I rest my case ...
Posted by: Arye_Gur on 03 January 2005
There is an article in our greatest daily newspaper Yediot Achronot that tells that outcomes of a review that took place in England puts Israel in several subjects at the most ugliest rank out of many countries in the world, with the exception that the Brits think that the French people are worse than the Israelis …
Now comes the interesting part – the paper asked for response from the UK embassy in Israel and they said that there are many people in England who don’t know Israel and their mind is shaped by the unbalanced media in the UK. Well, If they say so – who am I to say different things?
Arye
Now comes the interesting part – the paper asked for response from the UK embassy in Israel and they said that there are many people in England who don’t know Israel and their mind is shaped by the unbalanced media in the UK. Well, If they say so – who am I to say different things?
Arye
Posted on: 05 January 2005 by matthewr
7V -- I think you possibly misread my post. My point (generally, as illustrated by the simple example) is that the BBC is absolutely right to not call Palestinians who blow up buses terrorists becuase to do so would be to take a definite pro-Israeli and anti-Palenistinian editorial line.
Your view (a not uncommon one) is the Moral Absolutism argument which requires the BBC to call them terrorists and is just as wrong as a pro-Palestinian view that they should be called "resistance fighters" or "martyrs" or whatever.
Compare this with, say, Fox News which has absolutely no problem calling the Palestinians Terrorists. Is this how you think the BBC should be? Like Fox? It's how many of the Bloggers you cite think the world should work.
"Many of the people who perceive the BBC as having a political bias are those who don't hold left of centre political views" and "Left of centre is not neutral"
Your argument is in danger of swallowing itself.
"Audiences should not be able to gauge from BBC programmes the personal views of presenters and reporters"
Paxman (whom you cited earlier) is an old-fashioned "High Tory" with right-of-centre politics and a worldview broadly sympathetic to Israel. So it appears to be working.
Matthew
Your view (a not uncommon one) is the Moral Absolutism argument which requires the BBC to call them terrorists and is just as wrong as a pro-Palestinian view that they should be called "resistance fighters" or "martyrs" or whatever.
Compare this with, say, Fox News which has absolutely no problem calling the Palestinians Terrorists. Is this how you think the BBC should be? Like Fox? It's how many of the Bloggers you cite think the world should work.
"Many of the people who perceive the BBC as having a political bias are those who don't hold left of centre political views" and "Left of centre is not neutral"
Your argument is in danger of swallowing itself.
"Audiences should not be able to gauge from BBC programmes the personal views of presenters and reporters"
Paxman (whom you cited earlier) is an old-fashioned "High Tory" with right-of-centre politics and a worldview broadly sympathetic to Israel. So it appears to be working.
Matthew
Posted on: 05 January 2005 by 7V
Matthew,
I disagree with just about every point you've made in your last post, from 'terrorist' to Paxman. Yes, I do believe that there are moral absolutes.
It's therefore probably silly for us to continue to discuss it. We'd be better off talking in a pub with a couple of pints and, even then, we probably wouldn't bother.
Cheers
Steve M
I disagree with just about every point you've made in your last post, from 'terrorist' to Paxman. Yes, I do believe that there are moral absolutes.
It's therefore probably silly for us to continue to discuss it. We'd be better off talking in a pub with a couple of pints and, even then, we probably wouldn't bother.
Cheers
Steve M
Posted on: 05 January 2005 by Nime
My earlier reference to "man in a rowing boat" is a private joke. I noticed, probably as far back as the Torrey Canyon disaster, that news reporters were required to stand near a newsworthy happening so that it might be seen in the background. Thereby bringing a sense of action and relevance to the report by the moron blocking a decent view of the event.
In this particualr case a reporter was gesticulating while bobbing about in a rowing boat in the harbour. While discussing the sea-borne disaster 17 miles off-shore!
