Kicking off in Israel

[Tichtheid]

Terrorism is a loaded word, which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally. It's simply not the BBC's job to tell people who to support and who to condemn - who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.
We regularly point out that the British and other governments have condemned Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but that's their business. We also run interviews with guests and quote contributors who describe Hamas as terrorists.

The key point is that we don't say it in our voice. Our business is to present our audiences with the facts, and let them make up their own minds.
As it happens, of course, many of the people who've attacked us for not using the word terrorist have seen our pictures, heard our audio or read our stories, and made up their minds on the basis of our reporting, so it's not as though we're hiding the truth in any way - far from it.

You'd think this was straightforward but apparently not.

From the BBC's guidelines

Use of Language

11.3.5 Our reporting of possible acts of terror should be timely and responsible, bearing in mind our requirement for due accuracy and impartiality. Terrorism is a difficult and emotive subject with significant political overtones and care is required in the use of language that carries value judgements. We should not use the term ‘terrorist’ without attribution.

11.3.6 The word ‘terrorist’ itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding. We should convey to our audience the full consequences of the act by describing what happened. We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as ‘bomber’, ‘attacker’, ‘gunman’, ‘kidnapper’, ‘insurgent’ and ‘militant’. We should not adopt other people’s language as our own; our responsibility is to remain objective and report in ways that enable our audiences to make their own assessments about who is doing what to whom.


That "without attribution" is very important. They can say that the government has denounced an organisation as being a terrorist one, but they themselves can't refer to "the terrorists" when talking about a particular group.

[Calculon]

Maybe some posters on here got a bit too excited

And some BBC correspondents

That's pretty disgraceful really, but BBC coverage of many countries can be shockingly bad. Their reporting on the first COVID wave in South Africa was laughably over the top.

[Blackmac]

For those criticising the Israeli response, I'm curious as to how people think they should react.
I'll fully admit to not being that well informed about this situation but I do see the Palestinians as a group of people who have facilitated and aligned themselves to a terrorist organisation that doesn't give a flying fuck about them and only exists for the sole purpose of killing Israelis. When it does so it then seems quite happy to use them as a human shield in order to prevent the obvious repercussions. It's all well and good saying that the average Palestinian has no say in the matter but there has been plenty of examples over the years of a large proportion of them revelling in the various atrocities committed in their name.
It easy enough for people not directly involved to tell Israel to turn the other cheek but if their grandkid had been beheaded or their daughter raped or set on fire I'm bloody sure they wouldn't be so compassionate and they, like the Israelis, would want severe retribution.

[goeagles]

I'm sure there will be deep introspection from everyone who immediately jumped all over the Israel bombs hospital and kills 500 civilians story, right? Right?

[Paddington Bear]

You see this in a number of areas but this is perhaps the most dangerous - standards at the BBC have gone through the floor recently.

You can see this with softballs to government ministers, but the total breakdown and politicisation of their verification and editorials is very noticeable

[petej]

You see this in a number of areas but this is perhaps the most dangerous - standards at the BBC have gone through the floor recently.

You can see this with softballs to government ministers, but the total breakdown and politicisation of their verification and editorials is very noticeable

Anything vaguely political has been mangled. It has been very obvious on some of the more in depth factual articles that are at total odds with a political article focusing on the same issue.

[petej]

I'm sure there will be deep introspection from everyone who immediately jumped all over the Israel bombs hospital and kills 500 civilians story, right? Right?

Doubtful because if they were capable of such introspection they wouldn't have jumped all over the original reports.

[Raggs]

I'm sure there will be deep introspection from everyone who immediately jumped all over the Israel bombs hospital and kills 500 civilians story, right? Right?

Doubtful because if they were capable of such introspection they wouldn't have jumped all over the original reports.

Corbyn still hasn't removed his tweet claiming Israel has done it, from nearly a full day ago now. No corrections, no maybes, no replies, nothing.

