I’m hugely entertained by the faux media storm that the BBC is bravely resisting efforts by Government and others to broadcast a charity appeal for schools in Hamastan! International Development Secretary Wee Dougie Alexander has moaned that it was not too late for a reversal to recognise the “immense human suffering”. (Forget about that suffering including that of Israelis, they don’t even count as humans in wee Dougie’s world-view) A protest is to be held outside Broadcasting House in London after the BBC declined to broadcast appeals by the Disasters Emergency Committee. (aka Save Hamas Now) Now then, given that the BBC has spent three weeks faithfully propagating every blood libel possible against Israel, the notion that it is somehow defiantly holding out to maintain it’s impartiality is a joke. The BBC has no right to be carrying any ads for Hamastan and this is making a virtue out of not doing something it should not be doing anyway! That said, I wonder will it be able to resist the cries of all the Jew-haters out there?
BBC IMPARTIALITY UNDER THREAT?
Bookmark the permalink.
Andrew | 25.01.09 – 4:36 am
Why are you amazed? Good God. Haven’t you figured out yet that this blog is written and read almost exclusively by psychopaths? It’s hilarious watching them desperately trying to spin this situation.
I’m a newcomer so I haven’t made my mind up yet about this blog yet. But I am shocked at how some people here are using the BBC’s liberal bias as a smokescreen for pushing their own right-wing agenda.
That is exactly the same thing Fox News does. It hijacks legitimate concerns about the “elite liberal media,” using them as a pretext for propagating its own grossly biased viewpoint.
Martin (riverscrap)
But I am shocked at how some people here are using the BBC’s liberal bias as a smokescreen for pushing their own right-wing agenda.
That is exactly the same thing Fox News does. It hijacks legitimate concerns about the “elite liberal media,” using them as a pretext for propagating its own grossly biased viewpoint.
..which would be reasonable position to take if it were possible to be prosecuted for refusing to fund Fox News.
I doubt many here would say that they are trying to put up a smokescreen to conceal their political leanings – but the fact you don’t catch many extreme left wingers and Keffiyeh-wearing Starbucks demolition squads complaining about the BBC should equally ring alarm bells, should it not?
We aren’t psychopaths – we’d just like a little balance and objectivity from our state broadcasters – and a little less anti-Semitism.
Philip | 25.01.09 – 4:12 pm
You really are being slow on the uptake.
Hamas is not proscribed in the UK – only the Izzy-deeny-Qassam bit, which is Hamas’s military wing.
The political and dawa (charitable) bits are not proscribed here.
How my not bothering with a moniker makes me any more anonymous than someone calling himself Philip, beats me.
Even if Philip is your real name – so what? There are millions of you.
Besides, for all I know you could be called Eric.
Anonymous
You’re the slow one – slow (or reluctant) to grasp the point that I am making.
Money that goes to Islamic Relief finds its way to Hamas – irrespective of which figleaf ‘wing’ is involved. Hamas is only split into ‘wings for Kuffar consumption. Hamas is Hamas.
How do you know that some or all of that money doesn’t go to HIDQ (in which case it would absolutely be going to a proscribed entity?).
I’m merely saying that is is either way, regardless of the Monty Python semantics.
Philip | 25.01.09 – 5:01 pm |
You seem to think there is some proven link between Islamic Relief and Hamas.
There isn’t.
The Israelis held an IR guy for a brief time, and to cover themselves spread some false allegation about IR being linked to Hamas.
Then they let him go…no charges.
Usual thing.
Since then IR has been checked out by the US and UL authorities and has come up clean.
The US have given it a 4 star charity rating.
The UK have given IR’s boss the OBE.
It’s legit.
Only conspiracy nuts think otherwise.
Philip | 25.01.09 – 4:44 pm
..which would be reasonable position to take if it were possible to be prosecuted for refusing to fund Fox News.
As far as that is concerned, I’m with you. In the age of digital television there is no justification whatsoever for forcing people to pay for the BBC. There should be an opt-out scheme.
It’s legit. Only conspiracy nuts think otherwise
I suppose you would characterise the Israeli Prime Minister’s office as conspiracy nuts – that would make sense. Here’s what they had to say as the deported its Head Honcho of IR a couple of years ago:
The Israel Security Agency (ISA) and the Israel Police, on 10 May 2006, arrested Iyaz Ali, a Pakistani-born British national, born in 1970. He admitted to being a member of the UK-based Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), which is suspected of supporting Hamas. He admitted to working for IRW’s Gaza branch as a project director since December 2005; he worked to transfer funds and assistance to various Hamas institutions and organizations, including the Al Wafa and Al Tzalah associations, which have been outlawed in Israel. He also admitted that he worked in Jordan and cooperated with local Hamas operatives.
Incriminating files were found on Ali’s computer, including documents that attested to the organization’s ties with illegal Hamas funds abroad (in the UK and in Saudi Arabia) and in Nablus. Also found were photographs of swastikas superimposed on IDF symbols, of senior Nazi German officials, of Osama Bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, as well as many photographs of Hamas military activities.
The IRW was established in 1984 in the British city of Birmingham. It has branches in Gaza and Ramallah. The IRW provides support and assistance to Hamas’s infrastructure. The IRW’s activities in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip are carried out by social welfare organizations controlled and staffed by Hamas operatives. The intensive activities of these associations are designed to further Hamas’s ideology among the Palestinian population.
These associations’ educational and religious institutions incite against the State of Israel and advocate terrorist actions against it and its citizens. The associations provide support to the families of terrorists who were wounded in actions against Israel, and to Hamas prisoners and detainees. These associations thus promote Hamas’s goals including the destruction of the State of Israel.
