Is Hamas really a terrorist group? Or do you cease to be 'terrorists' once you are in government. Ironically might the claim that they are terrorists play into the occupation myth with regards to Gaza? I have to be honest and say I have no clear thoughts on this. So far as I am aware no-one called the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge terrorists but that hardly makes them seem morally superior.
While a terrorist group maybe be a more fuzzy to define, most terrorist attacks seems fairly straightforward to define i.e. in terms of extreme violence where an individual or group have premediated operation targeted to kill, injure and terrorise civilians under the guise of progressing a political cause.
What happened on 7th October fits squarely under this definition.
"in terms of extreme violence where an individual or group have premediated operation targeted to kill, injure and terrorise civilians under the guise of progressing a political cause."
Netanyahu's carpet bombing of Gaza says Hello!
And, once again, you miss the point that the bombing of Gaza is not “targeted” at civilians unlike October 7.
The IDF have levelled entire neighbourhoods in Gaza. Power, water, comms all cut. Uninhabitable by civilians.
So presumably you applaud the IDF's efforts to ensure those areas were evacuated as far as possible before the bombing started, and deplore the attempts of Hamas operatives to prevent those evacuations from taking place?
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
"Hamas claim the ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and detect a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
The former I believe
But it is important. The inclusion of the statement for the IDF intrinsically casts doubt in the mind of the listener on the validity of the statement. That’s not balance.
"Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation, claim that Israel have violated the ceasefire agreement."
That's nothing to get worked up about with or without a "and also it's not a verified claim".
C'mon. It's you not them. You have a massive pro Israel bias. Every post you've done on this conflict reeks of it.
It matters.
There are academic studies on this.
But even if it didn’t make a difference the *appearance* of bias matters
I am not pro Israel (I dislike Netenyahu with a passion) although I have a number of friends who actively supported Gantz. The behaviour of settlers is, at best, profoundly unhelpful
I am strongly pro democracies and opposed to the murder of innocents.
I agree with a lot of what you say about the appearance of bias.
One aspect of bias that hasn't come into the discussion yet is the relative prominence of stories from either side. To take one example - every news bulletin I heard trailing a possible ceasefire in the past few days mentioned 'the ceasefire and hostage release'. It often wasn't until quite a bit later in the bulletin (certainly not the headline) that the BBC or others saw fit to mention that a significant number of Palestinian prisoners were also being released. This gives the appearance of bias the other way, specifically that Israeli lives and the freedom of Israelis is worth more than Palestinian ones.
So you see bias one way, I see it the other way. That's kinabalu's point, and a good one imo.
Is Hamas really a terrorist group? Or do you cease to be 'terrorists' once you are in government. Ironically might the claim that they are terrorists play into the occupation myth with regards to Gaza? I have to be honest and say I have no clear thoughts on this. So far as I am aware no-one called the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge terrorists but that hardly makes them seem morally superior.
While a terrorist group maybe be a more fuzzy to define, most terrorist attacks seems fairly straightforward to define i.e. in terms of extreme violence where an individual or group have premediated operation targeted to kill, injure and terrorise civilians under the guise of progressing a political cause.
What happened on 7th October fits squarely under this definition.
"in terms of extreme violence where an individual or group have premediated operation targeted to kill, injure and terrorise civilians under the guise of progressing a political cause."
Netanyahu's carpet bombing of Gaza says Hello!
And, once again, you miss the point that the bombing of Gaza is not “targeted” at civilians unlike October 7.
The IDF have levelled entire neighbourhoods in Gaza. Power, water, comms all cut. Uninhabitable by civilians.
So presumably you applaud the IDF's efforts to ensure those areas were evacuated as far as possible before the bombing started, and deplore the attempts of Hamas operatives to prevent those evacuations from taking place?
Is Hamas really a terrorist group? Or do you cease to be 'terrorists' once you are in government. Ironically might the claim that they are terrorists play into the occupation myth with regards to Gaza? I have to be honest and say I have no clear thoughts on this. So far as I am aware no-one called the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge terrorists but that hardly makes them seem morally superior.
While a terrorist group maybe be a more fuzzy to define, most terrorist attacks seems fairly straightforward to define i.e. in terms of extreme violence where an individual or group have premediated operation targeted to kill, injure and terrorise civilians under the guise of progressing a political cause.
What happened on 7th October fits squarely under this definition.
"in terms of extreme violence where an individual or group have premediated operation targeted to kill, injure and terrorise civilians under the guise of progressing a political cause."
Netanyahu's carpet bombing of Gaza says Hello!
And, once again, you miss the point that the bombing of Gaza is not “targeted” at civilians unlike October 7.
The IDF have levelled entire neighbourhoods in Gaza. Power, water, comms all cut. Uninhabitable by civilians.
Which is not targeting civilians. They give advance warning.
And if Hamas didn’t build their military emplacements on civilians areas it wouldn’t be an issue
Italy through to Davis Cup final after Jannick Sinner beats Novak Djokovic
Should this not be reported as "Italy through to Davis Cup final after Jannick designated Sinner on his passport by the Italian Government beats Novak Djokovic" nowadays?
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
Yes they are imo. Very much so. They're not only that but they are that. Such is my opinion. And the government's for that matter. Which being the government's carries more weight than mine, hence their terrorist status merits the word 'designated'.
So there's the fact that the Beeb relay. Hamas are a designated terrorist organisation. They say it again and again. You just can't get the wrong idea. It's fine. It's just nothing to be fretting about. Again imo. Which is all I can give you.
The problem is that they weren’t even saying it was a proscribed terrorist organisation. The word terrorist was nowhere to be found.
They're always saying that. I can't see how you're missing it.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected.
It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
'Winston Churchill the terrorist: His hunger to take the fight to Hitler made him send thousands of heroes to needless death..
..Back in 1940, he famously gave the order to 'Set Europe ablaze', an instruction that prompted the creation of SOE, the Special Operations Executive. Its task was to promote resistance - explicitly terrorism and armed activity by partisans - everywhere that the Germans held sway.'
Terrorist is objectively a description not a moral judgement. There are, inevitably, different opinions about what is classified as terrorist activity or not.
Resistance by armed partisans / guerrilla warfare is not classified as terrorism as (I) it is not targeted at civilians but rather at an occupying army; and (ii) it is not designed to inculcate terror
Unless you’re saying ‘terrorist’ is a legitimate objective opinion of Churchill, Max Hastings & the DM appear to disagree with you.
The nature of a free society is that people are entitled to hold whatever opinion they like. I disagree with the view that Churchill was a terrorist.
Specifically in the case of the SOE that was legitimate partisan activity not terrorism.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
"Hamas claim the ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and detect a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
The former I believe
But it is important. The inclusion of the statement for the IDF intrinsically casts doubt in the mind of the listener on the validity of the statement. That’s not balance.
"Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation, claim that Israel have violated the ceasefire agreement."
That's nothing to get worked up about with or without a "and also it's not a verified claim".
C'mon. It's you not them. You have a massive pro Israel bias. Every post you've done on this conflict reeks of it.
It matters.
There are academic studies on this.
But even if it didn’t make a difference the *appearance* of bias matters
I am not pro Israel (I dislike Netenyahu with a passion) although I have a number of friends who actively supported Gantz. The behaviour of settlers is, at best, profoundly unhelpful
I am strongly pro democracies and opposed to the murder of innocents.
I agree with a lot of what you say about the appearance of bias.
One aspect of bias that hasn't come into the discussion yet is the relative prominence of stories from either side. To take one example - every news bulletin I heard trailing a possible ceasefire in the past few days mentioned 'the ceasefire and hostage release'. It often wasn't until quite a bit later in the bulletin (certainly not the headline) that the BBC or others saw fit to mention that a significant number of Palestinian prisoners were also being released. This gives the appearance of bias the other way, specifically that Israeli lives and the freedom of Israelis is worth more than Palestinian ones.
So you see bias one way, I see it the other way. That's kinabalu's point, and a good one imo.
How do you interpret that mentioning hostage release and not the quid pro quo of releasing convicted criminals/detained militants as bias? That’s a genuine question.
