The BBC is not alone in its certainty over who killed the honourable Hamas Commander. While it is still by no means a foregone conclusion, other MSM have also known from the outset, and have had no problem telling the world, that Israel is the guilty party.
As it stands there are many unanswered questions, inconsistencies, and suspects with a motive.
Even if it turns out the culprit was actually an elderly BBC presenter, with a pillow, in the conservatory, the BBC will still believe it was Mossad, and continue to insinuate such by innuendo and snide remarks from people like Jeremy Hardy “It’s a matter of give and take; or in Israel’s case, take.” Ba boom The News Quiz.
‘Must be time for another reminder of how awful Israel is’, thought the producers of Today, (scroll to 0:43:44) so they got someone to go to Nablus to find out what has happened to the generous gift of olive trees a charity has sent along. But alas and alack, the land had been stolen by a nearby settlement, illegal under international law, and the poor farmer was very sad. The Olive Tree is a symbol of Arab nobility, and Settlements embody Israeli oppression, so this was a gift in more than one sense.
Anyway all that is by the by. Back to the assassination. There has been a spate of assassinations, or as some people like to call them, mercy killings, recently. A Saudi Prince has done one in a hotel, apparently. Some have our approval, some not.
The press and blogosphere are going mad. All hell has been unleashed in the rush to condemn Israel and implicate Jews in a worldwide conspiracy in which they’re all traitors and would-be assassins on standby. I myself always carry a pillow with me just in case.
The telegraph link you point too still implicates Israel and suggests the ‘other suspects’ merely supplied mossad with information.
Either way, mossad hiking a lot of British Israeli identities cannot be excused no matter how you try to cut it. Passing the blame onto someone else is a common BBC tactic used to excuse their beloved muslim bedfellows, and it smacks of hypocrisy when used to excuse Israel.
As always Sue, you are using this site to promote your pro-Israel sympathies no matter how tenous the link is to BBC bias.
I care nothing for Palestine, I care nothing for Israel. But you increasingly enforce a pro-Israel stance on this forum therefore diluting the credibility of it’s impartiality in highlighting BBC bias.
I think you mean impose, not enforce.
If my pro Israel stance dilutes the credibility of this site’s impartiality, the BBC’s pro Palestinian stance dilutes the credibility of the BBC’s impartiality. Remind me, which one has the obligation for impartiality in its charter, again?
I don’t see why comments here on Arab-Israel conflict mean that B-BBC has to be artificially ‘neutral’ between Hamas and Israel.
The BBC uses our money to criticise Israel as its permanent enemy. The BBC sees Hamas as its friend; I see it as an enemy; and the Islamic Republic of Iran regime is an enemy too. I do care what happens to Israel, which is worthy of support, not neutrality.
Individuals here should be allowed to have opinions and take sides on any issue we want. The difference between us and the BBC, I would hope, is that our personal positions on a given issue shouldn’t make us lie or hide facts or distort or grossly misrepresent things.
No Sue, I definitely meant enforce:-
1. to ensure observance of or obedience to (a law, decision, etc.)2. to impose (obedience, loyalty, etc.) by or as by force
3. to emphasize or reinforce (an argument, demand, etc.)
In my view, this sums up your repetitive postings and insults to anyone who dares disagree with you quite nicely.
Every posting I read of yours is just grinding an axe for Israel then with a tacked on link about the BBC. Every other contributor gives excellent and clear examples of BBC bias that are mostly inexcusable and impartial. Robin Horburys postings come across as well researched investigative journalism and give this site excellent credibility. If only there were more like him.
However, If anyone dares to question YOUR intent, they are of course lambasted. And occassionaly the traditional ‘anti-semite’ and ‘racist’ trump card follows from other posters. A tactic we are all well aware of from anyone who criticizes Islam courtesy of the BBC.
I despise the BBC in all it’s forms. But that doesn’t mean I should have to agree with the opposite of any issue that the BBC champions.