Ali admitted that he was aware that several of the organizations supported by the IRW in Judea, Samaria and Gaza were indeed identified with Hamas. By agreement, Ali was released today (Monday), 29 May 2006, with restrictions on his movements. He will be deported from Israel in the coming days and will be barred from returning.
The foregoing attests to the involvement of international funds and NGO’s in transferring goods and funds to organizations identified with Hamas, which have been outlawed in the State of Israel. Israel is tightening its supervision over the activities of such organizations.
The US Treasury Terrorism Office might also beg to differ with your assessment of them as a ‘4-star charity’. Do you work for them or something? Or maybe MPACUK?
This appeared in the Independent during the 2006 Israel/Hizbollah conflict. I predict something similar on Gaza
Jerusalem (Reuters) – Israeli gunners have said they had no regrets over killing more than 100 civilians sheltering in a United Nations base in southern Lebanon because the dead were “just a bunch of Arabs”.
A soldier, identified as Sergeant Y, was quoted by the Jerusalem weekly Kol Ha’ir as saying: “It’s a war, in a war these things happen . . . It’s just a bunch of Arabs.”
The sergeant, in his reference to Arabs, used the Hebrew derogatory term Arabushim, which has no English equivalent.
The soldiers said they were firing at guerrillas near the UN camp at Qana and that it had been a mistake to hit the camp where hundreds of refugees were sheltering. The attack took place during Israel’s operation against Hizbollah guerrillas last month.
A UN report this week said it appeared unlikely the slaughter was by accident. Israel, which has given varying versions of what happened, insists it was a mistake. Another soldier from the artillery battery said the commander gathered his troops after the shelling for a talk.
“He told us, ‘This is war. For God’s sake, the shits are shooting at you. What are you going to do?’ He said we were shooting well and to continue this way, and that Arabs, you know, there are millions of them.”
http://www.osamasaeed.org/osama/2006/08/1996_qana_dead_.html#more
Martin | Homepage | 25.01.09 – 1:24 am |
but stomping your feet and claiming that the likes of Oxfam, the Red Cross & Save the Children are terrorist sympathisers frankly destroys your credibility.
Actually, when it comes to Jews and Israel, the Red Cross has a very poor reputation already.
The Red Cross allowed the Red Crescent for Muslims as early as 1876, and made it an official part of their organization in 1929. Iran even has their own recognized Red Lion with Sun, even though they use the Red Crescent now. They would not permit an Israeli/Jewish version until 2006. For a long time, they tried to offer the neutral compromise of the Red Diamond, because they felt using the Star of David would somehow not be neutral. I’ll leave it to you to guess why.
Further, they have an International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, but the Jews are not included. Oh, sure, they get a mention on the website when they treat Palestinians, but they’re essentially the red-headed stepchild (no pun intended).
The Mogen David Adom (Red Star of David) doesn’t even get a mention in the IFRC museum. Israelis do feature in their “Walls between people” exhibit, though.
I could go on and on about how Holocaust survivors hate the Red Cross for going along with the Theresienstadt work camp charade, claiming that Nazi concentration camps allowed their aid packages through, and turning a blind eye when fake Red Cross trucks were used to pump out the Zyklon B. But HaloScan won’t let me put any more links in. Also, these days bringing up the Holocaust in a discussion has become a sort of corollary to Godwin’s Law (except when used in reference to Palestinains), so I’ll leave it at that. You can look it all up yourself, if you want.
Basically, the Red Cross has very little credibility when it comes to Israel and Jews.
Martin Riverscrap
“I don’t consider myself pro-Israel or pro-Arab – so by your logic I must be racist against Arabs as well as Jews? Isn’t this blog suppose to be about objectivity, not ethnicity?”
This blog is about the bias shown by the BBC. These issues come up over and over again.
1.) Bias towards the left wing: the BBC’s default position is left-leaning, socialist, and multiculturalist. To compound this affront, bias against the centre to right-wing view, and comparative suppression and denigration of the centre/ right wing voice, completes the circle of imbalance.
2.) Man Made Global Warming and Climate change issues. I am ignorant and never comment, but I realise the BBC assumes the matter is irrefutable and suppresses the voice of skeptics and opposing scientific opinion.
3) Bias towards Multiculturalism and the assumption that there is now no right or wrong, only different. This dictates that we must be nonjudgmental at all times. People call this moral relativism, which entails throwing long-held values in the bin. Bias against everything formerly known as Britishness.
In the interests of that principle, no evaluation of the relative merits of Israel with its democratic and life-loving society as opposed to, say, Gaza with its pseudo democratic and life-hating society, can be allowed. The taboo that dare not speak its name.
This is the British Broadcasting Corporation we’re talking about.
British.
Why ever would they not prefer Israel? Why ever would they behave as though they regard Hamas with its Islamist ideals and behaviour that would be judged as criminal in this society, as equally deserving of our approval as Israel?
Why indeed. Because Israel is full of Jews? Because Israel is supported by America? Or was up till now.
I’m not talking about ‘Israel right or wrong’ I’m talking about witholding fundamental approval for a freedom loving society and compounding this by witholding fundamental disapproval for Islamist-run freedom-hating Arab societies, again, completing the circle of the imbalance.
You say you are new here, and it shows. We have discussed this time and time again with newcomers and we have started from scratch just because they can’t be arsed to look at the archive. It’s over on the right hand side –>
I’d challenge you to produce one single quotation from myself which supports the assertion that I’m antisemitic (feel free to look through the articles on my blog as well as my comments here).
For the reasons already stated I won’t be trawling through your blog to prove something that I’ve absolutely no need to do. But I hope that while you’re here you will allow things to ‘cross your mind’ too, and you will see that there’s a great deal of substance to what we are saying. Maybe you’ll eventually come around.
greycloak | 25.01.09 – 5:52 pm
As if!
Only conspiracy nuts think otherwise.