[Brazil]

For those criticising the Israeli response, I'm curious as to how people think they should react.
I'll fully admit to not being that well informed about this situation but I do see the Palestinians as a group of people who have facilitated and aligned themselves to a terrorist organisation that doesn't give a flying fuck about them and only exists for the sole purpose of killing Israelis. When it does so it then seems quite happy to use them as a human shield in order to prevent the obvious repercussions. It's all well and good saying that the average Palestinian has no say in the matter but there has been plenty of examples over the years of a large proportion of them revelling in the various atrocities committed in their name.
It easy enough for people not directly involved to tell Israel to turn the other cheek but if their grandkid had been beheaded or their daughter raped or set on fire I'm bloody sure they wouldn't be so compassionate and they, like the Israelis, would want severe retribution.

A serious and committed counter-insurgency with a heavy military and intelligence presence a la Northern Ireland, that minimises civilian casualties to the greatest extent possible. Groznifying Gaza doesn't do anyone any favours, and whilst it satisfies the desire for vengeance in the short term, it only compounds the resentment that fuels Palestinians to take up arms against Israel. There are, of course, a couple of problems with a counterinsurgency. Firstly, the IDF is essentially a tactical rather than a strategic force, and doesn't have the personnel to conduct an op that would take decades. Secondly, the Palestinians are more cultural distinct and will be much more difficult to pacify.

The only other solution would be a UN Peacekeeping force, but neither side would welcome that, and the number of acceptable States contributing to such a force would be vanishingly small and probably wouldn't want to get wrapped up in it in the first place.

[Ymx]

Benjamin Netanyahu calls them "Hamas" every time he steps in front of the lectern. Dunno why everyone is getting itchy because the BBC use the same term.

There is so much stupid in this to unpack. Perhaps it’s deliberately stupid. But never know with some.

But we can start with this

[Blackmac]

For those criticising the Israeli response, I'm curious as to how people think they should react.
I'll fully admit to not being that well informed about this situation but I do see the Palestinians as a group of people who have facilitated and aligned themselves to a terrorist organisation that doesn't give a flying fuck about them and only exists for the sole purpose of killing Israelis. When it does so it then seems quite happy to use them as a human shield in order to prevent the obvious repercussions. It's all well and good saying that the average Palestinian has no say in the matter but there has been plenty of examples over the years of a large proportion of them revelling in the various atrocities committed in their name.
It easy enough for people not directly involved to tell Israel to turn the other cheek but if their grandkid had been beheaded or their daughter raped or set on fire I'm bloody sure they wouldn't be so compassionate and they, like the Israelis, would want severe retribution.

A serious and committed counter-insurgency with a heavy military and intelligence presence a la Northern Ireland, that minimises civilian casualties to the greatest extent possible. Groznifying Gaza doesn't do anyone any favours, and whilst it satisfies the desire for vengeance in the short term, it only compounds the resentment that fuels Palestinians to take up arms against Israel. There are, of course, a couple of problems with a counterinsurgency. Firstly, the IDF is essentially a tactical rather than a strategic force, and doesn't have the personnel to conduct an op that would take decades. Secondly, the Palestinians are more cultural distinct and will be much more difficult to pacify.

The only other solution would be a UN Peacekeeping force, but neither side would welcome that, and the number of acceptable States contributing to such a force would be vanishingly small and probably wouldn't want to get wrapped up in it in the first place.

I must point out that I am not looking to debate this as I'm not really in the position to do so. As you say, a less damaging counter insurgency campaign, but you quickly point out the problems. Plus it will be a long drawn out affair, which in the end may not prove effective and probably cost more Israeli lives. It's like the Israelis taking a stick to a knife fight when they can take a gun.
I always recall an analogy I saw about the situation, which compared the Palestinians to a guy who constantly throws his dogshit into his next door neighbours garden, despite the fact that his neighbour is twice his size and the response turns increasing violent, however still the dogshit gets tossed over the fence. Where the fuck do you go with that sort of madness.

[shaggy]

For those criticising the Israeli response, I'm curious as to how people think they should react.
I'll fully admit to not being that well informed about this situation but I do see the Palestinians as a group of people who have facilitated and aligned themselves to a terrorist organisation that doesn't give a flying fuck about them and only exists for the sole purpose of killing Israelis. When it does so it then seems quite happy to use them as a human shield in order to prevent the obvious repercussions. It's all well and good saying that the average Palestinian has no say in the matter but there has been plenty of examples over the years of a large proportion of them revelling in the various atrocities committed in their name.
It easy enough for people not directly involved to tell Israel to turn the other cheek but if their grandkid had been beheaded or their daughter raped or set on fire I'm bloody sure they wouldn't be so compassionate and they, like the Israelis, would want severe retribution.