It always gives me enormous pleasure, when the weather is particularly inclement, that the fat slug from Sky News has to stand (yet again) in front of No10. While discussing the prime minister's foreign holiday etc. When, in fact, the pm is noticably absent! Here's hoping for a short ice-age to further add to the slug's problems. No doubt his inner self-confidence will keep him adequately warm. Wishing for a very localised Tsunami, to further discomfort the slug, might be considered a little drastic though.
My own judgement on Israel is that they learnt too well from their own treatment under the Nazis. They have since perfected these same methods on the Palestinians.
With the obedient, knee-jerk support of US politicians always at the mercy of rich jewish-American financial supporters, the Israelies can do pretty-well what they like. Though the result is anything but pretty.
I am not anti-Jew or against Israel at all. I just consider the illegal practices of their leaders and military are well worthy of an appearance in an international court for violations against human rights, genocide, illegal occupation etc.etc. Not that it will happen immediately of course.
But America's corrupting influence in all areas of power, trade, welfare, energy and political reform, throughout the word, will eventally be swept asside by bankruptcy.
China will then assume the role of Top Dog. Probably after massive internal political reform as a result of uncontrollable communicaton with the outside world by its own citizens. Communism can only survive and its excesses be tolerated in a dark place. The Americans were right. "Greed Works". If only for a while.
Recent access to all the BBC programmes, after several years without, suggests an enormous shift towards Chavism. With considerable dumbing-down of presenters and audience alike. Quite astonishing really.
My exile had not prepared me appalling standard of humour now presented by the conveyor belt of BBC Three!
Nime
In this particualr case a reporter was gesticulating while bobbing about in a rowing boat in the harbour. While discussing the sea-borne disaster 17 miles off-shore!
It always gives me enormous pleasure, when the weather is particularly inclement, that the fat slug from Sky News has to stand (yet again) in front of No10. While discussing the prime minister's foreign holiday etc. When, in fact, the pm is noticably absent! Here's hoping for a short ice-age to further add to the slug's problems. No doubt his inner self-confidence will keep him adequately warm. Wishing for a very localised Tsunami, to further discomfort the slug, might be considered a little drastic though.
My own judgement on Israel is that they learnt too well from their own treatment under the Nazis. They have since perfected these same methods on the Palestinians.
With the obedient, knee-jerk support of US politicians always at the mercy of rich jewish-American financial supporters, the Israelies can do pretty-well what they like. Though the result is anything but pretty.
I am not anti-Jew or against Israel at all. I just consider the illegal practices of their leaders and military are well worthy of an appearance in an international court for violations against human rights, genocide, illegal occupation etc.etc. Not that it will happen immediately of course.
But America's corrupting influence in all areas of power, trade, welfare, energy and political reform, throughout the word, will eventally be swept asside by bankruptcy.
China will then assume the role of Top Dog. Probably after massive internal political reform as a result of uncontrollable communicaton with the outside world by its own citizens. Communism can only survive and its excesses be tolerated in a dark place. The Americans were right. "Greed Works". If only for a while.
Recent access to all the BBC programmes, after several years without, suggests an enormous shift towards Chavism. With considerable dumbing-down of presenters and audience alike. Quite astonishing really.
My exile had not prepared me appalling standard of humour now presented by the conveyor belt of BBC Three!
Nime
Posted on: 05 January 2005 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Nime:
My own judgement on Israel is that they learnt too well from their own treatment under the Nazis. They have since perfected these same methods on the Palestinians.
then
quote:
I am not anti-Jew or against Israel at all. Nime
Nime
Despicable.
Do a Google on Belsen, Treblinka, Holocaust, Shoah, Mengele, Sachsenhausen, or Buchenwald and despair of your stupidity.
I'll report this garbage but not until the words you have posted have been seen by more Forum members. That way they can judge you as they see fit.
Posted on: 05 January 2005 by Arye_Gur
Matthew
I can't agree with you. A person who blows up a buss full with citizens is a terrorist and there is no other word to describe this act - you may say that you justify or understand such acts because of the situation as you see, or as a reviewer in the BBC sees it, but blowing busses or murdering kids in a discotheque, these are acts of terror and there is no other word to describe them.