I oppose the endless Islamic propoganda being broadcast by the BBC, I also oppose it’s anti-Israel stance. That doesn’t mean I have to AGREE or side with Israel. It should also mean that I can criticize them when it’s clear they have done something wrong.
Using the passports of British citizens and putting innocent lives at risk doesn’t automatically make it right just because they executed a scumbag. Does it? I mean, does it??
But then I guess we should automatically excuse all of Israels wrongdoings from this point on because to not do so would somehow be playing into the hands of the BBC.
Yeah, okay, whatever.
I said impose because I thought you were suggesting that I was a cyber bully. But if you insist you really meant enforce – I have no idea how any of us could enforce any stance on anyone.
“However, If anyone dares to question YOUR intent, they are of course lambasted.”
I have no idea what you think my intent is, other than to draw attention to the BBC’s remarkable bias against Israel. Who, here, is lambasting who?
“Using the passports of British citizens and putting innocent lives at risk doesn’t automatically make it right just because they executed a scumbag. Does it? I mean, does it??”
This comment needs to be addressed to someone who said it is automatically right to use the passports of British citizens and put innocent lives at risk, not me.
Sometimes I don’t spell things out, hoping any readers would have the intelligence to work some of it out by themselves.
I’m sorry you think that all I ever say, repetitively, is that Israel can do no wrong, but since you care nothing for Israel or ‘Palestine’ that hardly puts you in the best position to judge.
As for endangering the site’s credibility, different strokes. Some people dismiss it as a site for right-wing climate change deniers and Islamophobes. Others agree with some of it but not all. Why can’t you just be one of those?
Where is the proof that Mossad did this killing?
If “extra-judicial” killings are to be denounced then so must assuming guilt with no evidence
Heh, it wouldn’t be the first time someone has tried to enforce :-E a policy or agenda in this forum – or made an accusation of someone else doing so. There has been one recent blatant attempt at enforcement, citing an alleged official Biased BBC policy and aiming some low insults at individuals who dare to take their own view and to post it. That’s not usual here, apart from the occasional troll, as we all know.
It used to be that there was a fairly open tolerance of points of view on here and that views posted were those of individuals. Individuals here do not generally attack each other, even if they do not share the same views. There has always been plenty on here that I don’t agree with. So what? People don’t need my approval or my agreement to hold or to post their views. I like that freedom. And who am I to say their view should be something else or that people are or should be left or right, whatever those terms mean anyway? I don’t much care whether people are left or right but those labels are usually dragged in as a reason for attack when someone wants to impose an agenda or put pressure on someone else’s views.
As far as I am aware, there is no official policy here except that of exposing BBC bias. I hope this blog remains open to the expression of views based on individual observation and interpretation and that it doesn’t divide entirely into factions and all the rest. There is of course always a danger of conflict and falling into intolerance or extreme positions but that’s always the case everywhere. And not everything can be controlled. So there will be outbursts and forays to attack others from time to time.
Most of what I read here I agree with. From time to time I disagree. Surely – as someone who acknowledges and opposes BBC bias – I should be able to disagree with certain contributors without having to suffer partisan carpet bombing.
Makes the place look like a BBC hate site instead of an intelligent exposure of BBC bias.
Just to clarify my somewhat mixed comments: I didn’t intend my remarks as an attack on you, let alone a concerted one, even though it might appear that way and even though there may be some criticism of your comment in what I wrote.
I thought you were raising a genuine point of disagreement, not insulting someone and not necessarily wanting to enforce. I am more exercised about those who want to impose, enforce(!), insult, gang up etc.
Where you rightly may feel criticised, is when I was reflecting about how refraining from taking issue with others’ views creates a kind of freedom and that is something that I have liked about this blog even though I do not like some of the things that are posted. Again I was thinking more about:
1) my own usual approach, which is to let people carry on, even if I may think to myself that they are being over the top or riding a hobby horse or just plain wrong. It’s fine: they rabbit on; I rabbit on and it’s nice of them to let me!