A serious and committed counter-insurgency with a heavy military and intelligence presence a la Northern Ireland, that minimises civilian casualties to the greatest extent possible. Groznifying Gaza doesn't do anyone any favours, and whilst it satisfies the desire for vengeance in the short term, it only compounds the resentment that fuels Palestinians to take up arms against Israel. There are, of course, a couple of problems with a counterinsurgency. Firstly, the IDF is essentially a tactical rather than a strategic force, and doesn't have the personnel to conduct an op that would take decades. Secondly, the Palestinians are more cultural distinct and will be much more difficult to pacify.

The only other solution would be a UN Peacekeeping force, but neither side would welcome that, and the number of acceptable States contributing to such a force would be vanishingly small and probably wouldn't want to get wrapped up in it in the first place.

I must point out that I am not looking to debate this as I'm not really in the position to do so. As you say, a less damaging counter insurgency campaign, but you quickly point out the problems. Plus it will be a long drawn out affair, which in the end may not prove effective and probably cost more Israeli lives. It's like the Israelis taking a stick to a knife fight when they can take a gun.
I always recall an analogy I saw about the situation, which compared the Palestinians to a guy who constantly throws his dogshit into his next door neighbours garden, despite the fact that his neighbour is twice his size and the response turns increasing violent, however still the dogshit gets tossed over the fence. Where the fuck do you go with that sort of madness.

Kill the dog?

[Raggs]

For those criticising the Israeli response, I'm curious as to how people think they should react.
I'll fully admit to not being that well informed about this situation but I do see the Palestinians as a group of people who have facilitated and aligned themselves to a terrorist organisation that doesn't give a flying fuck about them and only exists for the sole purpose of killing Israelis. When it does so it then seems quite happy to use them as a human shield in order to prevent the obvious repercussions. It's all well and good saying that the average Palestinian has no say in the matter but there has been plenty of examples over the years of a large proportion of them revelling in the various atrocities committed in their name.
It easy enough for people not directly involved to tell Israel to turn the other cheek but if their grandkid had been beheaded or their daughter raped or set on fire I'm bloody sure they wouldn't be so compassionate and they, like the Israelis, would want severe retribution.

A serious and committed counter-insurgency with a heavy military and intelligence presence a la Northern Ireland, that minimises civilian casualties to the greatest extent possible. Groznifying Gaza doesn't do anyone any favours, and whilst it satisfies the desire for vengeance in the short term, it only compounds the resentment that fuels Palestinians to take up arms against Israel. There are, of course, a couple of problems with a counterinsurgency. Firstly, the IDF is essentially a tactical rather than a strategic force, and doesn't have the personnel to conduct an op that would take decades. Secondly, the Palestinians are more cultural distinct and will be much more difficult to pacify.

The only other solution would be a UN Peacekeeping force, but neither side would welcome that, and the number of acceptable States contributing to such a force would be vanishingly small and probably wouldn't want to get wrapped up in it in the first place.

Counter insurgency? Against the government, with an army of 40,000, embedded deeply within civilian infrastructure? Not sure that's going to work very well.

[Paddington Bear]

For those criticising the Israeli response, I'm curious as to how people think they should react.
I'll fully admit to not being that well informed about this situation but I do see the Palestinians as a group of people who have facilitated and aligned themselves to a terrorist organisation that doesn't give a flying fuck about them and only exists for the sole purpose of killing Israelis. When it does so it then seems quite happy to use them as a human shield in order to prevent the obvious repercussions. It's all well and good saying that the average Palestinian has no say in the matter but there has been plenty of examples over the years of a large proportion of them revelling in the various atrocities committed in their name.
It easy enough for people not directly involved to tell Israel to turn the other cheek but if their grandkid had been beheaded or their daughter raped or set on fire I'm bloody sure they wouldn't be so compassionate and they, like the Israelis, would want severe retribution.

