Israel, Palestine and Iran (and Lebanon)

[blandy]

  

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

They clearly have a bias. Israelis killed, Palestinians died. The perfect example. Every interview given to Palestinians or Palestinian aligned people's is always formed on the basis of them being secondary, of the Israeli story being the important one, of the need to condemn the Palestinian aligned violence before we even discuss anything else, of the glossing over of the suffering of these people that has gone on for decades, and on and on. Apparently there is now a winding down of interviews being granted to Palestinian aligned voices I read earlier. You see the difference in the reporting - three is righteous justification in the actions of Israel, tacit support of it, and when they do refer to the immense suffering that action results in, the tone is always resigned, accepting. 'This is very bad, but...' and no condemnation of the Israeli reaction, no insistence that Israel condemns it's actions before we hear their side of things.

You'll disagree of course, and list off hours all this is wrong, and I will not be convinced. Maybe someone reading will. But I've read and watched and studied this whole thing enough to see there's not a level playing field here, and while it could be worse, it's certainly not fair, and certainly not right in my view.

It's a crap example, because it's not true. I yahoogled "palestinians killed by israel site:www.bbc.co.uk" and got About 285,000 results (0.33 seconds). You get similar results for other media outlets.

Even picking throbby right wing outlets gets stuff like this

Quote

Harrowing pictures of bruised and bloodied children fleeing from hellfire in Gaza and Israel show the devastating impact of the conflict which has killed over 1,500 people in just three days.

Hamas leaders last night threatened to execute civilian hostages if Israel continues its retaliatory airstrikes against Gaza.

The military wing of the Islamist group said it would kill a captive any time homes were hit 'without prior warning'. 

Israel has been pounding Gaza from the air after Hamas launched a surprise terror attack on Saturday, killing more than 900 people and seizing about 130 more. Authorities in Gaza said Israel's airstrikes had hit a refugee camp, a hospital and mosques, and had killed 687 people and injured a further 2,900.

As the bloody conflict enters its fourth day, shocking photos from the ground provide a horrifying insight into the atrocities taking place as both sides continue to trade blows and lives, with innocent children and civilians caught in the middle.

And as for "Apparently there is now a winding down of interviews being granted to Palestinian aligned voices I read earlier" - c'mon, like the UK media have got together and agreed to all reduce interviews with people who "align" with Palestine? really. Where did you read that apparent plan was happening?

But where I do agree is on "the level playing field" part. I took issue with your comment that our media hopes we don't notice the war crimes. I have no disagreement that our media (broadly) gives more opinion type coverage to "official" Israeli statements than to Hamas official statements. I think a significant part of the reason is that Hamas is formally designated as a terrorist organisation, and as such media is careful not to be a loud hailer for terrorists.

I think coverage would benefit from more coverage of the Palestinian (non terrorist) angles on the conflict as I think you have to look a little harder in our media landscape to find that, even though it's there. I just don't go with the notion that the media want to conceal war crimes. They don't, they report them, within the limits of access difficulties they have in getting to the actual places these atrocities happen.

[Xann]

The oily peoples are gouging us and making stacks of cash.

Which sides might they be funding?

 

Hamas had a surprising number of rockets.

Do they have a surprising number of drones?

[foreveryoung]

1 minute ago, Xann said:

The oily peoples are gouging us and making stacks of cash.

Which sides might they be funding?

 

Hamas had a surprising number of rockets.

Do they have a surprising number of drones?

The world has to do something with these weapons they keep buying. Luckily we sell most of ours.

[chrisp65]

12 minutes ago, blandy said:

  It's a crap example, because it's not true. 

The murdered / dead equivalence is true, I heard it on R4, I presume I was listening to the radio edit of a tv report. The BBC referred to the Israeli dead as murdered and the Gazans as dead.

Happened again yesterday when they said more Gazans would inevitably die because of the Hamas massacre. 

Murdered / massacre vs dead / die

 

[OutByEaster?]

The thing that gets me today is that there's nothing here that's getting better and indeed, no one seems to want it to.

The attack by Hamas was horrendous and whilst perhaps not completely unpredictable given their circumstance, was entirely unexpected in its horrific execution. It happened quickly, and indeed quickly was the only way they could have gone - an horrific act, containing all manner of awful smaller acts over a matter of hours, short, sharp and painful to the hearts of just about any decent human being as we discovered it had taken place.

What's happening now though is like watching a car crash in slow motion, tens of thousands of people are going to die, and you watch it and you know that someone ought to be able to stop it, but no one will; I find that deeply saddening.

A couple of days ago, babies were murdered by evil men, a shocking crime - in a couple of days time, it's likely to happen again - and we all just have to sit here watching it slowly unfold like some sort of inevitable monster at the foot of the bed - paralysed viewers of the impending destruction of a community.

