, clearly acting with intent, approached any Israeli soilder or Israli citizen then I would expect that the soilder or citizen to defend themselves, including killing said armed teenager. I didnt say that an Israeli needs to be suicidal. Using sniper tactics to kill unarmed non-rock through teenagers is a different matter.
D.
mailman | 25.07.08 – 2:45 pm
Just a pity Palestinians dont value the lives of their children like those of us who live in civilised parts of the world do.
May God forgive you for writing such thoughtless and cruel nonsense.
Douglas,
Don’t be so silly. Have you read the Hamas charter? The Q’ran? The Hamas Bunny?
It’s rude not to read my comments after I have taken the trouble to make them.
Winning hearts and minds? How, exactly should Israel do that? Don’t tell me. By becoming obediently obliterated like good victims.