A prisoner has been through a judicial process. A hostage was seized off the street.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
Yes they are imo. Very much so. They're not only that but they are that. Such is my opinion. And the government's for that matter. Which being the government's carries more weight than mine, hence their terrorist status merits the word 'designated'.
So there's the fact that the Beeb relay. Hamas are a designated terrorist organisation. They say it again and again. You just can't get the wrong idea. It's fine. It's just nothing to be fretting about. Again imo. Which is all I can give you.
The problem is that they weren’t even saying it was a proscribed terrorist organisation. The word terrorist was nowhere to be found.
They're always saying that. I can't see how you're missing it.
They don't say "Hamas are terrorists"
They say "Hamas, which has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the UK government"
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
Yes they are imo. Very much so. They're not only that but they are that. Such is my opinion. And the government's for that matter. Which being the government's carries more weight than mine, hence their terrorist status merits the word 'designated'.
So there's the fact that the Beeb relay. Hamas are a designated terrorist organisation. They say it again and again. You just can't get the wrong idea. It's fine. It's just nothing to be fretting about. Again imo. Which is all I can give you.
The problem is that they weren’t even saying it was a proscribed terrorist organisation. The word terrorist was nowhere to be found.
They're always saying that. I can't see how you're missing it.
They don't say "Hamas are terrorists"
They say "Hamas, which has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the UK government"
I know that you know the difference
Of course everyone knows the difference. Personally I find it a bit unnecessary and would generally just go with terrorists. But I don't get the big offence* either, unless you think the UK government is an unreliable designator of terrorist organisations, and also think media companies don't have the right to make their own editorial decisions.
* Small offence would have been fine, but this has been a sore point for weeks in a crowded fast moving news schedule. There are more important things to worry about.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
"Hamas claim the ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and detect a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
The former I believe
But it is important. The inclusion of the statement for the IDF intrinsically casts doubt in the mind of the listener on the validity of the statement. That’s not balance.
"Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation, claim that Israel have violated the ceasefire agreement."
That's nothing to get worked up about with or without a "and also it's not a verified claim".
C'mon. It's you not them. You have a massive pro Israel bias. Every post you've done on this conflict reeks of it.
It matters.
There are academic studies on this.
But even if it didn’t make a difference the *appearance* of bias matters
I am not pro Israel (I dislike Netenyahu with a passion) although I have a number of friends who actively supported Gantz. The behaviour of settlers is, at best, profoundly unhelpful
I am strongly pro democracies and opposed to the murder of innocents.
I agree with a lot of what you say about the appearance of bias.
One aspect of bias that hasn't come into the discussion yet is the relative prominence of stories from either side. To take one example - every news bulletin I heard trailing a possible ceasefire in the past few days mentioned 'the ceasefire and hostage release'. It often wasn't until quite a bit later in the bulletin (certainly not the headline) that the BBC or others saw fit to mention that a significant number of Palestinian prisoners were also being released. This gives the appearance of bias the other way, specifically that Israeli lives and the freedom of Israelis is worth more than Palestinian ones.
So you see bias one way, I see it the other way. That's kinabalu's point, and a good one imo.
Sorry, just trying to work out your point. Israeli lives are more valuable than Palestinian ones, yes? This is based on a higher number of Palestinians being swapped per Israeli i guess? And I’m bemused that you think the manner in which the Israeli hostages were taken is comparable to how the Palestinian swaps were taken.
You don’t have to accept blindly that every arrest of a Palestinian was right to understand that it’s quite a leap to conflate someone being arrested for throwing rocks at police with someone who was tending their tomatoes in the kibbutz or dancing at a pro-peace rave being taken at gun point having watched others murdered and raped.
Will probably be easier when Sunil does one of his pie charts showing the relative numbers of released from each side. I just hope he also includes a hilarious “keep calmer vote Starmer pic” to add to the general display of wit.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
"Hamas claim the ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and detect a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
The former I believe
But it is important. The inclusion of the statement for the IDF intrinsically casts doubt in the mind of the listener on the validity of the statement. That’s not balance.
"Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation, claim that Israel have violated the ceasefire agreement."
That's nothing to get worked up about with or without a "and also it's not a verified claim".
C'mon. It's you not them. You have a massive pro Israel bias. Every post you've done on this conflict reeks of it.
It matters.
There are academic studies on this.
But even if it didn’t make a difference the *appearance* of bias matters
I am not pro Israel (I dislike Netenyahu with a passion) although I have a number of friends who actively supported Gantz. The behaviour of settlers is, at best, profoundly unhelpful
I am strongly pro democracies and opposed to the murder of innocents.
I agree with a lot of what you say about the appearance of bias.
One aspect of bias that hasn't come into the discussion yet is the relative prominence of stories from either side. To take one example - every news bulletin I heard trailing a possible ceasefire in the past few days mentioned 'the ceasefire and hostage release'. It often wasn't until quite a bit later in the bulletin (certainly not the headline) that the BBC or others saw fit to mention that a significant number of Palestinian prisoners were also being released. This gives the appearance of bias the other way, specifically that Israeli lives and the freedom of Israelis is worth more than Palestinian ones.
So you see bias one way, I see it the other way. That's kinabalu's point, and a good one imo.
How do you interpret that mentioning hostage release and not the quid pro quo of releasing convicted criminals/detained militants as bias? That’s a genuine question.
A prisoner has been through a judicial process. A hostage was seized off the street.
Not necessarily, many Arabs have been detained without charge. Not necessarily the ones being released, natch.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
"Hamas claim the ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and detect a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
The former I believe
But it is important. The inclusion of the statement for the IDF intrinsically casts doubt in the mind of the listener on the validity of the statement. That’s not balance.
"Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation, claim that Israel have violated the ceasefire agreement."
That's nothing to get worked up about with or without a "and also it's not a verified claim".
C'mon. It's you not them. You have a massive pro Israel bias. Every post you've done on this conflict reeks of it.
It matters.
There are academic studies on this.
But even if it didn’t make a difference the *appearance* of bias matters
I am not pro Israel (I dislike Netenyahu with a passion) although I have a number of friends who actively supported Gantz. The behaviour of settlers is, at best, profoundly unhelpful
I am strongly pro democracies and opposed to the murder of innocents.
I agree with a lot of what you say about the appearance of bias.
One aspect of bias that hasn't come into the discussion yet is the relative prominence of stories from either side. To take one example - every news bulletin I heard trailing a possible ceasefire in the past few days mentioned 'the ceasefire and hostage release'. It often wasn't until quite a bit later in the bulletin (certainly not the headline) that the BBC or others saw fit to mention that a significant number of Palestinian prisoners were also being released. This gives the appearance of bias the other way, specifically that Israeli lives and the freedom of Israelis is worth more than Palestinian ones.
So you see bias one way, I see it the other way. That's kinabalu's point, and a good one imo.
Sorry, just trying to work out your point. Israeli lives are more valuable than Palestinian ones, yes? This is based on a higher number of Palestinians being swapped per Israeli i guess? And I’m bemused that you think the manner in which the Israeli hostages were taken is comparable to how the Palestinian swaps were taken.
You don’t have to accept blindly that every arrest of a Palestinian was right to understand that it’s quite a leap to conflate someone being arrested for throwing rocks at police with someone who was tending their tomatoes in the kibbutz or dancing at a pro-peace rave being taken at gun point having watched others murdered and raped.
Will probably be easier when Sunil does one of his pie charts showing the relative numbers of released from each side. I just hope he also includes a hilarious “keep calmer vote Starmer pic” to add to the general display of wit.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
"Hamas claim the ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and detect a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
The former I believe
But it is important. The inclusion of the statement for the IDF intrinsically casts doubt in the mind of the listener on the validity of the statement. That’s not balance.
"Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation, claim that Israel have violated the ceasefire agreement."
That's nothing to get worked up about with or without a "and also it's not a verified claim".
C'mon. It's you not them. You have a massive pro Israel bias. Every post you've done on this conflict reeks of it.
It matters.
There are academic studies on this.
But even if it didn’t make a difference the *appearance* of bias matters
I am not pro Israel (I dislike Netenyahu with a passion) although I have a number of friends who actively supported Gantz. The behaviour of settlers is, at best, profoundly unhelpful
I am strongly pro democracies and opposed to the murder of innocents.