Anonymous | 25.01.09 – 5:06 pm | #
Mmm…conspiracy nuts including the BBC’s own Panorama programme – where John Ware exposed Islamic Relief and got sued.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/5234586.stm
http://www.asianleader.co.uk/national/Charity-worker-sues-BBC.1953645.jp
Before the lawsuit, however, the BBC defended the programme vigorously:-
http://www.asiansinmedia.org/news/article.php/television/1426
Since the lily-livered BBC settled out of court, the matter of whether Islamic Relief was funding Hamas wasn’t tested in court – but it hardly makes John Ware a “conspiracy nut” .
greycloak:
Interesting that Osama Saeed sourced this article via CAIR (Council fo American/Muslim Relations), recently designated as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding case by US Federal prosecutors.
It would certainly make sense that this Islamic Caliphate supporter, currently disguised as a Scottish Nationalist, would source his quotables from there 😉
Sue | 25.01.09 – 5:54 pm
[In the BBC’s reporting] no evaluation of the relative merits of Israel with its democratic and life-loving society as opposed to, say, Gaza with its pseudo democratic and life-hating society, can be allowed. The taboo that dare not speak its name.
These are not objective facts – they’re your subjective opinions. If a broadcaster is to be impartial (and I’m not just talking about the BBC here), it has to stop itself from making judgments like the one you just made. The second you call Israel “life-loving” and the Palestinians “life-hating,” you show that you have no interest in objectivity – you’ve picked sides, and you’re labelling everyone who disagrees with you an antisemite. Real mature.
I condemn the BBC for having a subtle, implicit bias. But I condemn you tens time more for having such a crude, direct bias.
This is the British Broadcasting Corporation we’re talking about.
British. Why ever would they not prefer Israel?
Now we’re getting down to the substance of what you’re saying. You believe that because Britain and Israel are both Westernised democracies, all Brits are duty-bound to defend the Jewish nation. Once again, you have no interest in impartiality or objectivity – Jews are like us, therefore they must never be criticised.
You say you are new here, and it shows. We have discussed this time and time again with newcomers and we have started from scratch just because they can’t be arsed to look at the archive.
So your policy is that all newcomers have to sign up to your own personal view on the Middle East (a view which, I have to say, you seem far more uncompromising on than some of the other regulars) – and if I don’t agree unconditionally with you, then I must just be too lazy to check the facts?
For the reasons already stated I won’t be trawling through your blog to prove something that I’ve absolutely no need to do.
Actually you do have a need to. You called me a racist – which you yourself admit is about the most offensive slur that can be levied against someone – so I would like you to please substantiate your remarks by providing evidence of me being a racist.
I have tens of thousands of words of writing on my blog. If I am a racist it should be easy for you to find some racist comments. And if you are unable to, I believe I deserve an apology.
I don’t think Israel gives a fig for Palestinian civilians, judging by the use of White Phosphorous.
Its my belief that both sides now hate each other to such a degree that there are no rules.
I find the BBC’s coverage absurdly anti-Israel at times but I get the distinct impression that the Israeli army is as much driven by hatred as Hamas in some ways. The same hatred that led the Israelis to brutally slash the throats of OUR brave men and blow up innocent Britons in the King David hotel. Israel was founded by terrorists who murdered British people.
This conflict is going to go on forever.
Martin riverscrap
These are not objective facts
How not?
Anyway what you describe is moral equivalence which is what I was deploring.
Personally I certainly have picked sides.
The BBC has a duty to be impartial. That is wholly different from adopting moral equivalence at the cost of abandoning any moral values whatsoever.
They shouldn’t be suppressing things and selecting things to fit their agenda, and if they have an agenda it should be on the side of justice, legality, and some sort of moral compass to do with the traditional thou shalt nots. Or western values. Laura norder and that.
You believe that because Britain and Israel are both Westernised democracies, all Brits are duty-bound to defend the Jewish nation.
You’re sounding like Alex now. I didn’t say that. I said they ought to be un-hypocritical enough to recognise, and come down on the side of, a free society that resembles ours, and an Islamist tyranny that doesn’t.
By the way, I didn’t say you were too lazy to check the facts. I said I was too lazy to go through thousands of words on your blog. Tens of thousands even.
For that I offer an unreserved apology.
Martin (riverscrap.com):
”
2. Even if the BBC did an appeal for Jewish victims, the amount of airtime it would devote to such an appeal would have to be 1/100th as long as the airtime it devotes to a Palestinian appeal. As I’m sure you know, 1,300 Palestinians died in the conflict, whereas 13 Israelis died (ten of them soldiers).”
Uh, no. Hamas and their fellow suicide bombing travellers murdered 1000 Israelis, mostly civilians, during their 2000-2005 campaign. Where was the BBC appeal for that?
simon | 25.01.09 – 7:47 pm
Uh, no. Hamas and their fellow suicide bombing travellers murdered 1000 Israelis, mostly civilians, during their 2000-2005 campaign.
Are we talking about the recent Gaza conflict, or the wider MidEast conflict? If you want to talk about the 1,000 Israelis killed between 2000-2005, then that’s fine; but I will respond by talking about the 3,000 Palestinians who died during the same period:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Casualties
Sue | 25.01.09 – 7:37 pm
That is wholly different from adopting moral equivalence at the cost of abandoning any moral values whatsoever.
‘Moral equivalence’ is a term that is frequently used by pro-Israli pundits to suggest that all critics of Israel equate the actions of Hamas with those of the IDF. In reality, the vast majority of critics (myself included) make no such equivocation.
Hamas deliberately target civilians, whereas Israel does not. There is no moral equivalency there – one party is a terrorist organisation, the other is a democracy. But precisely because Israel is a democracy, I hold it to much higher moral standards than Hamas.
