I see that my old pal George Mitchell and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana are in the Middle East to help “bring peace.” You can expect to see the BBC give the efforts of this pair of jokers a sympathetic hearing – they have always been kind to Senator Mitchell following his work in Northern Ireland. Now that Obama has recycled this Clintonian bagman him into this role I am certain that the BBC will use the Northern Ireland peace process as the preferred template for creating stability in this region. On News 24 last night I heard someone insist that Israel would “have to” talk to Hamas, just like the British government “had to” talk to the IRA. It’s a completely misleading analogy but the BBC are wedded to it and you can be sure that Israel will be cast as the intransigent villains if they do not set down and enter dialogue with the genocidal Islamic savages in Hamas. The BBC coverage of the brutal murder of an Israeli soldier by Hamas should have re-assured everyone that BBC faux protestations about its’ much vaunted “impartiality”on this issue are as shallow as they are insubstantial. Once again the narrative is that “both sides” have broken their cease-fires and so Hamas get a pass for their act of murderous aggression.
SEND IN THE CLOWNS…
Bookmark the permalink.
There will never be any peace as long as islam is politically involved in the middle east.
The sooner these fools understand that, the sooner they will see reality.
When I heard the BBC reporting yesterday re the breaking of the ceasefire it was all about the Israeli action with just a bit tagged on about the Hamas action that preceded it. The BBC’s “coverage” of the Israel/Palestinian feud is a disgrace.
I see ‘I’m a Dinner Jacket’ has demanded that America remove its soldiers from around the world as proof of Obama’s new goodwill move.
Already the Iranians are playing Obama like a cheap Christmas musical instrument.
Not coming back to this site. You people need to stop hating each other. You need to re-name the site…Biased Jews/Muslims. Pathetic.
Goodbye
Goodbye
Umimpressed of Lichfield
All this debate that doesn’t happen to concur with his belief system –Pathetic
Good riddance, Unimpressed.
Perhaps “O” should convert to Islam “as a gesture of good will”?
Umimpressed of Lichfield:
Pathetic.
I guess that about sums up your comment. (BTW its “unimpressed”)
Umimpressed of Lichfield | 28.01.09 – 9:36 am | #
Why announce your departure – do you think anybody will either notice or care?
You see this sort of behaviour from childish attention seekers all over the internet – “I’m leaving” SLAM!
Actually Mitchell packed his bags three times to try to get out of here. He thought Clinton had side lined him to a back water, and didn’t want to be over here due to the fact that he and his wife only recently had a new baby and weren’t long married. It was only when NI came into the spotlight that he wanted to be here. He really wanted to be Baseball spokesperson at the time, I read he was nuts about it.
This is not really the fault of the bbc, but of the American press. I read in one American paper on line that Mitchell had brought peace to NI and so its possible to do it in the middle east.
The problems with that are as follows. Both sides here knew what they wanted before they went in, Mitchell was rather more of a convenience. He put his name to things already agreed by various parties to give it the stamp of approval of the US government.
Obama I fear has been taken in. Not so much his fault as that of his advisors. Also theres no sign that jihadi terrorists are looking for a political settlement as was the case here.
I believe his limitations will be borne out as time goes on..
Unimpressed of Litchfield’s departure might have been more dramatic if anyone had known he was here in the first place!
All the same, there has got to be a political solution, and for that to happen you must TALK.
All the same, there has got to be a political solution, and for that to happen you must TALK.
Well actually its not that simple. There is no mohammed mcguinness/adams etc. The IRA were up for the talk, theres on sign hamas or fatah are. There is no sign that they will settle for a two state soloution, and if George Mitchell is the only hope, then theres no hope.
This is being billed in the states that if mcguinness and paisley can sit to gether then anybody can do it. That is not always the case, they are not tackling the root cause of the conflict. They didn’t even do that here, there are still problems with a lot of people and organisations that the two state soloution here has not been accepted by all…
It’s still a leaky roof policy here that could leak again in the future.
Umimpressed of Lichfield:
– in case you are secretly having one last peep I will just say that in one sense you are quite correct – people should not hate each other and should work for peace. But – and this is a genuine comment not a point scoring comment – what do you do if one side wants peace and the other doesn’t?