2) people who insult me for expressing my view
None of the above means that you shouldn’t raise a point as you did. At most, I might be mildly batting for tolerance. Sorry if my comments seem a bit muddled. Sometimes I’m thinking two different things at once about an issue! :-[
Hope they find those responsible – to give them medals. One less child-murdering scumbag.
Funny how the bBC doesn’t have a “Have Your Say” on this issue – they presumably know that most people would applaud this act.
That’s because all of the ‘Have Your Say’ moderators are busy in full on damage limitation handpicking responses to the Ray Gosling ‘confession’.
Try and post a response to the negative and see where it gets you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8518227.stm
Even if the Israeli government was behind this (which is the most likely answer), it still highlights my number one contention regarding the danger of the BBC’s never-ending demonization of Israel outside of this story.
I have always maintained that – fair or not – Jews worldwide are associated with Israel by default, regardless of the opinions, loyalty, or actions of the individual non-Israeli Jew. That’s a pre-existing given, not the fault of the BBC. I wouldn’t call this ‘anti-Semitism’, really, but rather one example of what I often refer to as ‘anti-Jewish sentiment’. However, the constant demonization of Israel by the BBC involves condemnation and negative images of Israeli soldiers and citizens. Because Israel is made up of immigrants from around the world as much as people born in the country, any Jew anywhere in the world is potentially one of them by association. Not only that, but Israel’s self-designation as a ‘Jewish State’ automatically connects it to self-defined Jews everywhere. Again, this is a pre-existing condition, not the fault of the BBC, and it’s obviously not anti-Semitic to think such a thing. But it is something we all have to deal with on a regular basis.
The result in situations like this is that – again, fair or not – Jews worldwide are demonized along with the country/government of Israel. This particulars of this story drive straight to the heart of that problem, which highlights the suspicions harbored by so many, including at the BBC: all Jews are loyal to Israel first, and are just as bad as whatever ugliness the Israeli government gets up to. No other country or people has this problem. This is anti-Jewish sentiment, and is often exacerbated when the BBC demonizes Israel above other nations.
Travis,
No-one is forced to pay a tax to fund this website.
I object to being forced to pay a tax for the institutionally anti-semitic BBC.
I note an awful lot of people assume Israel did kill this scumbag, and support her for doing so.
Actually the stinking BBC come out rather badly from this, especially their overtly antisemitic claim that a million Jews worldwide are members of Mossad. Hilarious, chilly… and revealing.
The BBC is a force for evil.
Dave G
Well said.
I just think the whole operation , as much as we know about it, seemed a little unprofessional by Mossad’s high standards.
A conversation about the BBC’s pro-euthanasia campaign?:-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/photo_galleries/article5845863.ece?slideshowPopup=true&articleId=5845863&nSlide=1§ionName=PhotoGalleries
A Peter Brookes’ cartoon neatly linking two BBC issues.
One never gets loud and clear from the BBC the very basic background info. as to why the guy was offed.
1 Hamas (with Iranian support) has a charter aim of destroying the state of Israel.
2 The guy already had a murderous record. In an area where no Arab court would find him guilty – instead he moves up the Hamas heirarchy.
3 He was in Dubai to organise further weapons deliveries to Hamas, specifically missiles far superior to those Hamas already has.
I have nil difficulty with Israel getting its retaliation in first against this evil guy. My sense is that much of the BBC audience would feel the same way – if the BBC presented these facts fairly. Israel faces an existential threat from Hamas and its allies and supporters. Period.
Exactly. The BBC portray the scumbag as if he is some innocent victim.
“The BBC portray the scumbag as if he is some innocent victim”
The BBC’s got form on this. For instance here https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/programmes/people/VGVmL25hbWUvYmVnZywgbW9henphbSAoZm9ybWVyIGd1YW50YW5hbW8gZGV0YWluZWUp
and here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8177089.stm
This was an operation that the Judean Peoples Liberatioin Front would be proud in having carried out.