A serious and committed counter-insurgency with a heavy military and intelligence presence a la Northern Ireland, that minimises civilian casualties to the greatest extent possible. Groznifying Gaza doesn't do anyone any favours, and whilst it satisfies the desire for vengeance in the short term, it only compounds the resentment that fuels Palestinians to take up arms against Israel. There are, of course, a couple of problems with a counterinsurgency. Firstly, the IDF is essentially a tactical rather than a strategic force, and doesn't have the personnel to conduct an op that would take decades. Secondly, the Palestinians are more cultural distinct and will be much more difficult to pacify.

The only other solution would be a UN Peacekeeping force, but neither side would welcome that, and the number of acceptable States contributing to such a force would be vanishingly small and probably wouldn't want to get wrapped up in it in the first place.

I must point out that I am not looking to debate this as I'm not really in the position to do so. As you say, a less damaging counter insurgency campaign, but you quickly point out the problems. Plus it will be a long drawn out affair, which in the end may not prove effective and probably cost more Israeli lives. It's like the Israelis taking a stick to a knife fight when they can take a gun.
I always recall an analogy I saw about the situation, which compared the Palestinians to a guy who constantly throws his dogshit into his next door neighbours garden, despite the fact that his neighbour is twice his size and the response turns increasing violent, however still the dogshit gets tossed over the fence. Where the fuck do you go with that sort of madness.

Saw a post which just had the fuck around/find out gif in response to the initial strikes. Crude, callous but in the end realistic. Very few nations will turn a blind eye to the massacre of 40 babies and others, and if you were to pick one that might you wouldn’t start with one that is well known for having no interest in proportion and has a justifiable modern concern and historic reality of genocide.

[Blackmac]

A serious and committed counter-insurgency with a heavy military and intelligence presence a la Northern Ireland, that minimises civilian casualties to the greatest extent possible. Groznifying Gaza doesn't do anyone any favours, and whilst it satisfies the desire for vengeance in the short term, it only compounds the resentment that fuels Palestinians to take up arms against Israel. There are, of course, a couple of problems with a counterinsurgency. Firstly, the IDF is essentially a tactical rather than a strategic force, and doesn't have the personnel to conduct an op that would take decades. Secondly, the Palestinians are more cultural distinct and will be much more difficult to pacify.

The only other solution would be a UN Peacekeeping force, but neither side would welcome that, and the number of acceptable States contributing to such a force would be vanishingly small and probably wouldn't want to get wrapped up in it in the first place.

I must point out that I am not looking to debate this as I'm not really in the position to do so. As you say, a less damaging counter insurgency campaign, but you quickly point out the problems. Plus it will be a long drawn out affair, which in the end may not prove effective and probably cost more Israeli lives. It's like the Israelis taking a stick to a knife fight when they can take a gun.
I always recall an analogy I saw about the situation, which compared the Palestinians to a guy who constantly throws his dogshit into his next door neighbours garden, despite the fact that his neighbour is twice his size and the response turns increasing violent, however still the dogshit gets tossed over the fence. Where the fuck do you go with that sort of madness.

Saw a post which just had the fuck around/find out gif in response to the initial strikes. Crude, callous but in the end realistic. Very few nations will turn a blind eye to the massacre of 40 babies and others, and if you were to pick one that might you wouldn’t start with one that is well known for having no interest in proportion and has a justifiable modern concern and historic reality of genocide.

Oddly enough that was going through my mind. The ultimate fuck around and find out.

[Blackmac]

A serious and committed counter-insurgency with a heavy military and intelligence presence a la Northern Ireland, that minimises civilian casualties to the greatest extent possible. Groznifying Gaza doesn't do anyone any favours, and whilst it satisfies the desire for vengeance in the short term, it only compounds the resentment that fuels Palestinians to take up arms against Israel. There are, of course, a couple of problems with a counterinsurgency. Firstly, the IDF is essentially a tactical rather than a strategic force, and doesn't have the personnel to conduct an op that would take decades. Secondly, the Palestinians are more cultural distinct and will be much more difficult to pacify.

The only other solution would be a UN Peacekeeping force, but neither side would welcome that, and the number of acceptable States contributing to such a force would be vanishingly small and probably wouldn't want to get wrapped up in it in the first place.