My actual point, therefore, (i.e. the one I’m making, not the one you’re ascribing to me) is that – regardless of its intention of avoiding civilian casualties – Israel in fact perpetrates more reprehensible acts (i.e. killings) than do Palestinian militants. Look at the link I pasted above for some facts.
In this latest conflict: 1,300 Palestinians died whereas 13 Israelis died. Between 2005 and 2007, some 1,290 Palestinians died compared to 86 Israelis.
This shows how Israel has lost the moral high ground. And that is why people such as myself choose to criticise it – doing so does not make us antisemites (if anything, our criticism reflects how we expect higher standards of humanity from our Israeli friends).
PS If you honestly don’t understand why the term “life-hating Gazan society” is an opinion, and not a fact, then I give up!
‘HAMAS in their own voices’ (Video clip)
http://www.memritv.org/video.html
-as not presented by BBC.
I’m a newcomer so I haven’t made my mind up yet about this blog yet. But I am shocked at how some people here are using the BBC’s liberal bias as a smokescreen for pushing their own right-wing agenda.
Martin (riverScrap.com) | Homepage | 25.01.09 – 4:27 pm
Oy, careful with that axe Eugene, err, Martin!
Many if not most newcomers accuse us regulars of being all a bunch of right-wing nuts, but that just ain’t true.
I for one, and there are others willing to put their hands up too, am a life-long socialist now thoroughly disillusioned with the left’s hypocrisy and moral vacuity. That doesn’t mean I’ve suddenly become a Conservative or even a conservative. While I don’t write as well as they do think Nick Cohen and Melanie Phillips as examples of one-time lefties sick to the stomach of the left teaming up with and repeating the same slogans as those who given half a chance would destroy everything the decent old left fought for.
Phew!
Martin (riverscrap)
You were making some reasonable arguments in your previous posts but now you’ve simply lost it.
The 1300-13 argument is reprehensible – and incessantly wheeled out by the ragbag army of Free Gaz-oids who get their flyers and posters, together with their opinions, from the likes of the iSM and Socialist Worker.
IN WHAT WAY is 1300-13 relevant? how can ‘more casualties’ possibly mean ‘more evil’; when all Israeli strikes are either defensive or pre-emptive (unless you’re going to tell me they also eat Muslim babies)?
1. How many combatants are included in the 1300? Hundreds is the answer.
2. Hamas were caught redhanded on several occasions this time using human shields. Schools, hospitals, kindergartens? It’s all the same when you regard your children as expendible, replaceable explosive devices/photo ops. There’s a hell of a lot of truth in that Israeli cartoon of thee Hamas operative firing at the iDF soldier with a pram in front of him – when the IDF soldier is firing back, with the pram behind him.
3. The IDF, probably more than any force in the world does its utmost to avert the deaths of innocents. Target selection is based on some of the world’s best intelligence, not shouting ‘Alahu Akbar and sticking your fingers in your ears.
So, if you accept at least in part that the points I make above are credible – in what way has Israel lost the moral high ground?
“Israel in fact perpetrates more reprehensible acts (i.e. killings) than do Palestinian militants”
We all know that the “militants” would kill all the Jews if they were given the opportunity
1. How many combatants are included in the 1300? Hundreds is the answer.
That figure of is 1300 unverified and most likely includes Fatah sympathisers and supporters murdered by Hamas.
The latest figures I saw released by Israel talked of 900 verified dead of which 750 were Hamas “operatives”.
Israel is compiling a list of names of those it knows it killed, like the two known Hamasholes it killed outside the UN compound.
Expect the list in a few weeks and don’t expect the BBC to even mention it.
This shows how Israel has lost the moral high ground. And that is why people such as myself choose to criticise it…
Martin (riverScrap.com) | 25.01.09 – 8:48 pm
“Has not the time come for us to fold our arms and say quietly, in the only language anyone understands, ‘Go to hell, all of you. Who are you to preach to us and who are we to have to listen to you?'”.
-Zev Jabotinsky
“Hamas deliberately target civilians, whereas Israel does not. There is no moral equivalency there – one party is a terrorist organisation, the other is a democracy. But precisely because Israel is a democracy, I hold it to much higher moral standards than Hamas.”
Martin (riverScrap.com) | Homepage | 25.01.09 – 8:48 pm
Hi Martin,
Do you live your life by some code of moral relativism? Do you really feel Israel are deserving of criticism for deviance from some pacifist democratic concept whereas Hamas are blameless for simply operating according to terrorist norms?
Even if so, surely relative to your own moral values (as well as on an absolutist scale), Israel still achieves higher moral standards than Hamas. Or do you disagree?
So isn’t it more apt to condemn Hamas first and foremost, if your criticism is of a “negative” sort? Or is your position that you are criticising Israel for their own benefit, despite echoing the propagandizing which aims solely to do harm?
The BBC, making it up as it goes along:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7850085.stm
Israel ended its military operation in Gaza on 18 January, and Hamas declared a ceasefire hours later.
Well no actually. Israel declared it had achieved its aims and would end its operation and begin withdrawing its troops, warning however that if Hamas continued to fire at Israel Israel would respond.
In order to boast of a victory Hamas declared its own ceasefire.
Israel has admitted using white phosphorus in Gaza but says it did not break international law in doing so.
White phosphorus is legal for creating smokescreens in open battleground. But rights groups and journalists say it was used in crowded civilian areas.
I can find nothing about white phosphorus use “in open battleground”, anywhere.
ICRC: Israel’s use of white phosphorus not illegal
GENEVA — The international Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest the incendiary agent is being used improperly or illegally.
The BBC, making it up as it goes along!
Hi Fish
Nope I am not saying “because Hamas is a terror outfit, they’re allowed to be evil”. That would be moronic. But nor am I criticising Israel for deviating from a “pacifist democratic concept” – who said democracies have to pacifistic? Not me.