What the BBC and others of the congenitally anti-Israel sort do not realise, is that their propaganda against the Mossad, helps create the myth of an Israeli agency that ‘always gets its man’.
Who knows, there may be some businessman from the West, who may suddenly get an attack of conscience selling nuclear components to Iran via Dubai.
James Naughtie thinks al-Mahbouh is the same person as Khaled Mashal, but BBC Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen puts him right. “He’s the Senior Political Leader of Hamas” [blah blah …]”from his heavily guarded headquarters which I’ve actually visited quite a few times.”
“Snigger.”
Bowen’s delivery reminds me of an old style radio one DJ. “Evening, Pop-pickers”
And Bowen was also given top spot a short while later in From Our Own Correspondent.
Has anyone EVER heard Bowen express disgust at terrorism – or as he puts it, “militancy”? Has he ever picked a news incident of obvious Hamas or Hizbollah terrorism and crawled over it day after day on every available channel ?
Look on the bright side, at least the IDF slotted the twats best friend. I couldn’t stop laughing for days over that one.
The death by Israeli hands (we only have Bowen’s version of events) of his Lebanese Hizbullah fixer probably turned Bowen from a mostly neutral if uninformed, ‘follow the bang-bang’ journalist into a dedicated opponent and propagandist against Israel.
Not funny.
I don’t believe Israel was involved for reasons that I outlined on my own site a few days ago.
If Israel did it, they wouldn’t have need a team of more than half a dozen people, and if disguised, I suspect they would have pretended to be Arabs (particularly the females!).
No, a put up job as I outlined at http://english-pensioner.blogspot.com/
You might also be interested in my piece about the Japanese war flag on a children’s program.
On the subject of the BBC’s relentless and dangerous demonization of Israel, here’s more proof of their intellectual failure regarding Israel and Jews:
Jews leave Swedish city after sharp rise in anti-Semtic hate crimes
In 2009, a chapel serving the city’s 700-strong Jewish community was set ablaze. Jewish cemeteries were repeatedly desecrated, worshippers were abused on their way home from prayer, and “Hitler” was mockingly chanted in the streets by masked men.
What do these acts of violence against Jews have to do with Israel? After all we’ve heard time and time again from defenders of the indefensible as well as people who come here and laugh at us “Israel Firsters”. Here’s the connection, plain as day:
Swedish mayor blasts Zionism
Jewish residents in Malmo are furious after the Swedish town’s mayor, Ilmar Reepalu, equated Zionism to anti-Semitism in an interview published on International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
The mayor, much like the BBC, pays lip service to condeming anti-Semitism, but then goes on to say this:
Reepalu added that local Jews bear some responsibility for the attitude towards them, noting that “they have the possibility to affect the way they are seen by society.” The mayor then urged Malmo’s Jewish community to “distance itself” from Israeli attacks on Gaza’s civilian population.
And there you have it. So-called Liberal Europeans give tacit approval to violence against Jews everywhere. The BBC is totally silent on this story, as they generally are about violence against Jews, especially when it’s directly connected to the demonization of Israel.
That’s because the BBC suppresses this story in favor of…wait for it….demonizing Israel:
Israel adds West Bank shrines to heritage list
As usual, the BBC presents nasty Israeli Jews as using history to extort land from the Palestinians.
As Pounce would say, the BBC and half a story.
The BBC undoubtedly forgot [for reasons of space?] to add that in the period 1948 to 1967 Jews were prevented from praying or even visiting at all Jewish heritage sites under Jordanian control.
No doubt it was unimportant to note that since the 14th century Jews were forbidden from entering the Tomb of the Patriachs in Hebron., only allowing them as close as the 5th step on a staircase at the southeast, but after some time this was increased to the 7th step. This rule remained in place until 1967.