I agree with a lot of what you say about the appearance of bias.
One aspect of bias that hasn't come into the discussion yet is the relative prominence of stories from either side. To take one example - every news bulletin I heard trailing a possible ceasefire in the past few days mentioned 'the ceasefire and hostage release'. It often wasn't until quite a bit later in the bulletin (certainly not the headline) that the BBC or others saw fit to mention that a significant number of Palestinian prisoners were also being released. This gives the appearance of bias the other way, specifically that Israeli lives and the freedom of Israelis is worth more than Palestinian ones.
So you see bias one way, I see it the other way. That's kinabalu's point, and a good one imo.
How do you interpret that mentioning hostage release and not the quid pro quo of releasing convicted criminals/detained militants as bias? That’s a genuine question.
A prisoner has been through a judicial process. A hostage was seized off the street.
Not necessarily, many Arabs have been detained without charge. Not necessarily the ones being released, natch.
That would be the “detained militants” but of “convicted criminals/detained militants”.
And many of those Palestinians released do fall into that category
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
"Hamas claim the ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and detect a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
The former I believe
But it is important. The inclusion of the statement for the IDF intrinsically casts doubt in the mind of the listener on the validity of the statement. That’s not balance.
"Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation, claim that Israel have violated the ceasefire agreement."
That's nothing to get worked up about with or without a "and also it's not a verified claim".
C'mon. It's you not them. You have a massive pro Israel bias. Every post you've done on this conflict reeks of it.
It matters.
There are academic studies on this.
But even if it didn’t make a difference the *appearance* of bias matters
I am not pro Israel (I dislike Netenyahu with a passion) although I have a number of friends who actively supported Gantz. The behaviour of settlers is, at best, profoundly unhelpful
I am strongly pro democracies and opposed to the murder of innocents.
I agree with a lot of what you say about the appearance of bias.
One aspect of bias that hasn't come into the discussion yet is the relative prominence of stories from either side. To take one example - every news bulletin I heard trailing a possible ceasefire in the past few days mentioned 'the ceasefire and hostage release'. It often wasn't until quite a bit later in the bulletin (certainly not the headline) that the BBC or others saw fit to mention that a significant number of Palestinian prisoners were also being released. This gives the appearance of bias the other way, specifically that Israeli lives and the freedom of Israelis is worth more than Palestinian ones.
So you see bias one way, I see it the other way. That's kinabalu's point, and a good one imo.
How do you interpret that mentioning hostage release and not the quid pro quo of releasing convicted criminals/detained militants as bias? That’s a genuine question.
A prisoner has been through a judicial process. A hostage was seized off the street.
I started typing a follow-up paragraph to say that clearly the two groups aren't equivalent, but for reasons of brevity deleted it.
It's a good question to ask. I see it that way for two reasons: 1. Some (though definitely not all) of the detained children are only detained imo because of the power imbalance between the Israeli state and the Palestinians e.g. kids throwing stones should not be incarcerated in a foreign prison imo. 2. Whether or not the two groups are of equal moral status doesn't validate selective reporting of what is going on, again imo. Even if the prisoners were fairly detained through a judicial process they are still humans of equal value, not a footnote to the important stuff.
I'm not trying to persuade you of my view - I can see the flaws in what I am saying and can also see that it is based on a particular moral view that by no means trumps other moral views. I'm simply trying to show that we often only pick up on bias one way, and the way that we do so often reveals where our underlying sympathies lie.
Those of us who think we are objective (and we all do at times) are often the ones that are simply blind to our particular biases.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
"Hamas claim the ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and detect a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
The former I believe
But it is important. The inclusion of the statement for the IDF intrinsically casts doubt in the mind of the listener on the validity of the statement. That’s not balance.
"Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation, claim that Israel have violated the ceasefire agreement."
That's nothing to get worked up about with or without a "and also it's not a verified claim".
C'mon. It's you not them. You have a massive pro Israel bias. Every post you've done on this conflict reeks of it.
It matters.
There are academic studies on this.
But even if it didn’t make a difference the *appearance* of bias matters
I am not pro Israel (I dislike Netenyahu with a passion) although I have a number of friends who actively supported Gantz. The behaviour of settlers is, at best, profoundly unhelpful
I am strongly pro democracies and opposed to the murder of innocents.
I agree with a lot of what you say about the appearance of bias.
One aspect of bias that hasn't come into the discussion yet is the relative prominence of stories from either side. To take one example - every news bulletin I heard trailing a possible ceasefire in the past few days mentioned 'the ceasefire and hostage release'. It often wasn't until quite a bit later in the bulletin (certainly not the headline) that the BBC or others saw fit to mention that a significant number of Palestinian prisoners were also being released. This gives the appearance of bias the other way, specifically that Israeli lives and the freedom of Israelis is worth more than Palestinian ones.
So you see bias one way, I see it the other way. That's kinabalu's point, and a good one imo.
Sorry, just trying to work out your point. Israeli lives are more valuable than Palestinian ones, yes? This is based on a higher number of Palestinians being swapped per Israeli i guess? And I’m bemused that you think the manner in which the Israeli hostages were taken is comparable to how the Palestinian swaps were taken.
You don’t have to accept blindly that every arrest of a Palestinian was right to understand that it’s quite a leap to conflate someone being arrested for throwing rocks at police with someone who was tending their tomatoes in the kibbutz or dancing at a pro-peace rave being taken at gun point having watched others murdered and raped.
Will probably be easier when Sunil does one of his pie charts showing the relative numbers of released from each side. I just hope he also includes a hilarious “keep calmer vote Starmer pic” to add to the general display of wit.
I think I've answered part of this in my reply to StillWaters, but just to pick up on one thing - it's not the relative numbers of people being released that I was referring to, but the way in which it was being reported: a ceasefire for (Israeli) hostages to be released, without mention of (Palestinian) prisoner release.
"Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound Another joyous experience with our world beating NHS. Get repeat prescription via 111. Pharmacy has what I need. But I can’t have it because the NHS computer system says No. The repeat prescription is on the NHS app. “We don’t recognise the app.” Brilliant! What a joke 8:44 PM · Nov 25, 2023"
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected.
It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
'Winston Churchill the terrorist: His hunger to take the fight to Hitler made him send thousands of heroes to needless death..
..Back in 1940, he famously gave the order to 'Set Europe ablaze', an instruction that prompted the creation of SOE, the Special Operations Executive. Its task was to promote resistance - explicitly terrorism and armed activity by partisans - everywhere that the Germans held sway.'
Terrorist is objectively a description not a moral judgement. There are, inevitably, different opinions about what is classified as terrorist activity or not.
Resistance by armed partisans / guerrilla warfare is not classified as terrorism as (I) it is not targeted at civilians but rather at an occupying army; and (ii) it is not designed to inculcate terror
Both SOE and the various resistance movements targeted military and paramilitary targets, almost exclusively.
"Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound Another joyous experience with our world beating NHS. Get repeat prescription via 111. Pharmacy has what I need. But I can’t have it because the NHS computer system says No. The repeat prescription is on the NHS app. “We don’t recognise the app.” Brilliant! What a joke 8:44 PM · Nov 25, 2023"
If you request a repeat prescription via the NHS App it still needs medical approval via the GP signature to authorise before it can be dispensed. A request is not itself a prescription.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected.
It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
'Winston Churchill the terrorist: His hunger to take the fight to Hitler made him send thousands of heroes to needless death..
..Back in 1940, he famously gave the order to 'Set Europe ablaze', an instruction that prompted the creation of SOE, the Special Operations Executive. Its task was to promote resistance - explicitly terrorism and armed activity by partisans - everywhere that the Germans held sway.'
Terrorist is objectively a description not a moral judgement. There are, inevitably, different opinions about what is classified as terrorist activity or not.
Resistance by armed partisans / guerrilla warfare is not classified as terrorism as (I) it is not targeted at civilians but rather at an occupying army; and (ii) it is not designed to inculcate terror
Both SOE and the various resistance movements targeted military and paramilitary targets, almost exclusively.
Though Bomber Command targeted civilians, so was the RAF a terror organisation?
"When out of fear you twist the lesser evil into the lie that it is something good, you eventually rob people of the capacity to differentiate between good and evil."