Our disagreement is over who has the moral high ground: and personally I wouldn’t ascribe it to either side. Hamas are clearly undeserving for countless reasons. But if you’re asking me whether I think a country that is willing to kill hundreds of innocent children in retaliation for the deaths of a handful of its citizens is acting ethically. No, I absolutely do not.
(In fact when Israel launched the Gaza attacks not one single Israeli had been killed since the resumption of the rocket attacks. It was only after the first day of aerial strikes that Hamas stepped up the barrage and the first Israeli died)
Israel launched this war for two main reasons: 1) it was the last chance it had to pound Hamas disproportionately hard with US sanction (before Obama came in); and 2) the incumbent Israeli administration knew its chances of being re-elected would be boosted if it showed its electorate that it is taking a tough stance on Hamas.
If you’ll excuse the shameless plug – here’s an article I wrote the day before the Gaza attacks began, in which I foreboded the fact that Israel was about to respond with undue and ineffective force:
http://riverscrap.typepad.com/home/2008/12/israeli-pm-makes-indirect-threat-to-palestinian-children.html
No-one denies that Israel tries to avoid killing children, but the fundamental truth remains that it considers the deaths of hundreds of innocent children to be acceptable collateral damage. And this in a war that was waged at a tremendously expedient time (politically), and which never had any realistic chance of military success (Israel said its goal was to end the rocket attacks – but 19 Hamas missiles were fired after it declared its ceasefire. Where’s the victory?).
Israel did not act ethically, no. It acted expediently.
Philip:
You are right that Hamas uses human shields, and as a consequence it is inevitable that some civilians will get killed by Israeli fire (though the fact that Gaza is one of the most densely-populated strips of land on the planet doesn’t help either). I wouldn’t for a second deny that Hamas acts in a totally repugnant fashion.
But are you seriously asking “how is it relevant” that 1,300 Palestinians died and just 13 Israelis died? You honestly can’t see that killing 100 Arabs for every dead Jew is totally and utterly disproportionate?
Also, you blindly assert that “all Israeli strikes are either defensive or pre-emptive,” but you’re not privvy to military intelligence. You’re taking the IDF’s word for it. Personally I would be far more sceptical – I think the Israeli military has very much adopted a “bomb first, asking questions later” approach.
Israel’s iron fist has not destroyed Hamas. It has not stopped the rocket attacks. And it has not made Israelis any more secure. All it has achieved is to fan the flames of hatred against Jews, and to create a new generation of Palestinian children who are willing to blow themselves up in order to enact revenge.
Was it really worth it?
IFJ Slams Hamas Press Restrictions, MSM Yawns
“In Gaza we found evidence of intimidation by Hamas. This is completely unacceptable. We understand that humanitarian help to media including safety vests for journalists in danger have been seized and confiscated. This is intolerable,” said White.
[…]
“The last month has been hell for journalists working in Gaza, “said Aidan White. “It is impossible to properly investigate the media situation in Gaza without considering the difficulties facing journalists, particularly because of the Hamas regime. It is clear that Hamas are no friends of media freedom and have been ruthless in their intimidation and manipulation of the media. The situation of journalists in Gaza was already intolerable without military activity and this latest conflict has not made it any better. The IFJ is particularly concerned by Hamas’ attempts to interfere in the work of Palestinian journalists. Now that the violence has stopped, it is time for all sides, including Hamas, to allow journalists to work freely.”
So why haven’t the BBC reporters and producers mentioned any of this?
They certainly weren’t shy about pointing out constantly that Israel wasn’t allowing journalists into Gaza, why haven’t they reported this behavior by Hamas?
Scared of Hamas, or compliant with Hamas’ terms and conditions?
In the very same post our new boy Martin (riverScrap.com) manages to contradict himself in spectacular fashion:
But if you’re asking me whether I think a country that is willing to kill hundreds of innocent children in retaliation for the deaths of a handful of its citizens is acting ethically. No, I absolutely do not
Swiftly followed by:
No-one denies that Israel tries to avoid killing children
So which is it smarty-pants?
Is Israel willing to kill hundreds of innocent children or does Israel try to avoid killing children?
You can’t have it both ways, unless you’re schizophrenic, or practicing doublespeak.
And please, bear in mind that there are reports from Palestinians themselves accusing Hamas of shooting civilians, including children, in order to stage “Israeli war crimes” and none of the casualty figures being bandied about have as yet been authenticated by anybody other than the Palestinians themselves.
Bio:
..and that’s not the only place he contradicts himself:
In this latest conflict: 1,300 Palestinians died whereas 13 Israelis died. Between 2005 and 2007, some 1,290 Palestinians died compared to 86 Israelis. This shows how Israel has lost the moral high ground. (incidentally, he fails here to demonstrate exactly how this proves his point)..
followed by:
Our disagreement is over who has the moral high ground: and personally I wouldn’t ascribe it to either side
Then:
No-one denies that Israel tries to avoid killing children
followed by:
I think the Israeli military has very much adopted a “bomb first, asking questions later” approach.
Get off the fence and make your mind up, Martin.
Martin, I think if you’re to bring a rounded perspective to your writing and balance your views on this situation, I suggest a little research is in order:
1) Gain an insight into what disproportionate really means. 5.5 million Israeli Jews with their backs to the sea in a beligerent neighborhood of 600 million Muslims, most of whom wish them exterminated. Wouldn’t you be armed to the teeth?
2) Learn about the Islamic concepts of Taqiyyah and Hudna, or how it’s OK for you to lie but not the Kuffar.