And what do you do if the side that does not want peace has grudges that go back 1500 years, even before their religion began?
To quote from David Preiser (USA) in the triangulation blog below:—
———quote——-
Speaking of which, the EU guy who finally came out and said that we have to blame Hamas as well mentioned that the EU gives 600 to 700m euros every year, and were going to add another 60m this time. The rest of the world gives that much and more.
———end quote—
Would reasonable people not feel embarrassed to receive such colossal sums from the rest of the world? Does it not make them feel ashamed of what they are trying to do? Can’t they just say thank you for all the help, the time for war is over, let’s settle down and get proper jobs instead of being warriors for Islam? If you went over to them and applied your ‘let’s all be reasonable arguments’ you simply would not come back alive.
The fact that after receiving all that aid from us, they don’t say ‘thank you we will work for peace’, like you want them to. In the main they just hate us and love the Arabs, who, despite their oil wealth, don’t help them. That tells you what kind of person you are dealing with.
Which Arab country says ‘come and live here in the name of peace’?
I believe the Palestinians quite like their grievance culture and subsidised way of life, and they also like war as it gives them the prospect of the honour and glory of military conquest. Just look at the crowds chanting. That is what they live for.
Out of curiosity, though, what is Mitchell doing in the ME anyway? Isn’t it Bliar’s job to be the irrelevant chatterbox?
So Israel has wiped out more Hamas? And the problem is?
Unimpressed of Lichfield – I know you are reading this and have not really gone, and you probably object to some of the comments I have made eg on the triangulation blog just below.
But, be reasonable, don’t you think a religion that hates pigs and seriously believes in 72 virgins (ages not specified – possibly as young as 9) is just begging to be ridiculed?
It is just too hard to resist mocking them.
However, if they genuinely were a peaceful religion I would resist making these types of comments. But they are not, so they deserve it.
The reason they deserve it is that their religion and mosques are brainwashing millions of muslim children in this country to be loyal to countries which hate us. Most muslim children attend the mosque about 10 hours per week, and believe me, they are not learning about how to be peaceful.
Caveman | 28.01.09 – 10:43 am
I believe the Palestinians quite like their grievance culture and subsidised way of life, and they also like war as it gives them the prospect of the honour and glory of military conquest.
There’s not a heck of a lot of polling evidence, but I did see a poll of pallies some time back – sadly can’t find the link – which showed I think 86% in favour of peace, 2 states, live and let live re: Israel, moving on…. etc.
This is a genuine question – does it really say about the 72 virgins in the Koran? Or is it only the extreme ones who added it?
When you think about the details it is so laughable that surely they cannot be serious. For example, upon arrival does one find the virgins in a big circular crowd, naked? Or do they have to form a queue? And what about the female suicide bombers? What do they get? And what about the nine year old child bombers? What do they get? 72 Playstations?
Tom – let us hope that your survey was reflecting the true picture. When the extremists rule the place, it is difficult to know what the majority really thinks. I suppose someone who has worked amongst them as a teacher or doctor might have a better idea. But I won’t bother to ask a BBC reporter as even if there is a fair minded one amongst them, their Hamas minders will decide who they meet and where they go.
One depressing point though – they did vote for Hamas in their elections.
Unimpressed of Lichfield
You are not the first person to flounce of in a hissy fit, but most of them return at some stage !
flounce “off” !
Caveman | 28.01.09 – 11:18 am
they did vote for Hamas in their elections.
Yah that was depressing. But it may have been because Hamas put themselves over as if they were Presbyterians, in contrast to the venal, grasping, corrupt, Labour-peer like Fatah.
Would they re-elect Hamas?
Doubt it.
Sneer away all of you. It would be awful if a solution were found, wouldn’t it?
I know who the clowns are.
Would you prefer that we pretend that it’s all OK?