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected.
It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
'Winston Churchill the terrorist: His hunger to take the fight to Hitler made him send thousands of heroes to needless death..
..Back in 1940, he famously gave the order to 'Set Europe ablaze', an instruction that prompted the creation of SOE, the Special Operations Executive. Its task was to promote resistance - explicitly terrorism and armed activity by partisans - everywhere that the Germans held sway.'
Terrorist is objectively a description not a moral judgement. There are, inevitably, different opinions about what is classified as terrorist activity or not.
Resistance by armed partisans / guerrilla warfare is not classified as terrorism as (I) it is not targeted at civilians but rather at an occupying army; and (ii) it is not designed to inculcate terror
Both SOE and the various resistance movements targeted military and paramilitary targets, almost exclusively.
The thing I can't get my head around with the BBC's refusal to use the word terrorist is the gay abandon with which they deploy the heavily loaded term far right, often justifiably to be fair, and presumably set against some academic definition, but never explained or deemed to require explanation..
Even the latest Opinium sees the Tories drop a point with Labour up two points .
Lab 42% Con 26% Lib Dems 11% Reform 8% Green 7% SNP 3%
Looks like the National Insurance cut may have put some extra money into workers pockets but hasn't done much to improve the Tory voteshare.
That rumoured IHT cut which never happened may still need to be rolled out at next year's budget then and a rise in the threshold for the Conservative manifesto. Reform on 8% still
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected.
It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
'Winston Churchill the terrorist: His hunger to take the fight to Hitler made him send thousands of heroes to needless death..
..Back in 1940, he famously gave the order to 'Set Europe ablaze', an instruction that prompted the creation of SOE, the Special Operations Executive. Its task was to promote resistance - explicitly terrorism and armed activity by partisans - everywhere that the Germans held sway.'
Terrorist is objectively a description not a moral judgement. There are, inevitably, different opinions about what is classified as terrorist activity or not.
Resistance by armed partisans / guerrilla warfare is not classified as terrorism as (I) it is not targeted at civilians but rather at an occupying army; and (ii) it is not designed to inculcate terror
Both SOE and the various resistance movements targeted military and paramilitary targets, almost exclusively.
The thing I can't get my head around with the BBC's refusal to use the word terrorist is the gay abandon with which they deploy the heavily loaded term far right, often justifiably to be fair, and presumably set against some academic definition, but never explained or deemed to require explanation..
As evidenced down thread far right and terrorist, absolutely no issue. Christchurch, far right terrorist / terrorism. No problem publishing numerous articles stating this.
These are the type of people that Israel has been forced to release from its prisons in exchange for the Israeli hostages in Gaza. Mainstream media is trying to portray them as regular Palestinians , but nearly all of them are terrorists.
Even the latest Opinium sees the Tories drop a point with Labour up two points .
Lab 42% Con 26% Lib Dems 11% Reform 8% Green 7% SNP 3%
Looks like the National Insurance cut may have put some extra money into workers pockets but hasn't done much to improve the Tory voteshare.
That rumoured IHT cut which never happened may still need to be rolled out at next year's budget then and a rise in the threshold for the Conservative manifesto. Reform on 8% still
Of course the NI cut hasn't put any extra money into workers' pockets yet, but will they notice by the time it does or will rising energy prices be more in their minds?
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected.
It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
'Winston Churchill the terrorist: His hunger to take the fight to Hitler made him send thousands of heroes to needless death..
..Back in 1940, he famously gave the order to 'Set Europe ablaze', an instruction that prompted the creation of SOE, the Special Operations Executive. Its task was to promote resistance - explicitly terrorism and armed activity by partisans - everywhere that the Germans held sway.'
Terrorist is objectively a description not a moral judgement. There are, inevitably, different opinions about what is classified as terrorist activity or not.
Resistance by armed partisans / guerrilla warfare is not classified as terrorism as (I) it is not targeted at civilians but rather at an occupying army; and (ii) it is not designed to inculcate terror
Both SOE and the various resistance movements targeted military and paramilitary targets, almost exclusively.
Though Bomber Command targeted civilians, so was the RAF a terror organisation?
As I wrote in my thread header a couple if weeks ago we should define terrorism based on its actions - specifically the targetting of civilians for political or military ends.
So yes by that definition it would be reasonable to say that they were terror attacks. Uncomfortable as that may be for people including me. Of course that is exactly what the Nazis called them.
I think that these days we would normally define them as war crimes rather than terrorism but that is just semantics really.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
"Hamas claim the ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and detect a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
The former I believe
But it is important. The inclusion of the statement for the IDF intrinsically casts doubt in the mind of the listener on the validity of the statement. That’s not balance.
"Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation, claim that Israel have violated the ceasefire agreement."
That's nothing to get worked up about with or without a "and also it's not a verified claim".
C'mon. It's you not them. You have a massive pro Israel bias. Every post you've done on this conflict reeks of it.
It matters.
There are academic studies on this.
But even if it didn’t make a difference the *appearance* of bias matters
I am not pro Israel (I dislike Netenyahu with a passion) although I have a number of friends who actively supported Gantz. The behaviour of settlers is, at best, profoundly unhelpful
I am strongly pro democracies and opposed to the murder of innocents.
We all are. And pro Hamas bias in the reporting of our national broadcaster certainly does matter. As do unfounded allegations of it. I'm seeing more of the latter than the former.
"Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound Another joyous experience with our world beating NHS. Get repeat prescription via 111. Pharmacy has what I need. But I can’t have it because the NHS computer system says No. The repeat prescription is on the NHS app. “We don’t recognise the app.” Brilliant! What a joke 8:44 PM · Nov 25, 2023"
I have a repeat prescription - which was renewed every six months during lockdown times with no issues. Now, for reasons that have never been explained to me, I need to email my GP practice twice a month and - sometimes they renew the prescription on time. Other times I go a while without the medication they say is saving my life while I phone them 8-9am during their only opening hours on the off-chance I get through. Toss of a coin.
Even the latest Opinium sees the Tories drop a point with Labour up two points .
Lab 42% Con 26% Lib Dems 11% Reform 8% Green 7% SNP 3%
Looks like the National Insurance cut may have put some extra money into workers pockets but hasn't done much to improve the Tory voteshare.
That rumoured IHT cut which never happened may still need to be rolled out at next year's budget then and a rise in the threshold for the Conservative manifesto. Reform on 8% still
Tories would be wise to avoid another political tax cut. All too reminiscent of Truss chaos.
Even the latest Opinium sees the Tories drop a point with Labour up two points .
Lab 42% Con 26% Lib Dems 11% Reform 8% Green 7% SNP 3%
Looks like the National Insurance cut may have put some extra money into workers pockets but hasn't done much to improve the Tory voteshare.
That rumoured IHT cut which never happened may still need to be rolled out at next year's budget then and a rise in the threshold for the Conservative manifesto. Reform on 8% still
Tories would be wise to avoid another political tax cut. All too reminiscent of Truss chaos.
They could at least put it in their manifesto, then in the unlikely event they win they have a mandate for it
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected.
It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
'Winston Churchill the terrorist: His hunger to take the fight to Hitler made him send thousands of heroes to needless death..
..Back in 1940, he famously gave the order to 'Set Europe ablaze', an instruction that prompted the creation of SOE, the Special Operations Executive. Its task was to promote resistance - explicitly terrorism and armed activity by partisans - everywhere that the Germans held sway.'
Terrorist is objectively a description not a moral judgement. There are, inevitably, different opinions about what is classified as terrorist activity or not.
Resistance by armed partisans / guerrilla warfare is not classified as terrorism as (I) it is not targeted at civilians but rather at an occupying army; and (ii) it is not designed to inculcate terror
Both SOE and the various resistance movements targeted military and paramilitary targets, almost exclusively.
Though Bomber Command targeted civilians, so was the RAF a terror organisation?
As I wrote in my thread header a couple if weeks ago we should define terrorism based on its actions - specifically the targetting of civilians for political or military ends.
So yes by that definition it would be reasonable to say that they were terror attacks. Uncomfortable as that may be for people including me. Of course that is exactly what the Nazis called them.