3) Learn about Pallywood. I suggest the following excellent websites:
http://www.memri.org
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2008/12/27/wapo-steps-in-pallywood-doodoo-something-smells/
(in fact the whole Augean Stables site should be of interest)
It may make you stop and think the next time you put fingers to keyboard to write about those poor, helpless ‘Palestinians’…
Martin,
At first you say “There is no moral equivalency there”, but then go on to say “Our disagreement is over who has the moral high ground: and personally I wouldn’t ascribe it to either side”.
So is there moral equivalence or does one side have the high ground? I agree with others writing that you are contradicting yourself.
More importantly, I would like your final position on this moral question – equivalence or not, and if not, who has the moral high ground Martin?
Of course, the BBC political, historical and cultural partiality goes deep. It has got to the stage now where only Muslims, not Christians, are allowed to give their views of the Crusades. Incipient Islamisation by BBC predilection.
Who does the BBC get to gives an Islamic view of the Crusades, on the Andrew Marr radio 4 programme this morning, but its ubiquitous Islamic chum, RAGEH OMAAR, from the Islamic-favouring, Islamic jihad Hamas favouring, AL Jazeera Islamic TV. It sounded to me as though Marr/Omaar wanted to ban the word ‘Crusade’. No way: the Crusade against BBC bias continues.
So Islamic practitioners are given the opportunities to propagandise to us infidels/ kafirs on the BBC about their views of the nature of the Christian crusades, but when someone who is a non-Muslim, GEERT WILDERS, tries to tell Muslims about the nature of the Koran in history, he is prosecuted.
For a non-Muslim view of the Crusades, a view which is not allowed on the BBC, suggest see:
“What the Crusades were really like” by Prof. T. Madden
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/ZCRSADES.HTM
AND: the book-
“The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)” by Robert Spencer (published by Regnery)
Morning all. No contradictions at all I what I what, but rather some specious reasoning on your responses which is very easy to dismantle@
Biodegradable:
1. You say that I am contradicting myself by saying Israel is “willing to kill hundreds of innocent children” but that it also “tries to avoid killing children”. There is no contradiction – the first statement is one of intent, whereas the second is one of resignation. Israel does not explicity want children to die, but it is more than willing to turn a blind eye to their collateral deaths (i.e. it tries to minimise such deaths, but still tolerates them when they happen in their hundreds).
You are right that the figures have yet to be confirmed, though I suspect they won’t be lowered very dramatically once they are.
Philip:
2. Not sure where the alleged contradiction is in your comment? From the quotes you selected I basically said (to paraphrase): Israel does not have the moral high ground; neither side has the moral high ground; Israel is not pure evil; Israel is trigger happy. None of those statement are mutually exclusie – so how are they contradictory?
Re the “get off the fence” remark: I’m a centrist, so no I won’t. I’d advise you to get out of the Israeli digout and join the umpire.
And re your subsequent post: you start by promoting a “rounded perspective” and “balanced” view, but then conclude your post by sarcastically dismissing the rights of “those poor, helpless ‘Palestinians'” – so who lacks the objectivity? Me or you?
Fish:
3. I understand ‘moral equivalency’ to be the practice of equating terrorist actions like Hamas’ suicide bombings to military reprisals, like the IDF’s strike on Gaza. This is an equivocation I have never made, and that I reject out of hand.
From that standpoint, I therefore assess each side’s actions on their own individual merits (without trying to equivocate the two). I concluden by condemning Hamas for using terrorist tactics, but also condemning to IDF for inflating the scale of their military response. Neither conclusion is reached with undue reference to the other assessment, so moral equivalency never comes into play.
You asked “So is there moral equivalence or does one side have the high ground?” – and my answer is no to both. They are not mutually exclusive – it is not pre-ordained that, in the absence of equivalence, one sided must secure the moral high ground. Rather, it is totally possible for both sides to be in the wrong (which is what we have in the Middle East, and which is why the conflict has raged on for 60 years without any resolution).
PS The term ‘moral equivalency’ is frequently bandied about by pro-Israelis as a means of suggesting that anyone who criticises Israel is blind to the suffering it endures. But I am not – I simply believe it creates far worse suffering itself.
“what I what”? Sorry… morning amnesia.
Martin (riverscrap),
I return to my quote of your original statement:
“Hamas deliberately target civilians, whereas Israel does not. There is no moral equivalency there – one party is a terrorist organisation, the other is a democracy. But precisely because Israel is a democracy, I hold it to much higher moral standards than Hamas.”
You are clearly using a comparative basis for an assertion that there is no moral equivalence – it’s in the very same sentence! This was not a criticism I was making. Indeed moral equivalence specifically relates to questions of moral superiority and equivalence between “sides”.
It is quite clear that if we consider both sides to be on level moral ground that we can adjudge equivalence. If we deem one side morally superior on balance, there is no moral equivalence. You are deliberately confusing cause and effect for rhetorical reasons here. It is clear that the judgement of equivalence follows the actions creating high/level/low moral ground, not the other way round. Talk of the “absence of equivalence” leaving moral voids to secure is absurd.
When you say that neither side has the high ground, do you agree that Israel has the higher ground then (though high is equally valid in this comparative contextual sense. Not all real ground can be high for example – it’s relative) – based on your moral values and comparatively? I think Hamas can be condemned for far more than the “terrorist tactics” you state – this suggests to me you support their aims? Do you?
It is interesting that you say ‘moral equivalency’ is being bandied about by pro-Israelis. Are Hamas supporters doing the same? What does this suggest to you about both sides morality on the absolutist scale?
I find you quite evasive, and talk about assessing each sides actions independently as if there weren’t conflict between them is disingenuous.
so who lacks the objectivity? Me or you?
I never claimed to have any – I’m in the tank (so to speak!) for Israel.