We are looking for a solution, but one that doesn’t obliterate any existing good points (ie completely destroys the state of israel)
‘Spectator’
Melanie Phillips:
“The Middle East Appeasement Process”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3299391/the-middle-east-appeasement-process.thtml
Sarah Montague always talks as though Hamas would settle for a deal if one could be arranged in such a way that everyone could save face. “How can we have peace unless we talk to Hamas” is trotted out over and over as though this was the only obstacle to peace. She really must believe the only stumbling block is Israel’s intransigence. She repeated it this morning, “Of course, eventually the Israelis will HAVE to talk to Hamas”
Did anyone notice the Freudian slip when Tim Franks was telling us about George Mitchell who is off to the ME “but has no plans to talk to Hamas, publicly at least, (wink wink) but there’s some Fan…….” stopped himself from saying “Fantastic,” and quickly changed the word to fascinating…. discussions going on……….” he must have been hoping nobody would notice
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00gtdlv about 37 minutes in.
All the same, there has got to be a political solution, and for that to happen you must TALK
Perhaps you could also enlighten us as to WHO one can talk to on the Arab side.
Sneer away all of you. It would be awful if a solution were found, wouldn’t it?
Superior, ignorant, smug tosser.
I know who the clowns are.
Yes. You.
.
“Superior, ignorant, smug tosser.”
And your solution is?
Last week, the IDF issued an unprecedented directive. All Israeli media outlets must obscure the faces of soldiers and commanders who fought in Operation Cast Lead. Henceforth, the identities of all IDF soldiers and officers who participated in the operation against the Hamas terror regime in Gaza are classified information.
The IDF acted as it did in an effort to protect Israeli soldiers and officers from possible prosecutions for alleged war crimes in Europe. The army’s chief concern is England. In England, private citizens are allowed to file complaints against foreigners whom they claim committed war crimes. Based on these complaints, British courts can issue arrest warrants against such foreigners if they are found on British territory and force them to stand trial. Over the past few years, a number of active duty and retired IDF senior officers were forced to cancel visits to Britain after such complaints were filed against them in sympathetic local courts.
Playing Devil’s advocate, if Israel did agree to hold public “talks” with Hamas presumably the upshot would be that Hamas would either be forced to make concessions or would have to publicly state their commitment to Israel’s destruction. The latter would presumably result in a significant decline in “conerned Middle Class Europe”‘s donations to Gazan humanitarian relief / the new missile fund.
Where’s the downside?
Cockney | 28.01.09 – 12:48 pm
publicly state their commitment to Israel’s destruction.
What could be more explicit than their charter? It’s there already. It’s up tp the BBC to make it public.
And your solution is?
Learn to read. I didn’t say that I had a solution – unlike you, who smugly thinks he has all the answers plus thinks that he is morally superior to Israel and her supporters.
Oh no, the name calling has started agin.
Nearly Oxfordian:
Although the actual points you make might often be valid, someone needs to tell you that your aggressive and name-calling tone does not help. Half of your contributions seem to be childish name calling. eg
–quote—
Superior, ignorant, smug tosser.
Nearly Oxfordian | 28.01.09 – 12:22 pm
–quote—
Now that is hardly much of an argument in what is supposed to be an intelligent debate.
Sometimes I am embarrassed to have someone like you ‘on my side’ so to speak.
Are you sure you are genuine and not some Guardian reader trying to lower the tone of the debate and misrepresent BBC-sceptics as unthinking shouters?
Take whitewineliberal – although I do not agree with what he says, he does contribute actual arguments and does not shout.
Danny Finkelstein offers all of us here with some food for thought –
It is impossible to determine whether the appeal is impartial because so much is in the eye of the beholder. The classic study in this field was conducted by Albert Hastorf and Hadley Cantril. In their paper They Saw a Game they followed a 1951 football match between the Princeton Tigers and the Dartmouth Indians. Watching the same game and the same commentary, two sets of fans had wildly different interpretations of what they had seen. The Princeton students almost all believed that violence had been instigated by Dartmouth and that their own players had been guilty of only minor infractions. Dartmouth fans blamed Princeton.
In the 1980s Robert Vallone and his colleagues repeated this work. This time they used television coverage of the Middle East conflict. And guess what? Partisans of the Israelis thought the coverage was biased against them, while pro-Arab viewers thought they had suffered from bias. And both were more likely to recall negative references to their own side.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article5600810.ece
One of the more subtle ways in which Al-Beeb twists its reporting is the way information is ordered. For example, in this morning’s 6 o’clock bulletin at the beginning of Today, the story went (my paraphrase)
“Israel has renewed its attack on Gaza”
aha, more unprovoked aggression by the Jooz..