It was probably irrelevant to the story that Jewish sites without a Islamic connection have been routinely vandalised by the Arabs. On October 7, 2000 the tomb of Joseph, near Nablus, was handed over to the Palestinian police. Hours after the handover, a Palestinian mob ransacked the structure, smashing the dome with pickaxes and setting the compound on fire. The Palestinians as is often the Muslim then attempted to turn the site into a mosque.
Given the history of relations between Jews and Arabs that the BBC somehow didn’t consider important enough to mention is it any wonder Israel keeps its heritage sites under control.
“forgot [for reasons of space]”
or
didn’t know [for reasons of ignorance] 🙁
The useful Jews at the BBC office in Jerusalem know all about that. But it’s irrelevant to them because Judaism is the only religion in the world for which the BBC does not respect the desire to have access to – never mind control – its holy sites. They even weighted their report on the vandalism in favor of the Palestinian point of view. So the editorial decision is to leave it out, as it’s not important to the story.
“Nationalist” Israeli aggression is the story, not the history behind it. That pejorative wasn’t applied to the Palestinians, naturally.
I’m curious. How many of us think that MI5 (MI6 or whatever British Intelligence is called today) use false passports on occassion?
Medialens not biased to the extreme left ? You gotta be kidding !
When I first found this site, I was under the impression it was a page dedicated to exposing the bias of the BBC and not some left or right politically motivated place for the historically ignorant to voice their partisan hatred.
The BBC has a lamentable record of bringing Israel to task for it’s crimes against the Palestinians. The Christians amongst you must be applauded for your moral gymnastics which allows a ‘Thou shalt be allowed to kill the descendants of the historical Jesus’ into your list of commandments. Killing innocents is always wrong, regardless of their religion or race. Hamas and the IDF both have the blood of innocents on their hands.
The idea that any criticism of Israel amounts to anti-semitism is as ignorant as accusing a critic of US foreign or domestic policy as being Anti-American and has long been used by tyrants around the world as a means of stifling dissent. As for this particular accusation, there appears to be enough circumstantial evidence for the Israelis to at least answer their accusers. They have responded in their usual way by neither admitting nor denying the claims. Apparently that is their policy. Mossad do however have a history of using stolen passports/identities and have gotten into trouble with New Zealand and Canada amongst others.
One final point, the BBC has never backed down in it’s editorial stance of quoting the Iranian loudmouthed egomaniac leader as saying that he wants to wipe Israel off the map. This biased nonesense is seldom questioned. The real translation of the line in his speech, “Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.” refers to the rulers of Israel, “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”. I don’t recall at any time the BBC saying that GW Bush and Blair wanted to wipe Iraq off the map.
Bias is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe it’s not fairness that you’re after. You just want the bias to lean a bit more towards you. Playground behaviour if you will.
A less obviously partisan approach to the exposing of BBC and other news outlet bias can be found at medialens.org for those of you who don’t spend your life looking to the left or right for saviours.
They think you’re stupid,
I’m tempted….
A quick perusal of your site says you’re hardly impartial yourself old bean.
Before you go any further with the “any criticism of Israel amounts to anti-Semitism” line you should step back and engage your brain, especially if you’re going to bandy about words like ‘ignorance’
Bias is indeed in the eye of the beholder.
So, as a beholder, my eyes see in the BBC visceral bias against
Israel and Jews.
Semantics over Ahmadinejad’s ‘vanishing from the page of time/wiping off the map’ are as pointless as comparing them to ‘our’ activities in Iraq, and surely you’re not saying that the late al-Mahbouh was an ‘innocent?’
John A,
Now I see what your comment referred to.
Nothing would give me greater pleasure than seeing the regimes of Bush/Brown/Blair/Obama vanish from from the pages of time as but I’m suggesting anything to the effect of wiping out either nation.
As for semantics and translations, a lot can be learnt by examining a little more closely the things we are expected never to question. For example, most people are stricken with fear and loathing by mere mention of Al Qaeda, a colloquial term for the toilet (“Ana raicha Al Qaeda” = “I’m going to the toilet“). What kind of self-respecting team of bloodthirsty maniacs would name themselves in such a way?