I must point out that I am not looking to debate this as I'm not really in the position to do so. As you say, a less damaging counter insurgency campaign, but you quickly point out the problems. Plus it will be a long drawn out affair, which in the end may not prove effective and probably cost more Israeli lives. It's like the Israelis taking a stick to a knife fight when they can take a gun.
I always recall an analogy I saw about the situation, which compared the Palestinians to a guy who constantly throws his dogshit into his next door neighbours garden, despite the fact that his neighbour is twice his size and the response turns increasing violent, however still the dogshit gets tossed over the fence. Where the fuck do you go with that sort of madness.

Kill the dog?

It strikes me that in that analogy the innocent Palestinians are that dog.

[Margin__Walker]

Not sure it's really fuck around and find out when Hamas would probably welcome escalation. The bigger the better for them really.

[Uncle fester]

I'm sure there will be deep introspection from everyone who immediately jumped all over the Israel bombs hospital and kills 500 civilians story, right? Right?

Doubtful because if they were capable of such introspection they wouldn't have jumped all over the original reports.

Most of us on this here bored were careful about attributing blame actually.

[Uncle fester]

For those criticising the Israeli response, I'm curious as to how people think they should react.
I'll fully admit to not being that well informed about this situation but I do see the Palestinians as a group of people who have facilitated and aligned themselves to a terrorist organisation that doesn't give a flying fuck about them and only exists for the sole purpose of killing Israelis. When it does so it then seems quite happy to use them as a human shield in order to prevent the obvious repercussions. It's all well and good saying that the average Palestinian has no say in the matter but there has been plenty of examples over the years of a large proportion of them revelling in the various atrocities committed in their name.
It easy enough for people not directly involved to tell Israel to turn the other cheek but if their grandkid had been beheaded or their daughter raped or set on fire I'm bloody sure they wouldn't be so compassionate and they, like the Israelis, would want severe retribution.

A serious and committed counter-insurgency with a heavy military and intelligence presence a la Northern Ireland, that minimises civilian casualties to the greatest extent possible. Groznifying Gaza doesn't do anyone any favours, and whilst it satisfies the desire for vengeance in the short term, it only compounds the resentment that fuels Palestinians to take up arms against Israel. There are, of course, a couple of problems with a counterinsurgency. Firstly, the IDF is essentially a tactical rather than a strategic force, and doesn't have the personnel to conduct an op that would take decades. Secondly, the Palestinians are more cultural distinct and will be much more difficult to pacify.

The only other solution would be a UN Peacekeeping force, but neither side would welcome that, and the number of acceptable States contributing to such a force would be vanishingly small and probably wouldn't want to get wrapped up in it in the first place.

I must point out that I am not looking to debate this as I'm not really in the position to do so. As you say, a less damaging counter insurgency campaign, but you quickly point out the problems. Plus it will be a long drawn out affair, which in the end may not prove effective and probably cost more Israeli lives. It's like the Israelis taking a stick to a knife fight when they can take a gun.
I always recall an analogy I saw about the situation, which compared the Palestinians to a guy who constantly throws his dogshit into his next door neighbours garden, despite the fact that his neighbour is twice his size and the response turns increasing violent, however still the dogshit gets tossed over the fence. Where the fuck do you go with that sort of madness.

The analogy I think of is that you have a nice house but half of it is given to refugees who gradually annex the remainder of your house and lock half your family inside the cellar with the key thrown away and the rest are in the garage but having to share that space with their washing machines and tumble dryers.

[Uncle fester]

Doubtful because if they were capable of such introspection they wouldn't have jumped all over the original reports.

Most of us on this here bored were careful about attributing blame actually.

Yeah real careful

Go back through my posts. You read what you wanted to read.

[Uncle fester]

Glad we cleared all that up.
"Israel you are go to level Gaza. I repeat you are go"

[Ymx]

Children killed in an Israeli strike on a convoy that was trying to evacuate.

What happened with this one?

[Ymx]

Maybe Mr Netanyahu and Mr Haniyeh can work through their differences in a nice cell in The Hague.

This one.

[Ymx]

I often find people who destroy a hospital and kill hundreds admit to it readily.

Especially when they have a track record of telling lies, half-truths after similar incidents, only to belatedly, & in response to overwhelming evidence admitting to the truth .... long after the MSM has moved on

Wowzers

[Ymx]

Lots of different videos floating around.

How come all of your sources are from really a right wing stand point?

Not only on this but on other topics? There is no seeking balance at all.