Martin (riverScrap.com),
You’re denial that you’re contradicting yourself is in itself contradictory:
1. You say that I am contradicting myself by saying Israel is “willing to kill hundreds of innocent children” but that it also “tries to avoid killing children”. There is no contradiction – the first statement is one of intent, whereas the second is one of resignation. Israel does not explicity want children to die, but it is more than willing to turn a blind eye to their collateral deaths (i.e. it tries to minimise such deaths, but still tolerates them when they happen in their hundreds).
Own up Martin. You’re really Angry Young Alex, aren’t you?
Your arguments and your hypocrisy are identical!
You are right that the figures have yet to be confirmed, though I suspect they won’t be lowered very dramatically once they are.
I’m afraid it’s your suspicions that won’t be confirmed:
IDF: Only 250 of Gaza fatalities were civilians
Senior military sources say recent findings indicate at least 700 of those killed in Gaza offensive were gunmen. Palestinians claim only 300 armed men killed
By the way, haven’t you noticed how the BBC isn’t even bothering to give figures for “combatants” and civilians, unlike the last war against Hezbollah in Lebanon where we were constantly told that more than 1,000 had died, “most of whom were civilians”?
Further to Andrew Marr on Radio 4 today; he showed his usual instinctive political partiality in his interview differential treatment of guests with varying political messages.
Re: 1.) JONAH GOLDBERG’s theme was ‘Liberal Fascism’ (he has written a book of the same title, publisher, Penguin)- Marr was forever interrupting.
Re: 2.) GARETH PEIRCE, ‘human rights’ spoke as defender of various Guantanamo inmates, whom she praised; Marr gave her a lengthy monologue, with no interruptions.
No mention by Marr of THIS:
‘Pentagon: 61 ex-Gitmo inmates have returned to jihad’
[Extract]:
“This shouldn’t surprise anyone, since nothing is done at Guantanamo to disabuse inmates of their beliefs about the responsibility of Muslims to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers. The prevailing PC ‘Islam Is A Religion of Peace’ line prevents that — and makes for this recidivism”.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024387.php
You’re denial that you’re contradicting yourself is in itself contradictory:
Biodegradable | 26.01.09 – 1:27 pm
Ooops!
Should of course read “your denial…”
http://www.northland.cc.mn.us/owl/Apostrophe%20Rules.htm
Martin (riverScrap.com) | Homepage | 26.01.09 – 10:56 am |
PS The term ‘moral equivalency’ is frequently bandied about by pro-Israelis as a means of suggesting that anyone who criticises Israel is blind to the suffering it endures. But I am not – I simply believe it creates far worse suffering itself.
Fine. Then things become very simple. All you need to do now is realize that your criteria removes any possibility of military action by Israel. Once your criteria are set in place, all Hamas – or Hezbollah, or Iran, or anyone else – has to do is strap a Palestinian baby on the back of a few terrorists, and send them in with guns ablazin’.
Because they may not risk the possibility of harming the innocent, Israelis must stand by and be killed, one by one, slowly or quickly, depending on how many rockets or bombs or armed killers go after them.
According to the criteria you’re using – and which the BBC condones – Hamas has a recipe for endless killing, while Israel must stand by and let their own civilians die, one by one.
I understand your words don’t mean that you think that Israelis should just shut up and die, or that you favor Palestinian lives over Israeli lives, or any of that. But it is the reality of what you’re saying, and the reality of the BBC’s position. They don’t do stories criticizing Hamas for murdering their own people. In fact, they even defend Hamas by telling the public that the bit in the Hamas Charter about destroying Israel and pushing the Jews into the sea is just a bit of rhetorical fun from the past, and they don’t really mean it.
But they do, and Hamas attacks on Israelis will continue even if Israel removed all blockades, opened all borders, released all prisoners, and apologized to the world. However, if Hamas quit fighting today, no Palestinian would by killed by an Israeli tomorrow, or ever.
Yet, you want Israel to cease all action, stand by and let their civilians die one by one, expecting that Hamas will magically transform.
It’s all very simple, really.
Fish:
You are clearly using a comparative basis for an assertion that there is no moral equivalence
I’m not. I’m leaning away from the whole concept of ‘moral equivalence’ hence am actively avoiding comparing them, opting instead to consider each side individually. You are the one who keeps invoking the concept of moral equivalence. Let me repeat: Hamas and Israel are not morally equal. But neither party is beyond rebuke.
Can we talk about this without constantly falling back on the term ‘moral equivalence’? Frankly I view it as a blatant attempt to obfuscate the debate.
It is clear that the judgement of equivalence follows the actions creating high/level/low moral ground, not the other way round. Talk of the “absence of equivalence” leaving moral voids to secure is absurd.
Consider what you just said. First, you say that there is no moral equivalence between the two sides. But then when I agree with you, you come back by saying that an absence of equivalence leads to “moral voids”. So on the one hand you say Israel and Palestine should not be compared morally, but at the same time your moralistic argument hinges on doing just that.
This is why I avoid the term ‘moral equivalence’ (and why radical pro-Isrealis rally behind it). It’s totally circular reason.
Leaving aside that term and returning to the issue of who if anyone has the moral high ground, you ask me if I believe Israel does. And clearly no I do not, as I made abundantly clear. Hamas relinquishes any claim to morality due to its tactics (and its ultimate goal). Conversely, Israel cannot lay claim to the moral high ground because in this latest war it wantonly killed hundreds of civilians in pursuit of military aims that it knew were unrealistic (see what I wrote about the expediency of its war above).
Also please let me be clear that by criticisng Israel I am not defending Hamas. Every time I say something about Israel you seem to retort ‘but what about Hamas’. Well Hamas be damned! My concern is for Palestinian civilians, not the thugs in Hamas.
I find you quite evasive, and talk about assessing each sides actions independently as if there weren’t conflict between them is disingenuous.
If I was being evasive I would have given up on this thread ages ago. And my reason for seeking to assess each side independently is to move away from your specious claim of moral equivalency, as above. Clearly the root of the debate lies in how both sides interact – but every time I address that, you start hoist the giant red ‘moral equivalency’ flag.