I think that these days we would normally define them as war crimes rather than terrorism but that is just semantics really.
Of course Churchill also thought the Israeli paramilitary organisations like the Irgun were terrorists.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected.
It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
'Winston Churchill the terrorist: His hunger to take the fight to Hitler made him send thousands of heroes to needless death..
..Back in 1940, he famously gave the order to 'Set Europe ablaze', an instruction that prompted the creation of SOE, the Special Operations Executive. Its task was to promote resistance - explicitly terrorism and armed activity by partisans - everywhere that the Germans held sway.'
Terrorist is objectively a description not a moral judgement. There are, inevitably, different opinions about what is classified as terrorist activity or not.
Resistance by armed partisans / guerrilla warfare is not classified as terrorism as (I) it is not targeted at civilians but rather at an occupying army; and (ii) it is not designed to inculcate terror
Both SOE and the various resistance movements targeted military and paramilitary targets, almost exclusively.
The thing I can't get my head around with the BBC's refusal to use the word terrorist is the gay abandon with which they deploy the heavily loaded term far right, often justifiably to be fair, and presumably set against some academic definition, but never explained or deemed to require explanation..
As evidenced down thread far right and terrorist, absolutely no issue. Christchurch, far right terrorist / terrorism. No problem publishing numerous articles stating this.
They also have no issue saying (eg) islamic or far left terrorism where it happens. However they don't usually label governments (eg of Russia or Gaza) as terrorists. Russia is just Russia. With Hamas, since they are only sort of a government of sort of a country, they have settled on "designated as a terrorist organisation". Bit of a mouthful but I really don't see the problem. There's enough to be concerned about with the unfolding catastrophe in Gaza without confecting mountains out of molehills.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected.
It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
'Winston Churchill the terrorist: His hunger to take the fight to Hitler made him send thousands of heroes to needless death..
..Back in 1940, he famously gave the order to 'Set Europe ablaze', an instruction that prompted the creation of SOE, the Special Operations Executive. Its task was to promote resistance - explicitly terrorism and armed activity by partisans - everywhere that the Germans held sway.'
Terrorist is objectively a description not a moral judgement. There are, inevitably, different opinions about what is classified as terrorist activity or not.
Resistance by armed partisans / guerrilla warfare is not classified as terrorism as (I) it is not targeted at civilians but rather at an occupying army; and (ii) it is not designed to inculcate terror
Both SOE and the various resistance movements targeted military and paramilitary targets, almost exclusively.
The thing I can't get my head around with the BBC's refusal to use the word terrorist is the gay abandon with which they deploy the heavily loaded term far right, often justifiably to be fair, and presumably set against some academic definition, but never explained or deemed to require explanation..
As evidenced down thread far right and terrorist, absolutely no issue. Christchurch, far right terrorist / terrorism. No problem publishing numerous articles stating this.
They also have no issue saying (eg) islamic or far left terrorism where it happens. However they don't usually label governments (eg of Russia or Gaza) as terrorists. Russia is just Russia. With Hamas, since they are only sort of a government of sort of a country, they have settled on "designated as a terrorist organisation". Bit of a mouthful but I really don't see the problem. There's enough to be concerned about with the unfolding catastrophe in Gaza without confecting mountains out of molehills.
Because that isn't what the BBC originally said and John Simpson spouted a load of BS to try to cover for it. If you want to be trusted, don't lie.
And people on here bought the original stance even now, asked for proof, proof given.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected.
It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
'Winston Churchill the terrorist: His hunger to take the fight to Hitler made him send thousands of heroes to needless death..
..Back in 1940, he famously gave the order to 'Set Europe ablaze', an instruction that prompted the creation of SOE, the Special Operations Executive. Its task was to promote resistance - explicitly terrorism and armed activity by partisans - everywhere that the Germans held sway.'
Terrorist is objectively a description not a moral judgement. There are, inevitably, different opinions about what is classified as terrorist activity or not.
Resistance by armed partisans / guerrilla warfare is not classified as terrorism as (I) it is not targeted at civilians but rather at an occupying army; and (ii) it is not designed to inculcate terror
Both SOE and the various resistance movements targeted military and paramilitary targets, almost exclusively.
Though Bomber Command targeted civilians, so was the RAF a terror organisation?
As I wrote in my thread header a couple if weeks ago we should define terrorism based on its actions - specifically the targetting of civilians for political or military ends.
So yes by that definition it would be reasonable to say that they were terror attacks. Uncomfortable as that may be for people including me. Of course that is exactly what the Nazis called them.
I think that these days we would normally define them as war crimes rather than terrorism but that is just semantics really.
Of course Churchill also thought the Israeli paramilitary organisations like the Irgun were terrorists.
I think it’s uncontroversial that Irgun used terrorist tactics.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected.
It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
'Winston Churchill the terrorist: His hunger to take the fight to Hitler made him send thousands of heroes to needless death..
..Back in 1940, he famously gave the order to 'Set Europe ablaze', an instruction that prompted the creation of SOE, the Special Operations Executive. Its task was to promote resistance - explicitly terrorism and armed activity by partisans - everywhere that the Germans held sway.'
Terrorist is objectively a description not a moral judgement. There are, inevitably, different opinions about what is classified as terrorist activity or not.
Resistance by armed partisans / guerrilla warfare is not classified as terrorism as (I) it is not targeted at civilians but rather at an occupying army; and (ii) it is not designed to inculcate terror
Both SOE and the various resistance movements targeted military and paramilitary targets, almost exclusively.
Though Bomber Command targeted civilians, so was the RAF a terror organisation?
As I wrote in my thread header a couple if weeks ago we should define terrorism based on its actions - specifically the targetting of civilians for political or military ends.
So yes by that definition it would be reasonable to say that they were terror attacks. Uncomfortable as that may be for people including me. Of course that is exactly what the Nazis called them.
I think that these days we would normally define them as war crimes rather than terrorism but that is just semantics really.
Of course Churchill also thought the Israeli paramilitary organisations like the Irgun were terrorists.
I think it’s uncontroversial that Irgun used terrorist tactics.
One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Its why I find the whole semantic argument pointless.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
Yes they are imo. Very much so. They're not only that but they are that. Such is my opinion. And the government's for that matter. Which being the government's carries more weight than mine, hence their terrorist status merits the word 'designated'.
So there's the fact that the Beeb relay. Hamas are a designated terrorist organisation. They say it again and again. You just can't get the wrong idea. It's fine. It's just nothing to be fretting about. Again imo. Which is all I can give you.
The problem is that they weren’t even saying it was a proscribed terrorist organisation. The word terrorist was nowhere to be found.
They're always saying that. I can't see how you're missing it.
They don't say "Hamas are terrorists"
They say "Hamas, which has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the UK government"
I know that you know the difference
The 2nd is fine for BBC reporting. They are saying the government of Gaza (Hamas) is a designated terrorist organisation. It's true in both letter and spirit. It's about as far from a problem as a non problem can be.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
Yes they are imo. Very much so. They're not only that but they are that. Such is my opinion. And the government's for that matter. Which being the government's carries more weight than mine, hence their terrorist status merits the word 'designated'.
So there's the fact that the Beeb relay. Hamas are a designated terrorist organisation. They say it again and again. You just can't get the wrong idea. It's fine. It's just nothing to be fretting about. Again imo. Which is all I can give you.
The problem is that they weren’t even saying it was a proscribed terrorist organisation. The word terrorist was nowhere to be found.
They're always saying that. I can't see how you're missing it.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
"Hamas claim the ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and detect a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
The former I believe
But it is important. The inclusion of the statement for the IDF intrinsically casts doubt in the mind of the listener on the validity of the statement. That’s not balance.
"Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation, claim that Israel have violated the ceasefire agreement."
That's nothing to get worked up about with or without a "and also it's not a verified claim".
C'mon. It's you not them. You have a massive pro Israel bias. Every post you've done on this conflict reeks of it.
It matters.
There are academic studies on this.
But even if it didn’t make a difference the *appearance* of bias matters
I am not pro Israel (I dislike Netenyahu with a passion) although I have a number of friends who actively supported Gantz. The behaviour of settlers is, at best, profoundly unhelpful
I am strongly pro democracies and opposed to the murder of innocents.