I've refrained from posting on this thread bar the pointing out the wing nut posts, this is perilously close.

You've got to check your sources and look to what the motivation might be behind them. Your source is from the Right Wing of the government in that country and he was an outspoken critic and opposer of the Disengagement Plan in Gaza.

The issues in the Middle East are extremely complicated but reduction of everything that opposes your point of view to "something something Lefty" is facile in the extreme.

And yet, TH picks out this post, despite my fairly openness to what might have happened.

[Margin__Walker]

I never really get to involved in BBC bashing but this is quite something as a collection of paragraphs on one of there initial fact checking articles on the blast yesterday.

We contacted 20 think tanks, universities and companies with weapons expertise. Nine of them are yet to respond, five would not comment, but we spoke to experts at the remaining six.

We asked whether the available evidence - including the size of the explosion and the sounds heard beforehand - could be used to determine the cause of the hospital blast.

So far, the findings are inconclusive. Three experts we spoke to say it is not consistent with what you would expect from a typical Israeli airstrike with a large munition.

J Andres Gannon, an assistant professor at Vanderbilt University, in the US, says the ground explosions appeared to be small, meaning that the heat generated from the impact may have been caused by leftover rocket fuel rather than an explosion from a warhead.

Justin Bronk, senior research fellow at the UK-based Royal United Services Institute (Rusi), agrees. While it is difficult to be sure at such an early stage, he says, the evidence looks like the explosion was caused by a failed rocket section hitting the car park and causing a fuel and propellant fire.

Mr Gannon says it is not possible to determine whether the projectile struck its intended target from the footage he has seen. He adds that the flashes in the sky likely indicate the projectile was a rocket with an engine that overheated and stopped working.

Valeria Scuto, lead Middle East analyst at Sibylline, a risk assessment company, notes that Israel has the capacity to carry out other forms of airstrike by drone, where they might use Hellfire missiles. These missiles generate a significant amount of heat but would not necessarily leave a large crater.But she says uncorroborated footage shows a pattern of fires at the hospital site that was not consistent with this explanation.

6 experts ventured an opinion. None find it consistent with an Israeli strike. Results = Inconclusive.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67144061

[Ymx]

Doubtful because if they were capable of such introspection they wouldn't have jumped all over the original reports.

Most of us on this here bored were careful about attributing blame actually.

Yeah real careful

Those posts just above were so very very careful.

[Ymx]

Video showing explosion from a distance

[Slick]

Private Eye Cover

https://x.com/privateeyenews/status/171 ... tSNBueE4mg

[Tichtheid]

Lots of different videos floating around.

How come all of your sources are from really a right wing stand point?

Not only on this but on other topics? There is no seeking balance at all.

I've refrained from posting on this thread bar the pointing out the wing nut posts, this is perilously close.

You've got to check your sources and look to what the motivation might be behind them. Your source is from the Right Wing of the government in that country and he was an outspoken critic and opposer of the Disengagement Plan in Gaza.

The issues in the Middle East are extremely complicated but reduction of everything that opposes your point of view to "something something Lefty" is facile in the extreme.

And yet, TH picks out this post, despite my fairly openness to what might have happened.

Do you agree or disagree that it's a good idea to check the sources in the tweets and links one might post, in case they are putting a one-sided case without considering the other?

I'm talking about more than this thread.

[Ymx]

Yet it was my post you picked out, even when I specifically said when I posted it there was plenty of versions going around.

You felt the need to pull me up. Despite what I’ve just reposted of others which you completely ignored.

You’re not a moderator and you’re extremely biased. stop pretending otherwise.

[C69]

Private Eye Cover

https://x.com/privateeyenews/status/171 ... tSNBueE4mg

My issue with that is it follows the exact same line as the hard left in Ireland and elsewhere that being the response is always always over egged. It's always 100 of 1000's going to be killed or millions will die. It's nonsense. I don't really understand it but I suppose it follows their line that Jews are Nazis and are trying to kill 'em all in a genocidal fashion. Bollox but trotted out again and again

ER Private Eye is quite famous for its covers it is usually the voice of reason and sanity.
A bit disengenous to compare them to the hard left in Ireland..
Tbh what part of the front page do you disagree with.