The problems we all face often result from the fear instilled in us by the propaganda fed to us by elements within our governments, and the media that does their bidding. Israel is no different, although it has to be said it’s independent media does have a strong voice. Israel’s main enemies are those who convince it’s citizens and supporters that it is always the victim.
If you are happy supporting violence by being terrified of a bogeyman or by feeling you are a constant victim, that’s fine. The only problem being the way you treat other people, but I’m sure you’ll find a way to justify that also.
As for Iran, the nation who’s current woes can in part be traced back to the 1953 US/UK sponsored coup, you can disapprove of their leaders all you want but it doesn’t change the facts as they stand. They have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and have abided by it and they have not attacked another country in over 100 years. The same cannot be said of the US, UK or Israel.
Don’t even get me started on UN resolution compliance.
Anyone with any morsel of common sense can see who the aggressors are in this situation. I am no supporter of Iran or it’s regime, but I am a vehement opponent of the senseless waste of human life.
As for my blog, I don’t claim to be impartial. It is there for me to post stories and comment from around the world on any number of subjects. My bias is against lies, propaganda particularly when they are used to take advantage of the general public, particularly when they are asked to lay down their lives and wallets to further somebody else’s agenda.
And what I said was not pointless. There is a point. You choosing not to appreciate the fact that it’s a mistranslation used to try an incite a war, is a clear indication of the sort of person you are. The word nagsheh, or map doesn’t appear anywhere. Why?
As for ‘our’ intervention in Iraq, it was all about removing the regime as well you know. It is not pointless to compare how we demonize regimes we wish to overthrow. That is bias which is too childishly obvious to acknowledge.
As for al-Mahbouh and his innocence or guilt, I’m sorry I missed the trial. What was the verdict? Hamas were hardly a problem to Tel Aviv when it was being used to help bring down Arafat. But, hey neither was Saddam when he was the golden boy.
Apologies for having a problem with our attacking other countries and killing political opponents. We have certainly done enough of it during the last 15 years or so of New Labour along with our Allies. When Germany did it, it was called a world war.
Stupid,
This blog has something in common with yours after all, because we don’t claim to be impartial either. Our bias is against lies and propaganda fed to us by the media too. That’s why we’re called Biased BBC.
If I understand what you’re trying to say, you believe Israel is not the victim, but the aggressor. That is exactly what the BBC says.
BBC reporters have scant knowledge, only an instinctive partiality. That is what we complain about.
You are perfectly entitled to express your opinions, especially if you ever get some that make any sense.
So what have you learnt from that literal translation of Al Qaeda? That they’re cuddly?
That’s my final answer.
Thank you for the reply, it was never my intention to come on here and get into a silly argument. although I see that some of my commentary could have suggested that. I have never imagined for one moment that people here are stupid. My suggestion of ‘ignorance’ was one of a wilful kind, of which we are all victim from time to time. History is a difficult thing to get a true picture of, and often even more difficult to come to terms with, depending upon our belief system.
My talking about Israel as a victim is not the same as me suggesting it is the aggressor….which I also believe it is; moreover it is focussed on the idea of Israel’s portrayal of itself to it’s people and the rest of the world as a victim that I find disturbing.
I was brought up as a good catholic boy who sang of Israel in hymns every morning at school until I was eighteen years of age. I was also taught that killing was wrong, and lying was wrong.
I cannot profess to have adhered to the commandments I was taught, but I was always aware of when I had done wrong.
Having left my faith behind me, I have always taken the good that I had learned with me. In some ways, I’ve often hoped there is a god who can judge all of those who have used him as an excuse for their brutality.
My opinion remains that killing, particularly of innocent people is wrong, whoever does it. Anyone randomly firing rockets into Israel is committing an atrocity. Equally anybody firing into any area of Gaza where civilians are known to be are also committing an atrocity. International law is quite clear that if you fire missiles into a civilian area, you have to know what the potential consequences are. Regardless of international law, there are kids there, and revenge should never be taken on your enemies children. That cannot be denied by anybody with any humanity.