Where we end up, who knows..

 

[a-k]

7 hours ago, blandy said:

There was an Israeli politician, Golda Meir, who said (back in the day) "If the Arabs put down their guns there would be no more fighting. If the Israelis put down theirs there would be no more Israel." Things have got worse since then and it’s no longer true in my view, but it’s still embedded in the Israel mindset and in their politicians, who regularly say the same thing. And it’s still embedded in the mindset of quite a lot of Israel’s friends in the west.  The relevance is that it is the context of a lot of the attitudes of one side of this horrible situation.

What is untrue about it?

[blandy]

43 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

The murdered / dead equivalence is true, I heard it on R4, I presume I was listening to the radio edit of a tv report. The BBC referred to the Israeli dead as murdered and the Gazans as dead.

Happened again yesterday when they said more Gazans would inevitably die because of the Hamas massacre. 

Murdered / massacre vs dead / die

I think it's absolutely fine  and right to say "this media outlet reported this thing in this way on this day". That's not my point, not what I'm talking about. My dispute is with a notion that the entire media of the UK basically always does their reporting in that way "formed on the basis of them [Palestinians] being secondary" They don't. They mostly quote spokespeople for one side or the other who use "murdered" or "killed" and I've no recollection of ever hearing any reporting where they've made any distinction in statistical terms like you imply - "the statistics are that 500 Israelis have been murdered and 1500 Palestinians killed". They do fall into the standard type of reporting where (about any incident) they will say "the gunman murdered n number of people and was then shot dead/killed by police".

I don't think the BBC (or any other org) could legitimately say "more Gazans would inevitably be murdered because of the Hamas massacre". That would breach all kinds of rules and standards.

I also think as viewers, readers or listeners we kind of have to use our brains a little bit - I mean, when we get reports of (say) a plane bombing a built up, densely populated area in Gaza, we know that the people being killed may well include some legitimate terrorists, but it's even more likely that they will kill a number of innocent people, and that this kind of act is heinous. As is the depriving the place of power, water, food, medical aid and so much more. I haven't got a "side" in this, but I do think that people who do have a side tend to look for any "slight" against their side, the rest of us, like you will hear stuff or read stuff where we think "that article is a bit one sided" but most people are savvy enough to know what they're reading and that a particular article or interview or report does not mean that the next one will be the same, and the next and the next...the various spokespeople spout all kinds of rubbish, like that bod on CNN that was posted up a couple of days ago in this thread saying (amongst some valid stuff) that Hamas doesn't target civilians - this after they'd just killed 260 odd peace festival goers. Personally, I've got a filter.

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, a-k said:

What is untrue about it? ["If the Arabs put down their guns there would be no more fighting. If the Israelis put down theirs there would be no more Israel." Things have got worse since then and it’s no longer true in my view, ]

The first part - "if the Arabs put down their guns there would be no more fighting..." The reason I think that is because of particularly the so called Israeli settlers, the land stealers and the Israeli Police and army behave now, compared to 50 years ago.

[blandy]

47 minutes ago, Xann said:

Hamas had a surprising number of rockets.

Do they have a surprising number of drones?

Dunno, but Iran is sending an awful lot to Russia, so maybe they can't spare any for their Terror buddies?

[Awol]

IDF gound ops into Gaza now imminent, hours not days. 

[Chindie]

17 minutes ago, blandy said:

  

It's a crap example, because it's not true. I yahoogled "palestinians killed by israel site:www.bbc.co.uk" and got About 285,000 results (0.33 seconds). You get similar results for other media outlets.

Even picking throbby right wing outlets gets stuff like this

It isn't a crap example, because I and thousands of others **** saw it with our **** eyes. Israelis killed, Palestinians died. In the same **** paragraph. It lead to enough kick back they were careful not to do it again. But they did it.

You can't be that dense that you think I and every non Israeli supporting person thinks every time it's written like that, nobody is saying that. And if you think that's what I'm saying, your sense of superiority has shown in full HDR 4k colours. But it was there and it was a choice that was made, that minimises the actions that lead to deaths of people that happened not to wave an Israeli flag.

Quote

And as for "Apparently there is now a winding down of interviews being granted to Palestinian aligned voices I read earlier" - c'mon, like the UK media have got together and agreed to all reduce interviews with people who "align" with Palestine? really. Where did you read that apparent plan was happening?

This is a long interview but they discuss how Palestinian voices were now having interviews cancelled in the section at 47 minutes.

Keep your sneering to yourself.

I don't agree with all of this interview, but it's an insight to a perspective you simply will not get in UK media.