Arye
quote:
is that the BBC is absolutely right to not call Palestinians who blow up buses terrorists because to do so would be to take a definite pro-Israeli and anti-Palenistinian editorial line.
I can't agree with you. A person who blows up a buss full with citizens is a terrorist and there is no other word to describe this act - you may say that you justify or understand such acts because of the situation as you see, or as a reviewer in the BBC sees it, but blowing busses or murdering kids in a discotheque, these are acts of terror and there is no other word to describe them.
Arye
Posted on: 05 January 2005 by matthewr
"I do believe that there are moral absolutes"
Well of course. Everybody does. The BBC's problem is that big chunks of its viewers have very differnt sets of absolutes.
"It's therefore probably silly for us to continue to discuss it"
My conversations with you seem to be following this pattern where you say something, I reply, you say it's not worth discussing further. If you persist with this approach I am rather inclined to agree.
Matthew
Well of course. Everybody does. The BBC's problem is that big chunks of its viewers have very differnt sets of absolutes.
"It's therefore probably silly for us to continue to discuss it"
My conversations with you seem to be following this pattern where you say something, I reply, you say it's not worth discussing further. If you persist with this approach I am rather inclined to agree.
Matthew
Posted on: 05 January 2005 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Ayre
Blowing up the King David Hotel: terrorism?
Killing an enemy of the State with a Hellfire missile while he is in a car surrounded by civilians: terrorism?
"Our Lot" are freedom fighters; "Their lot" are the terrorists.
Regards
Mike
Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.
Blowing up the King David Hotel: terrorism?
Killing an enemy of the State with a Hellfire missile while he is in a car surrounded by civilians: terrorism?
"Our Lot" are freedom fighters; "Their lot" are the terrorists.
Regards
Mike
Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.
Posted on: 05 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by matthewr:
"I do believe that there are moral absolutes"
Well of course. Everybody does. The BBC's problem is that big chunks of its viewers have very differnt sets of absolutes.
Nevertheless, I'm in full agreement with Arye's comments above on this.
quote:
"It's therefore probably silly for us to continue to discuss it"
My conversations with you seem to be following this pattern where you say something, I reply, you say it's not worth discussing further. If you persist with this approach I am rather inclined to agree.
Sorry Matthew. I'm torn between my desire to debate these points on the forum and my need to get on with my work.
I believe that I generally understand your position and I credit you with understanding mine. We don't have to agree or continue until one of us is battered into submission.
Even a Jeremy Paxman interview with two advocates of opposing views has a finite time limit.
Steve M
Posted on: 05 January 2005 by 7V
Posted on: 05 January 2005 by Arye_Gur
Mike -
If like me, you think that there is a war between Israel and the Palestinians, than it happens that citizens are being killed - the Israeli solders are shooting enemy in war, and this enemy is surrounding itself with civilians. I don't see that it is the same act like blowing a buss with a certain wish to kill citizens.
Although I don't think that it is an act of terror, I hate the idea that our army is not taking much much much more care while shooting those who are planning the acts of terror in Israel.
Arye
quote:Yes - it is.
Blowing up the King David Hotel: terrorism?
If like me, you think that there is a war between Israel and the Palestinians, than it happens that citizens are being killed - the Israeli solders are shooting enemy in war, and this enemy is surrounding itself with civilians. I don't see that it is the same act like blowing a buss with a certain wish to kill citizens.
Although I don't think that it is an act of terror, I hate the idea that our army is not taking much much much more care while shooting those who are planning the acts of terror in Israel.
Arye
Posted on: 05 January 2005 by JonR
Though I'm tempted, as usual, to dismiss Arye's protestations about whom the BBC should be calling terrorists etc, his post does appear, IMO, to raise an inconsistency here.