[Tichtheid]

The reason I asked my previous question is because, ymx's latest twitter link is from Naftali Bennett.

A look at Google tells me he was the 13th prime minister of Israel, which rang a bell, but I didn't know other things about him

It's worth reading through

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naftali_Bennett


ymx, on this I am not extremely biased, that is the usual charge one gets from someone who is themselves extremely biased. I am not biased on this subject because it's one I know very little about, I am biased on UK politics because I know something about it, I've been involved in it for more than forty years.

Would it hurt to give a bit of background to the sources you cite?

Or is asking that a sign of bias?

[Tichtheid]

In fact all I'm asking is for attribution, just like the guidance the BBC has written as shown in previous posts - by all means post a tweet or link, but say the author is from the Right of Left and if they were involved in military operations on behalf of the government they are supporting.

It gives context, what they post might well be true, but so far all we've got is claim and counter claim. I still can't see concrete evidence on the hospital explosion, is there an update on that?


edit, from the BBC an hour ago

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67144061

[Ymx]

Your specific policing on one side is what shows your bias, whilst pretending to be neutral. I’m not claiming to be neutral, especially after what happened.

I shall post as I like from wherever I find relevant videos/images. If the words in the twitter post don’t resonate with you, then feel free to ignore them/disagree with them as others might.

So, kind of a long winded way of saying stick it, you utter hypocrite.

Now you may go …

[Tichtheid]

Your specific policing on one side is what shows your bias, whilst pretending to be neutral. I’m not claiming to be neutral, especially after what happened.

I shall post as I like from wherever I find relevant videos/images. If the words in the twitter post don’t resonate with you, then feel free to ignore them/disagree with them as others might.

So, kind of a long winded way of saying stick it, you utter hypocrite.

Now you may go …

If you post links I'll look at the source, your last one was from a guy who called in an airstrike that resulted in the killing of dozens of civilians, the info is in the link I posted, along with info on his right wing affiliations. That doesn't make what he posted incorrect of course, but it might be worth considering where he is coming from on this, for context.

The "now you may go" arrogance is something, though.


edit, the part I referred to is here

One of Bennett's actions as a commando officer became highly controversial. During Operation Grapes of Wrath, while leading a force of 67 Maglan soldiers operating in southern Lebanon, Bennett radioed for support after his unit came under mortar fire. The IDF launched an artillery barrage to cover his force, and the shelling hit a United Nations compound in which civilians were taking refuge, an incident that became known as the Qana massacre. A total of 106 Lebanese civilians were killed

[Uncle fester]

Your specific policing on one side is what shows your bias, whilst pretending to be neutral. I’m not claiming to be neutral, especially after what happened.

I shall post as I like from wherever I find relevant videos/images. If the words in the twitter post don’t resonate with you, then feel free to ignore them/disagree with them as others might.

So, kind of a long winded way of saying stick it, you utter hypocrite.

Now you may go …

If you post links I'll look at the source, your last one was from a guy who called in an airstrike that resulted in the killing of dozens of civilians, the info is in the link I posted, along with info on his right wing affiliations. That doesn't make what he posted incorrect of course, but it might be worth considering where he is coming from on this, for context.

The "now you may go" arrogance is something, though.

Typical kiwi troll trying to wind others up but tripping over their own bile.

[C69]

My issue with that is it follows the exact same line as the hard left in Ireland and elsewhere that being the response is always always over egged. It's always 100 of 1000's going to be killed or millions will die. It's nonsense. I don't really understand it but I suppose it follows their line that Jews are Nazis and are trying to kill 'em all in a genocidal fashion. Bollox but trotted out again and again

ER Private Eye is quite famous for its covers it is usually the voice of reason and sanity.
A bit disengenous to compare them to the hard left in Ireland..
Tbh what part of the front page do you disagree with.

That they are going to or are planning to kill everyone. I think it's a line repeatedly used against Jews. That they are now uncontrollable genocidal savages. They aren't.

Ah well satire must be new to you where Israel is concerned.

[C69]

So if Israel destroy HAMAS then what plan is in place afterwards?

[Raggs]

So if Israel destroy HAMAS then what plan is in place afterwards?

With a different government I'd have said start rebuilding the infrastructure etc and have them run new elections once things are ready. With the current government, probably just move out and leave it a mess.