Many of the debating tactics used by people in this blog seem to resemble that of Jihad Watch (a US-based hate site). I find that very disturbing.
Jihadwatch is a hate site? I don’t think even its opponents regard it as that. They are certainly nervous about debating with Robert Spencer because he really knows his stuff – and only ever debates his opponents based on the actual content of the Qur’an and Haditha.
When one web-filtering supplier classified it as such a year or so ago, the resulting protests saw even most Fortune 500 companies removing it from their blocklists.
In what way is it a hate site? Where is your evidence?
Additionally, are you now resorting to making slurs about our ‘debating tactics’ because we are, in short order, picking off the many flaws in your own?
Philip, London | 26.01.09 – 1:04 pm
I never claimed to have any (objectivity) – I’m in the tank (so to speak!) for Israel.
Fair enough then 🙂 If you are arguing from an avowedly pro-Israeli perspective then I have no beef with you at all. What I don’t like is people who pretend they’re being objective, but are in fact churning out overtly bias views.
Biodegradable | 26.01.09 – 1:27 pm |
You’re denial that you’re contradicting yourself is in itself contradictory
You’ll have to be more specific as that sentence doesn’t make a whole lot of sense (whereas my longer justification, which you quoted, very clearly outlined why I am not contradicting myself).
Own up Martin. You’re really Angry Young Alex, aren’t you?
Believe it or not, more than one person out there thinks like me. If you have any doubts about my identity just check my blog – I have a personal profile with bucketloads of background info about me.
IDF: Only 250 of Gaza fatalities were civilians
“Only 250”? Is that not… rather a lot? And what about all the policemen that were killed at the graduation ceremony? Were they the same people who fired rockets at Israel, or were they simply people carrying out civil duties in their neighbourhood? (Rhetorical question – neither you nor me have the answer, but it is worth considering. Is a policeman the same as a soldier?)
David Preiser (USA) | 26.01.09 – 3:30 pm
your criteria removes any possibility of military action by Israel … Because they may not risk the possibility of harming the innocent, Israelis must stand by and be killed, one by one … you want Israel to cease all action
You have utterly and spectacularly missed my point. You seem to think I am a pacifist? If I were, I would not have said the following: “You are right that Hamas uses human shields, and as a consequence it is inevitable that some civilians will get killed by Israeli fire.” IOW, I think Israel has the right to respond, but it’s response must be proportionate, and collateral damage must be kept to a bare minimum. Killing 100 Arabs for every dead Jew is not proportionate – it’s apocalytpic.
[The BBC] defend Hamas by telling the public that the bit in the Hamas Charter about destroying Israel and pushing the Jews into the sea is just a bit of rhetorical fun from the past, and they don’t really mean it.
I never heard the BBC say that. Got a reference?
Philip:
I recently got involved in a long, drawn-out debate with some of the regulars on Jihad Watch, after which time I personally concluded that the blog is a hate site:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024114.php
I didn’t reach that conclusion lightly, and that’s just my opinion. As you can see I talked to them for hours and made a sincere effort to find some middle-ground. But (with a couple of notable exceptions) all I encountered was vitriolic abuse and hatred directed at all Muslims and moderates.
Taking a tough stance is one thing, but when you declare war on moderation you are on real shaky ground. As a consolation: I don’t think this blog is (quite) as despicable as Jihad Watch.
NB To anyone who defends Jihad Watch, consider one thing that happened in that thread. When asked to come up with an example of the Bible advocating murder in the same way as the Koran does, I produced the following quote from Num. 31:7, 14:
“They waged war as god had commanded them and killedevery male. But they kept the women as captives and took their wealth as spoil. Moses was enraged. ‘So you spared the women? Kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse but keep the virgins for yourself. Divide them up evenly.'”
You can verify the accuracy of that quote simply by picking up a bible, or by stopping by the Net Bible: http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Num&chapter=31&verse=17. But just look at the response I got from one of Jihad Watch’s regulars:
I did a quick check on the Old Testament and did not find anything like what you wrote at 8.55pm. You are a deceptive little B. What you cut & pasted here came from some unknown anti-Jewish site.
http://www.awitness.org/news/september_2001/zionism_racism.html
The guy felt so threatened by my quotation that he actually tried to attribute the Bible’s own words to an antisemitic hate site!
Now no-one on this blog has done anything like that, and I’m not at all tarnishing you guys with the same brush. But next time you defend Jihad Watch, please remember the kind of tactics they use to argue their case.
Martin:
So you’re basing your view of the site on the commenters? Sure some on JW are, er robust, and some of them for sure hold virulently anti Jihadist views. However the site is really about the writing of its proprietor, Robert Spencer and I challenge you to find anything extrremist in his writing.
A lot of people (not necessarily myself) regard, for example, Guido as a serious right wing political commentator – but a lot of the posters in his comments area are just foul-mouthed muppets – same goes for a lot of liberal sites too – have you seen the some of the hate-filled filth spewed forth from the so-caled liberal left US-based Daily Kos?
Philip: not just the commenters, no. In fact in that same thread I produced a breakdown of five Jihad Watch articles, in which I concluded that 4/5 of those posts were unacceptably biased and misleading. I didn’t jump to my conclusion.
You’re right that I should read Robert Spencer’s own writing before I condemn him, and trust me he’s on my reading list. But as far as his contributors and audience are concerned, I found them to be hate-filled. I won’t be going back to that blog again.
Also I’m not familiar with Daily Kos, but of course you’re correct that the far-left espouses equal measure of hate. I find Michael Moore to be particularly guilty of this.
riverScrap hates ‘Jihadwatch’,
‘Jihadwatch’ hates Islamic jihad.