Matthew quite rightly pointed out earlier that for the BBC to call Palestinian suicide-bombers and the like terrorists would equate to taking a biased line on the issue, but I seem to recall that when the IRA was busy killing and blowing up all and sundry in Northern Ireland and the mainland, the BBC seemed to have no problem calling them terrorists.
So why one and not the other? I'm not saying that using the term 'terrorist' is necessarily appropriate but both groups are responsible for killing and maiming according to their own 'agendas' so should there not be a term that could consistently and appropriately be used for both, without suggesting bias one way or the other?
JR
Matthew quite rightly pointed out earlier that for the BBC to call Palestinian suicide-bombers and the like terrorists would equate to taking a biased line on the issue, but I seem to recall that when the IRA was busy killing and blowing up all and sundry in Northern Ireland and the mainland, the BBC seemed to have no problem calling them terrorists.
So why one and not the other? I'm not saying that using the term 'terrorist' is necessarily appropriate but both groups are responsible for killing and maiming according to their own 'agendas' so should there not be a term that could consistently and appropriately be used for both, without suggesting bias one way or the other?
JR
Posted on: 05 January 2005 by Arye_Gur
JR,
I think that the act defines if it is a terror or not - and NOTwho was taking the act.
If you agree that blowing a buss or shooting citizens is an act of terror, than it is terror no matter who is doing it.
Arye
I think that the act defines if it is a terror or not - and NOTwho was taking the act.
If you agree that blowing a buss or shooting citizens is an act of terror, than it is terror no matter who is doing it.
Arye
Posted on: 05 January 2005 by Berlin Fritz
As you initially said Ayre with leading posts, you didn't want to start an argument, but unfortunately as per always, others have started it for you, some being rather careless and insulting with their opinions. I will not get hack into this debate because it'a non starter fronm the word go as always (that's got nothing to do with you personally Arye old son). Todays BBC TV had a caller live from Phuket Thailand (talking point Robin Lustig) making the point that only 1% was battered and the rest is fine (&10 Billion industry annually inc 27,000 + British tourists amongs't others), Ten minutes later SKY TV reported totalö devastation from/of Phuket, just an example of how one must read between the lines.
Chhers, Fritz Von World economy = circa $31 Trillion, give or take a Shekel !
Chhers, Fritz Von World economy = circa $31 Trillion, give or take a Shekel !
Posted on: 05 January 2005 by Nime
quote:
Originally posted by mike lacey:
Despicable.
Do a Google on Belsen, Treblinka, Holocaust, Shoah, Mengele, Sachsenhausen, or Buchenwald and despair of your stupidity.
I'll report this garbage but not until the words you have posted have been seen by more Forum members. That way they can judge you as they see fit.
Thankyou for the history lesson. As if someone my age hasn't seen several weeks worth of film documetries on the subject over a lifetime, read the books, watched the films and mourned for the poor innocent souls again and again. And raged against the organised butchery of an evil power that was allowed to rise to power by other nations.
Simple question. Do you find the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelies acceptable? Yes or no?
35 years of occupation. How many dead? How many millions displaced? How many lives ruined? How many young boys shot with live rounds for throwing stones? Their only expression of revulsion for an occupying power which international law will not prosecute. How many homes demolished? How many international laws broken again and again without sanction? How many American vetoes? How many wells bulldozed? How many farms and farmers ruined? How many personal losses and tragedies? How many billions of dollars in weaponry supplied by the USA to this illegal occupying power? How many denied their rights under international law? How many missiles aimed at densely occupied centres of population? etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.
Are my comparisons with the Nazis so truly odious?
Try doing some browsing on the subject. It might get your head out of your arse. Even if you don't believe the tens of thousands of hours of international TV and radio news bulletins and endless documentaries.
Why were the French resistance regarded as heroes? Yet the Palestinians reviled as terrorists? Both fought against an occupying power. Did the French resistance never kill civilians?