The BBC do not report the Israeli attacks in the same way they report rocket fire from Gaza. Attacks from Israel are more often than not referred to as retaliation, even when it is not. There is no moral, logical or humanitarian justification for the scale of retaliation on Israel’s part. The BBC almost never refers to the Israelis as aggressors. It almost always says they are in retaliation.
We will probably never agree on this point. Mine is that all deaths are wrong and should be reported as such.
Israel is a strong nation. Jewish people are a valuable part of any society. They are not victims. They should stop being taught that they are victims. They have been treated badly, particularly by the Nazis, but that will never happen to them again as anybody with any sense knows.
Their leaders, like those of the UK, USA and many other countries are power hungry liars who will do what is necessary to protect their personal and corporate interests. You, me and the general public of whichever country mean nothing to them, as long as we cause them no problem.
My comment about Al Qaeda is one that is often attributed to me being a ‘conspiracy theorist’. I am no spring chicken. I come from a background where people would often make false claims against their house insurance; pretending they were broken into by somebody else and even when some people would cause themselves injury and blame it on a hole in the road. My opinion of those in power is such that I would not be at all surprised if they manufacture these events in order to achieve their long term goals. After all, they think nothing of persuading us into wars costing countless lives. I would put nothing past them. I suggest nothing cuddly about any killers whoever they are.
My translation was not a ‘literal’ one. That is colloquial language; common parlance. It says more about the (probably English speaking) person who decided to name them than it says about me.
I’ve gone on too long. I’ll try not to bother you again.
[……….]stupid,
I’m a sucker for an argument.
You are right in some ways. The BBC does mention that Israel acts in retaliation. Invariably as a footnote, when it’s absolutely clear that it would be outrageously and demonstrably biased to omit it because it’s the truth.
If your belief system inclines you decide not to believe that so be it.
We agree that deaths and killing are wrong, and peace is desirable. But in the face of hostility that threatens you and yours it’s sometimes inevitable. As in the case of WWll.
Your theory gives Hamas impunity to use civilians as protective shields, which is a deliberate and documented policy of theirs. That cannot be right.
Israel is surrounded by enemies whose obsessional religion-based hatred of Jews transcends all logic. If Israel were militarily weak it would not exist.
I read a comment on another forum yesterday from someone who said that arguments from people like myself had changed his mind and enlightened him.
I doubt they will do the same for you, so all I can say is have a look at websites like Robin Shepherd’s and give it a chance. You might be pleasantly surprised.
Well, Gordon Brown calls it Alky Ada. Not sure what it means, when translated from Arabic, or is it Persian?
Apart from that, you lost me at the new commandment for Christians to kill Christians. I sometimes play a similar game, though, making up commandments representing the spirit of different countries. For example, Thou Shalt Be Cheerful.
The idea that any criticism of Israel amounts to anti-semitism is as ignorant as accusing a critic of US foreign or domestic policy as being Anti-American and has long been used by tyrants around the world as a means of stifling dissent.
Nobody here says any such thing. This misrepresentation actually stifles the very debate you pretend to want. There’s a difference between criticism and demonization, as many of us have said here time and time again. Your reductio ad absurdum tactic won’t work here, as we’re not as stupid as you seem to think.
From Honest Reporting:
“We currently do not know whether Mossad or any other foreign intelligence agency is responsible for the Dubai assassination. Nor does the international media. What we do know, however, is that the media has a responsibility to report on this story without prejudice and based on the limited circumstantial evidence that is available.
Stories such as this have a habit of developing into larger tales of conspiracies used to attack Israel and her supporters. With more “revelations” promised by the Dubai authorities, this story may not have played itself out yet.
Please respond to any media bias you may see in your local media. You can also take action against the above examples through the BBC Complaints website – http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints (for detailed instructions on how to navigate the BBC Complaints website, click here)”