I agree with a lot of what you say about the appearance of bias.
One aspect of bias that hasn't come into the discussion yet is the relative prominence of stories from either side. To take one example - every news bulletin I heard trailing a possible ceasefire in the past few days mentioned 'the ceasefire and hostage release'. It often wasn't until quite a bit later in the bulletin (certainly not the headline) that the BBC or others saw fit to mention that a significant number of Palestinian prisoners were also being released. This gives the appearance of bias the other way, specifically that Israeli lives and the freedom of Israelis is worth more than Palestinian ones.
So you see bias one way, I see it the other way. That's kinabalu's point, and a good one imo.
Sorry, just trying to work out your point. Israeli lives are more valuable than Palestinian ones, yes? This is based on a higher number of Palestinians being swapped per Israeli i guess? And I’m bemused that you think the manner in which the Israeli hostages were taken is comparable to how the Palestinian swaps were taken.
You don’t have to accept blindly that every arrest of a Palestinian was right to understand that it’s quite a leap to conflate someone being arrested for throwing rocks at police with someone who was tending their tomatoes in the kibbutz or dancing at a pro-peace rave being taken at gun point having watched others murdered and raped.
Will probably be easier when Sunil does one of his pie charts showing the relative numbers of released from each side. I just hope he also includes a hilarious “keep calmer vote Starmer pic” to add to the general display of wit.
I think I've answered part of this in my reply to StillWaters, but just to pick up on one thing - it's not the relative numbers of people being released that I was referring to, but the way in which it was being reported: a ceasefire for (Israeli) hostages to be released, without mention of (Palestinian) prisoner release.
The difference is between hostages - innocent civilians - captured and prisoners who have been convicted in a court of law and/or detained in the act of, for example, throwing stones at IDF members.
Due process and the rule of law is why they are not the same
Even the latest Opinium sees the Tories drop a point with Labour up two points .
Lab 42% Con 26% Lib Dems 11% Reform 8% Green 7% SNP 3%
Looks like the National Insurance cut may have put some extra money into workers pockets but hasn't done much to improve the Tory voteshare.
That rumoured IHT cut which never happened may still need to be rolled out at next year's budget then and a rise in the threshold for the Conservative manifesto. Reform on 8% still
Tories would be wise to avoid another political tax cut. All too reminiscent of Truss chaos.
Whatever else the arguments against Truss's tax cuts, I have never heard it said that they were political in nature.
Are the Russian government terrorists? There's surely a case for it.
Mafiosi war crims.
For sure. But the Beeb keeps calling them just "Russia". Why? Because they're a 'proper' government of a 'proper' country. So no other designation is possible or deemed appropriate. A pity. Hamas by contrast are a halfway house in 'government of a country' terms and thus are able to be (correctly imo) designated as terrorists, with this fact being relentlessly reported. In this messy old world it's the best we can do. I'm fine with it.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
Yes they are imo. Very much so. They're not only that but they are that. Such is my opinion. And the government's for that matter. Which being the government's carries more weight than mine, hence their terrorist status merits the word 'designated'.
So there's the fact that the Beeb relay. Hamas are a designated terrorist organisation. They say it again and again. You just can't get the wrong idea. It's fine. It's just nothing to be fretting about. Again imo. Which is all I can give you.
The problem is that they weren’t even saying it was a proscribed terrorist organisation. The word terrorist was nowhere to be found.
They're always saying that. I can't see how you're missing it.
They don't say "Hamas are terrorists"
They say "Hamas, which has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the UK government"
I know that you know the difference
The 2nd is fine for BBC reporting. They are saying the government of Gaza (Hamas) is a designated terrorist organisation. It's true in both letter and spirit. It's about as far from a problem as a non problem can be.
The implication is that it is only the UK government who thinks that
Meanwhile today is the UN's designated day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and Girls.
So finally UN Women has come out with its first statement about what was done to women and girls in Southern Israel on 7 October, some 50 days ago.
It says -
It was not "gender-based violence". It was sex-based. By men - those of the male sex - against women and girls - those of the female sex.
And waiting so long to say even this is a disgrace.
Another pointless day; another pointless organisation; another pointless statement.
Still, I look forward to hearing what the UN thinks "rigorous investigation" of those responsible in Hamas and Gaza looks like.
Since Oct. 7th, the IDF have killed over 4,000 women in Gaza. Or do only Israeli women count?
Don't be a total arse.
The UN has been quick to issue plenty of condemnation of what Israel is doing in Gaza and sympathy for the Palestinians suffering there. But it chose not to say anything about the suffering inflicted on women and girls in Israel, not all of whom were Israeli or even Jewish.
It's the disparity which is sickening. The UN - and UN Women and the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women & Girls in particular - should have spoken up before now. They did not. They gave every impression that they did not care about brutal sexual violence inflicted on women in Israel - or not enough to bother making a statement about it - whereas they were quick enough to make statements about everything else happening in this conflict.
This is a day of enormous joy and relief for Emily Hand and her family. An innocent child who was lost has now been found and returned, and we breathe a massive sigh of relief. Our prayers have been answered.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
Yes they are imo. Very much so. They're not only that but they are that. Such is my opinion. And the government's for that matter. Which being the government's carries more weight than mine, hence their terrorist status merits the word 'designated'.
So there's the fact that the Beeb relay. Hamas are a designated terrorist organisation. They say it again and again. You just can't get the wrong idea. It's fine. It's just nothing to be fretting about. Again imo. Which is all I can give you.
The problem is that they weren’t even saying it was a proscribed terrorist organisation. The word terrorist was nowhere to be found.
They're always saying that. I can't see how you're missing it.
They don't say "Hamas are terrorists"
They say "Hamas, which has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the UK government"
I know that you know the difference
The 2nd is fine for BBC reporting. They are saying the government of Gaza (Hamas) is a designated terrorist organisation. It's true in both letter and spirit. It's about as far from a problem as a non problem can be.
The implication is that it is only the UK government who thinks that
They often say "and other governments around the world". And in any case even if they didn’t (which they do) it wouldn't be the implication because it's our government and our national broadcaster. This is a nothing burger. I can't stop you fretting about it but you really should.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
Yes they are imo. Very much so. They're not only that but they are that. Such is my opinion. And the government's for that matter. Which being the government's carries more weight than mine, hence their terrorist status merits the word 'designated'.
So there's the fact that the Beeb relay. Hamas are a designated terrorist organisation. They say it again and again. You just can't get the wrong idea. It's fine. It's just nothing to be fretting about. Again imo. Which is all I can give you.
The problem is that they weren’t even saying it was a proscribed terrorist organisation. The word terrorist was nowhere to be found.
They're always saying that. I can't see how you're missing it.
Now they are, yes, but not when this all started.
All good then. I've always been talking about 'now' - as in for quite a while and continuing.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected.
It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
'Winston Churchill the terrorist: His hunger to take the fight to Hitler made him send thousands of heroes to needless death..
..Back in 1940, he famously gave the order to 'Set Europe ablaze', an instruction that prompted the creation of SOE, the Special Operations Executive. Its task was to promote resistance - explicitly terrorism and armed activity by partisans - everywhere that the Germans held sway.'
Terrorist is objectively a description not a moral judgement. There are, inevitably, different opinions about what is classified as terrorist activity or not.
Resistance by armed partisans / guerrilla warfare is not classified as terrorism as (I) it is not targeted at civilians but rather at an occupying army; and (ii) it is not designed to inculcate terror
Both SOE and the various resistance movements targeted military and paramilitary targets, almost exclusively.
The thing I can't get my head around with the BBC's refusal to use the word terrorist is the gay abandon with which they deploy the heavily loaded term far right, often justifiably to be fair, and presumably set against some academic definition, but never explained or deemed to require explanation..
As evidenced down thread far right and terrorist, absolutely no issue. Christchurch, far right terrorist / terrorism. No problem publishing numerous articles stating this.
They also have no issue saying (eg) islamic or far left terrorism where it happens. However they don't usually label governments (eg of Russia or Gaza) as terrorists. Russia is just Russia. With Hamas, since they are only sort of a government of sort of a country, they have settled on "designated as a terrorist organisation". Bit of a mouthful but I really don't see the problem. There's enough to be concerned about with the unfolding catastrophe in Gaza without confecting mountains out of molehills.