Nime
Posted on: 05 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Nime:
...35 years of occupation. How many dead? How many millions displaced? How many lives ruined? How many young boys shot with live rounds for throwing stones? Their only expression of revulsion for an occupying power which international law will not prosecute. How many homes demolished? How many international laws broken again and again without sanction? How many American vetoes? How many wells bulldozed? How many farms and farmers ruined? How many personal losses and tragedies? How many billions of dollars in weaponry supplied by the USA to this illegal occupying power? How many denied their rights under international law? How many missiles aimed at densely occupied centres of population? etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.
Are my comparisons with the Nazis so truly odious?
Try doing some browsing on the subject. It might get your head out of your arse. Even if you don't believe the tens of thousands of hours of international TV and radio news bulletins and endless documentaries.
For goodness sake, Nime.
You'll probably find that many of us have done plenty of 'browsing' on this subject already. As with many issues, the views that one emerges with depend on where one browses. I'm sure that many here (if not most) are highly critical of the Israeli government and very sympathetic to the Palestinians. But most people here, whatever their opinions, have probably read the views of both sides and have a better understanding of the Israeli position than you do. That's why other people aren't talking of comparisons with the Nazis. And yes, such comparisons are indeed truly odious.
I won't try to answer all of your questions, there'd be no point and it would take too long. For now I'll just deal specifically with the number of people killed on both sides since the latest uprising in 2000.
I suggest that you start here: Breakdown of Fatalities: 27 September 2000 through 1 May 2004. Then click the link called "Statistical Report Summary" which gives graphs and more information. Now clearly, this is an Israeli site so you must bear that in mind. However, as far as I know, these figures are not disputed by either side. If you really examine the figures and the graphs and look for the truths behind them, you may start to understand a little more about this conflict.
If you want to emerge from your poisoned cocoon and see further than you have so far, you'll start here and you won't stop until you achieve some sort of clarity and proportion. You will probably never be pro-Israel - why should you be? but you might be less anti-Israel/anti-Semitic. For Nime, one thing doesn't add up in your previous comments:
Either you believe what you've been reading, hook, line and sinker, in which case you must be anti-Israel and/or anti-semitic, or you suspect that you haven't quite grasped the whole picture, in which case you're not.
But how could you believe what you believe about Israel and or the Jews and not be against them? I couldn't.
Steve M
PS:
quote:
Originally posted by Nime:
With the obedient, knee-jerk support of US politicians always at the mercy of rich jewish-American financial supporters, the Israelies can do pretty-well what they like.
On the other hand, Nime, this sort of language seems quite familiar. Perhaps I've way over-estimated you.
[This message was edited by 7V on Thu 06 January 2005 at 1:22.]
Posted on: 05 January 2005 by Haim
Arye,
I believe nobody can rest their case till there is peace in the Middle East (Inshallah). What do you mean about Yediot being the greatest paper? Have you ever read Haaretz?
Haim
I believe nobody can rest their case till there is peace in the Middle East (Inshallah). What do you mean about Yediot being the greatest paper? Have you ever read Haaretz?
Haim
Posted on: 06 January 2005 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Haim:
I believe nobody can rest their case till there is peace in the Middle East (Inshallah).
Following the abject failure of the Oslo talks in 2000, which culminated in Arafat launching the latest intifada, do you agree with Natan Sharansky's view that there can't be peace without true democracy for the Palestinians?
Steve M
Posted on: 06 January 2005 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Nime:
Simple question. Do you find the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelies acceptable? Yes or no?
I'll dignify this with a simple answer - I find it completely unacceptable. Always have done.
quote:
Are my comparisons with the Nazis so truly odious?
Yes, truly.
quote:
It might get your head out of your arse.
Thank you for that most considered and mature response. Most Illuminating.
Mike
Mike
Posted on: 06 January 2005 by Adam Meredith
I am closing this thread on the grounds that, while passionately held, the views expressed will be unlikely to persuade.
This debate has often proved a fertile ground for inflammatory statements.
This debate has often proved a fertile ground for inflammatory statements.