“following the death of an Israeli soldier…”
‘the death’, oh right, possibly natural causes?
consider a more accurate version of events
‘following the murder of an Israeli soldier in an unprovoked attack by Hamas terrorists, Israel responded with a targeted attack on Gaza.’
In Al-Beebworld, Israel is always the aggressor. Goebbels would have been proud.
I think that the majority of Gazans probably do want peace, and have been sold a pup. People will broadly accept propoganda directed to them in the absence of any balancing views, especially when applied from an early age. They probably BELIEVED that Hamas would bring a better life. Now whether they will dispose of Hamas at the next election is anyone’s guess. Hamas, unlike overseas journalists or UN representatives, will remain in the neighbourhood after any election and localised intimidation and worse are unfortunately reality. Glance at the various reports of Israeli war crimes (with particular sympathy from ITN I must add) and you can see that the interviewees have, likely, been given the general script from Hamas.
“This is a genuine question – does it really say about the 72 virgins in the Koran?”
No, it was a 7th century typo. It should have said “a 72 year old virgin”.
Too bad.
Someone needs telling off | 28.01.09 – 1:43 pm
Damn straight. He’s very rude to me. “Anti-semitic shithole” was a tad strong I thought.
“Anti-semitic shithole”
a term of affection where I come from.
MWL writes: “Damn straight. He’s very rude to me”
Meanwhile…
MWL (responding to a post from David Vance, on another thread today)
“mikewineliberal:
Case proven David. Your work here is done.
mikewineliberal | 28.01.09 – 7:50 am | “
I still think MWL is marginally less antisemitic than Bilal (blessed is his name)
Only time will tell
From the link in DV’s article:
“Mixed with the rubble and shrapnel on the floor is a shell collection, a pink hairbrush, belts, handbags, a fragment of cardboard printed with a Barbie and lots of school books, caked with dried blood”
Jeremy Bowen
This put me in mind of the fauxtography campaign during the Israeli ezxcursion into Lebanon a couple of years ago. There would be a building destroyed, with rubble around and, in the middle of it all, would be a child’s toy – just for poignancy. Bowen is doing the textual equivalent here, and the poor sap just doesn’t realise what a complete arse he is.
“unlike you, who smugly thinks he has all the answers plus thinks that he is morally superior to Israel and her supporters.”
You are not in a position to judge me. You do not know me.
I suppose the obligatory anti-Semitic accusation will come next because I dare to believe that things could be done differently.
You spoil this site with your venom.
Now that is hardly much of an argument in what is supposed to be an intelligent debate.
Oh, and ‘It would be awful if a solution were found, wouldn’t it?’ is an ‘intelligent’ argument, right?
I don’t call it one. I call it a snide insult directed at people who do want a solution, but regard one that is predicated on Israel’s suicide a somewhat unacceptable one.
Sometimes I am embarrassed to have someone like you ‘on my side’ so to speak.
The feeling is mutual.
Are you sure you are genuine and not some Guardian reader trying to lower the tone of the debate and misrepresent BBC-sceptics as unthinking shouters?
The superior, dumb ‘false flag’ gambit of one who can’t stand dissent; a bit like ‘if you are so intelligent, how come you don’t agree with me?’
Israel has tried talking. It tried withdrawing. It doesn’t work. People like you have trouble grasping that.
I still think MWL is marginally less antisemitic than Bilal
Everyone is less antisemitic than Bilal, probably including Hitler.
.
You are not in a position to judge me. You do not know me.
Wrong. I read your posts.
I suppose the obligatory anti-Semitic accusation will come next
Getting your retaliation in first, right? “Mummy, he hit me back …”.
I will only call you an antisemite if you are. But if you are, I will.
You spoil this site with your venom.
Awww … you own this site, right, Mr Anonymous?
Allan@Oslo wtites: “This put me in mind of the fauxtography campaign during the Israeli ezxcursion into Lebanon a couple of years ago”
It’s also horribly reminiscent if ‘Damian Day’ in Drop The Dead Donkey . The war reporter who never went anywhere without a child’s teddybear to sneak into the picture.