Quote

But where I do agree is on "the level playing field" part. I took issue with your comment that our media hopes we don't notice the war crimes. I have no disagreement that our media (broadly) gives more opinion type coverage to "official" Israeli statements than to Hamas official statements. I think a significant part of the reason is that Hamas is formally designated as a terrorist organisation, and as such media is careful not to be a loud hailer for terrorists.

I think coverage would benefit from more coverage of the Palestinian (non terrorist) angles on the conflict as I think you have to look a little harder in our media landscape to find that, even though it's there. I just don't go with the notion that the media want to conceal war crimes. They don't, they report them, within the limits of access difficulties they have in getting to the actual places these atrocities happen.

Our media gives less shrift to Palestinian voices. I couldn't give less of a **** what Hamas had to say about anything, though I also acknowledge that they are capable of telling the truth and can provide insight that is useful to an enquiring mind. But Palestinians more generally are treated by the media as background actors without much agency, they're shown as props to the story. The reporter puts on the solemn tone, we see the bloodied limp kids, the reporter looks a bit sad, and we cut back to the studio. There's never the Palestinians given the chance to point out this is the suffering they get, why they get it and why it's wrong, and the media never takes that and puts it at the forefront of what it's position is. They are always the mildly sad result of things, never the forefront, never dictating the narrative, never driving the story, never really heard. There's never really true denouncement of what is done by Israel, there's never really consequences for Israel for doing this. This is what I'm getting at when I say they don't want you to notice the war crimes - they don't make a song and dance about them, they passively show you some bad things and then swiftly get back to the pro-Israeli perspective. Perhaps you disagree, I'm sure you do. Perhaps you don't think it matters. But it **** well does and it **** well happens.

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, Chindie said:

You can't be that dense that you think I and every non Israeli supporting person thinks every time it's written like that, nobody is saying that.

2 hours ago, Chindie said:

Every interview given to Palestinians or Palestinian aligned people's is always formed on the basis of them being secondary,

 

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

 

 

Qué?

[luckyeddie]

25 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

The thing that gets me today is that there's nothing here that's getting better and indeed, no one seems to want it to.

The attack by Hamas was horrendous and whilst perhaps not completely unpredictable given their circumstance, was entirely unexpected in its horrific execution. It happened quickly, and indeed quickly was the only way they could have gone - an horrific act, containing all manner of awful smaller acts over a matter of hours, short, sharp and painful to the hearts of just about any decent human being as we discovered it had taken place.

What's happening now though is like watching a car crash in slow motion, tens of thousands of people are going to die, and you watch it and you know that someone ought to be able to stop, but no one will; I find that deeply saddening.

A couple of days ago, babies were murdered by evil men, a shocking crime - in a couple of days time, it's likely to happen again - and we all just have to sit here watching it slowly unfold like some sort of inevitable monster at the foot of the bed - paralysed viewers of the impending destruction of a community.

Where we end up, who knows..

 

My guess is whatever the outcome, we will return to this position again in a couple of decades. Anything taken by force has to be defended by force. While ever the sociopaths are leading the way nothing will change.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

Qué?

I messed up the quote attribution - fixed now.

[Chindie]

Just now, blandy said:

I messed up the quote attribution - fixed now.

It still doesn't make a lick of sense.

[Xann]

4 minutes ago, blandy said:

Dunno, but Iran is sending an awful lot to Russia, so maybe they can't spare any for their Terror buddies?

How long have they been preparing?

Guess we find out soon?

[OutByEaster?]

5 minutes ago, luckyeddie said:

My guess is whatever the outcome, we will return to this position again in a couple of decades. Anything taken by force has to be defended by force. While ever the sociopaths are leading the way nothing will change.

Perhaps, but i think we're more likely to end up in a position that's in the same region but not here. i've got a feeling Gaza won't exist in a couple of decades.

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, Chindie said:

It still doesn't make a lick of sense.

I'm loathe to explain, in case you call me dense again, but my take from your original post was that you feel every interview is slanted to put Palestinians kind of second in the pecking order of importance and that the use of Murdered v killed is typical of that kind of media bias (in your view). I haven't noticed that to be the case. When you said I can't be that dense (though I am presumably a bit dense, in your view, from what you said), I just posted your two extracts from what you wrote, to try to show what I was getting at.

Anyway, I don't want to rile anyone or fall out, so I'll leave it.

[luckyeddie]

4 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Perhaps, but i think we're more likely to end up in a position that's in the same region but not here. i've got a feeling Gaza won't exist in a couple of decades.

Quite possibly true, Gaza may not exist. The hatred being created by these actions (by both sides) will just fester and grow. I think Hamas will continue in one form or another, and Israel will never feel safe in its surroundings.