Because that isn't what the BBC originally said and John Simpson spouted a load of BS to try to cover for it. If you want to be trusted, don't lie.
And people on here bought the original stance even now, asked for proof, proof given.
I'm just explaining the rationale of the "designated as terrorists" lingo and why they've (imo quite reasonably) settled on it as the reporting template. If you want to keep fretting about it and seeing it as pro Hamas bias at the BBC that's your prerogative. And it's mine to see this as evidence of your pro Israeli bias. Ditto Still Waters, Josias, Blanche Livermore, and any other poster who agrees with you. Who agrees with you on this narrow point, I mean. I might agree with you and them on one or two other things about the conflict and the coverage. I bet I do actually. But on this, no, you're all being hyper and partisan and irrational.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
"Hamas claim the ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and detect a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
The former I believe
But it is important. The inclusion of the statement for the IDF intrinsically casts doubt in the mind of the listener on the validity of the statement. That’s not balance.
"Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation, claim that Israel have violated the ceasefire agreement."
That's nothing to get worked up about with or without a "and also it's not a verified claim".
C'mon. It's you not them. You have a massive pro Israel bias. Every post you've done on this conflict reeks of it.
It matters.
There are academic studies on this.
But even if it didn’t make a difference the *appearance* of bias matters
I am not pro Israel (I dislike Netenyahu with a passion) although I have a number of friends who actively supported Gantz. The behaviour of settlers is, at best, profoundly unhelpful
I am strongly pro democracies and opposed to the murder of innocents.
I agree with a lot of what you say about the appearance of bias.
One aspect of bias that hasn't come into the discussion yet is the relative prominence of stories from either side. To take one example - every news bulletin I heard trailing a possible ceasefire in the past few days mentioned 'the ceasefire and hostage release'. It often wasn't until quite a bit later in the bulletin (certainly not the headline) that the BBC or others saw fit to mention that a significant number of Palestinian prisoners were also being released. This gives the appearance of bias the other way, specifically that Israeli lives and the freedom of Israelis is worth more than Palestinian ones.
So you see bias one way, I see it the other way. That's kinabalu's point, and a good one imo.
How do you interpret that mentioning hostage release and not the quid pro quo of releasing convicted criminals/detained militants as bias? That’s a genuine question.
A prisoner has been through a judicial process. A hostage was seized off the street.
Many of the Palestinian prisoners have not been through a judicial process. That’s one of the Palestinian complaints.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected.
It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
'Winston Churchill the terrorist: His hunger to take the fight to Hitler made him send thousands of heroes to needless death..
..Back in 1940, he famously gave the order to 'Set Europe ablaze', an instruction that prompted the creation of SOE, the Special Operations Executive. Its task was to promote resistance - explicitly terrorism and armed activity by partisans - everywhere that the Germans held sway.'
Terrorist is objectively a description not a moral judgement. There are, inevitably, different opinions about what is classified as terrorist activity or not.
Resistance by armed partisans / guerrilla warfare is not classified as terrorism as (I) it is not targeted at civilians but rather at an occupying army; and (ii) it is not designed to inculcate terror
Both SOE and the various resistance movements targeted military and paramilitary targets, almost exclusively.
Though Bomber Command targeted civilians, so was the RAF a terror organisation?
Given the military technology available at the time, and the need to destroy the German economy, there was no way of winning, without targeting civilians. Likewise, civilians died due to Allied naval blockades.
Even today, most people who die in armed conflicts are civilians.
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
How do you explain the difference between the IDF reports of tunnels beneath the hospital (after CNN had been shown around them) being described as “unverified” but no caveat being placed on Hamas “stat[ing]” that the ceasefire had been breached?
It’s small differences that can have a meaningful impact on how the listener perceives it.
"Hamas claim the ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
"The ceasefire has been breached by Israel."
Which of these did the Beeb report? If the first what's the problem? If it's just a missing "but we haven't verified this claim" I think you're being hyper vigilant. At that level of sensitivity we could all turn up umpteen things to irritate us and detect a BBC bias either way that's opposite to ours.
The former I believe
But it is important. The inclusion of the statement for the IDF intrinsically casts doubt in the mind of the listener on the validity of the statement. That’s not balance.
"Hamas, a designated terrorist organisation, claim that Israel have violated the ceasefire agreement."
That's nothing to get worked up about with or without a "and also it's not a verified claim".
C'mon. It's you not them. You have a massive pro Israel bias. Every post you've done on this conflict reeks of it.
It matters.
There are academic studies on this.
But even if it didn’t make a difference the *appearance* of bias matters
I am not pro Israel (I dislike Netenyahu with a passion) although I have a number of friends who actively supported Gantz. The behaviour of settlers is, at best, profoundly unhelpful
I am strongly pro democracies and opposed to the murder of innocents.
I agree with a lot of what you say about the appearance of bias.
One aspect of bias that hasn't come into the discussion yet is the relative prominence of stories from either side. To take one example - every news bulletin I heard trailing a possible ceasefire in the past few days mentioned 'the ceasefire and hostage release'. It often wasn't until quite a bit later in the bulletin (certainly not the headline) that the BBC or others saw fit to mention that a significant number of Palestinian prisoners were also being released. This gives the appearance of bias the other way, specifically that Israeli lives and the freedom of Israelis is worth more than Palestinian ones.
So you see bias one way, I see it the other way. That's kinabalu's point, and a good one imo.
How do you interpret that mentioning hostage release and not the quid pro quo of releasing convicted criminals/detained militants as bias? That’s a genuine question.
A prisoner has been through a judicial process. A hostage was seized off the street.
Many of the Palestinian prisoners have not been through a judicial process. That’s one of the Palestinian complaints.
Why are you all going on about it still 98% of the world really couldnt give a shit, the middle east has always been a shithole let them wipe each other out. No one gives a damn. Lets worry instead about lib dems gaining seats or something actually important
Hamas announces it's pausing hostage releases. It says Israel has broken the deal. Israel says it hasn't.
Like I have said repeatedly if you're looking for heroes in the Middle East, you need your eyes testing.
this was always the way it was going to play out. It’s why Hamas wanted a staggered release and Israel wanted it all at one.
Unfortunately our friends in the White House are too quick to trade. They don’t understand the nature of the people they are dealing with.
Hamas gets another round of “the Jews are evil/untrustworthy/perfidious” because “they broke the ceasefire”. It doesn’t matter whether it is true or not - there are too many in the west who are willing to believe the worst of Israel
Already been onto the blower to BBC to have a good moan and laundry list of claims that the Israelis are untrustworthy.
Strange no "this can't be verified" in their reporting, unlike the tunnels under the hospital.
Clearly the idea is to drag it out as long as possible, and never give back the full 200+.
And presumably the BBC listened politely, without challenge, because of “balance”
The BBCs coverage is pretty balanced. If you think it isn't it probably means you aren't.
Ch4 otoh, they have a bit of an anti-Israel bias.
I disagree. It’s small words and actions:
IDF statements are caveats as “Unverified”. Hamas’s are not.
Government spokesmen/women are interrupted. Opposition members are not.
I don’t think it’s left/right so much as groupthink.
That's not what I've observed on the Beeb. CH4 yes I detect anti-Israel bias but not on the Beeb (although they were poor on that hospital strike and Bowen clearly is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause generally).
No, if you're watching Beeb coverage and it seems anti-Israel to you then the reason for this is almost certainly your PRO Israel bias.
And of course you *would* disagree. By definition you would because it's a rare person who recognizes and adjusts for bias in themselves.
IMO not calling Hamas 'terrorists' is a big strike against the BBC.
No, it's their standard policy. And you are also very very pro Israel. You guys aren't good witnesses on this subject of bias in the coverage. Neither would (eg) BJO or Sunil be for the same but opposite reason.
No. I'm anti-terrorist. There's a big difference. And I've criticised Israel (and Netanyahu) many times on here before the current mess started - especially over the settlements.
And I suppose you see yourself as an utterly impartial observer on the facts? If so, why?
If the BBC's 'standard policy' is not to call Hamas terrorists, then a) I suspect they don't apply such rules equally; and b) they should change the policy, because it's shit.
Hamas are terrorists. Agreed?
They don't call anyone terrorists or other subjective, loaded terms. I think that's sensible. They have been reporting that the UK government and others describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation.
How should they describe a group staging attacks in Russia in response to the Ukraine war? It gets subjective quickly.
The BBC never call anyone terrorists? That does not sound believable.
Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson
And it's always been like this in the BBC. During World War Two, BBC broadcasters were expressly told not to call the Nazis evil or wicked, even though we could and did call them "the enemy". "Above all," said a BBC document about all this, "there must be no room for ranting". Our tone had to be calm and collected.
It was hard to keep that principle going when the IRA was bombing Britain and killing innocent civilians, but we did. There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured. But we held the line. And we still do, to this day.
'Winston Churchill the terrorist: His hunger to take the fight to Hitler made him send thousands of heroes to needless death..
..Back in 1940, he famously gave the order to 'Set Europe ablaze', an instruction that prompted the creation of SOE, the Special Operations Executive. Its task was to promote resistance - explicitly terrorism and armed activity by partisans - everywhere that the Germans held sway.'
Terrorist is objectively a description not a moral judgement. There are, inevitably, different opinions about what is classified as terrorist activity or not.
Resistance by armed partisans / guerrilla warfare is not classified as terrorism as (I) it is not targeted at civilians but rather at an occupying army; and (ii) it is not designed to inculcate terror
Both SOE and the various resistance movements targeted military and paramilitary targets, almost exclusively.
Though Bomber Command targeted civilians, so was the RAF a terror organisation?
Given the military technology available at the time, and the need to destroy the German economy, there was no way of winning, without targeting civilians. Likewise, civilians died due to Allied naval blockades.
Even today, most people who die in armed conflicts are civilians.
The express purpose of the bombing of German cities was to break morale. That is not the same as accidentally killing civilians as collateral damage.
One thing that puzzles me. We keep talking about this conflict as between Israel and Hamas. Yet surely the Israeli state ought to be able to overcome a group of bandits like Hamas even if they have substantial support in Gaza. The fundamental problem is NOT Hamas. The fundamental problem is Iran whose theocratic government is bent on Israel's destruction and is supporting proxies all over the middle east region. So long as a country of that size and resources is bent on Israel's destruction conflict is inevitable.
So is the west prepared to confront the root of the problem? And isn't it very strange that almost none of the media discussion really focuses on this?
Iran's proxy is Hezbollah. Hamas has closer relations with Qatar afaicr (certainly a lot of its leaders seem to live in Qatar, not Iran. I am conscious that Iran is very much the current bogeyman du jour, and as such, they may cop blame in the same way that Iraq did for 9-11.
Qatar has a long association with Palestine being one of the few countries who let Palestinians successfully settle there from the 'original' conflict. There is still an area of the city (Bin Mahmoud) where the Palestinians settled which can be recognised today by its street names (eg Rumaila).
Qatar also has ties with Iran which led to the blockade a few years ago by UAE & Saudi - and which could be reimposed without much provocation.
One thing that puzzles me. We keep talking about this conflict as between Israel and Hamas. Yet surely the Israeli state ought to be able to overcome a group of bandits like Hamas even if they have substantial support in Gaza. The fundamental problem is NOT Hamas. The fundamental problem is Iran whose theocratic government is bent on Israel's destruction and is supporting proxies all over the middle east region. So long as a country of that size and resources is bent on Israel's destruction conflict is inevitable.
So is the west prepared to confront the root of the problem? And isn't it very strange that almost none of the media discussion really focuses on this?
Iran's proxy is Hezbollah. Hamas has closer relations with Qatar afaicr (certainly a lot of its leaders seem to live in Qatar, not Iran. I am conscious that Iran is very much the current bogeyman du jour, and as such, they may cop blame in the same way that Iraq did for 9-11.
Qatar has a long association with Palestine being one of the few countries who let Palestinians successfully settle there from the 'original' conflict. There is still an area of the city (Bin Mahmoud) where the Palestinians settled which can be recognised today by its street names (eg Rumaila).
Qatar also has ties with Iran which led to the blockade a few years ago by UAE & Saudi - and which could be reimposed without much provocation.
Yes it’s not difficult to see Qatar again isolated within the GCC. It totally screwed their economy last time, in the buildup to the World Cup.
Greece, just off the Turkish coast. Empty in Winter, and cheap. Weather risky, though. Excellent storm last night - government warning on the phone and everything.
His pace in qualifying was far better, just starting place of 9th is due to a track limits violation. The Red Bull loves passing on the straights and Perez has had two very good race performances recently.
Greece, just off the Turkish coast. Empty in Winter, and cheap. Weather risky, though. Excellent storm last night - government warning on the phone and everything.
Nice, have fun! Yes, it’s stormy season at the moment, we’ve even had a few in the sandpit over the last week or so.
Thankfully no chance of rain for the F1 in Abu Dhabi later though.
Comments
Lots of interesting lectures available here.
https://www.youtube.com/@GreshamCollege/videos
One aspect of bias that hasn't come into the discussion yet is the relative prominence of stories from either side. To take one example - every news bulletin I heard trailing a possible ceasefire in the past few days mentioned 'the ceasefire and hostage release'. It often wasn't until quite a bit later in the bulletin (certainly not the headline) that the BBC or others saw fit to mention that a significant number of Palestinian prisoners were also being released. This gives the appearance of bias the other way, specifically that Israeli lives and the freedom of Israelis is worth more than Palestinian ones.
So you see bias one way, I see it the other way. That's kinabalu's point, and a good one imo.
Though presumably there will be convergence by election day.
Con 161 seats, Lab majority 180.
And if Hamas didn’t build their military emplacements on civilians areas it wouldn’t be an issue
Specifically in the case of the SOE that was legitimate partisan activity not terrorism.
There's one given by Vernon Bogdanor on Enoch Powell. Of particular interest to @isam perhaps
A prisoner has been through a judicial process. A hostage was seized off the street.
They say "Hamas, which has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the UK government"
I know that you know the difference
* Small offence would have been fine, but this has been a sore point for weeks in a crowded fast moving news schedule. There are more important things to worry about.
https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/11/24/new-zealand-gets-new-government-promising-tax-cuts-less-red-tape
You don’t have to accept blindly that every arrest of a Palestinian was right to understand that it’s quite a leap to conflate someone being arrested for throwing rocks at police with someone who was tending their tomatoes in the kibbutz or dancing at a pro-peace rave being taken at gun point having watched others murdered and raped.
Will probably be easier when Sunil does one of his pie charts showing the relative numbers of released from each side. I just hope he also includes a hilarious “keep calmer vote Starmer pic” to add to the general display of wit.
And many of those Palestinians released do fall into that category
It's a good question to ask. I see it that way for two reasons:
1. Some (though definitely not all) of the detained children are only detained imo because of the power imbalance between the Israeli state and the Palestinians e.g. kids throwing stones should not be incarcerated in a foreign prison imo.
2. Whether or not the two groups are of equal moral status doesn't validate selective reporting of what is going on, again imo. Even if the prisoners were fairly detained through a judicial process they are still humans of equal value, not a footnote to the important stuff.
I'm not trying to persuade you of my view - I can see the flaws in what I am saying and can also see that it is based on a particular moral view that by no means trumps other moral views. I'm simply trying to show that we often only pick up on bias one way, and the way that we do so often reveals where our underlying sympathies lie.
Those of us who think we are objective (and we all do at times) are often the ones that are simply blind to our particular biases.
Even the latest Opinium sees the Tories drop a point with Labour up two points .
Lab 42%
Con 26%
Lib Dems 11%
Reform 8%
Green 7%
SNP 3%
"Tim Shipman
@ShippersUnbound
Another joyous experience with our world beating NHS. Get repeat prescription via 111. Pharmacy has what I need. But I can’t have it because the NHS computer system says No. The repeat prescription is on the NHS app. “We don’t recognise the app.” Brilliant! What a joke
8:44 PM · Nov 25, 2023"
https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1728514938463736011
Not sure why the writer doesn't understand this.
— Hannah Arendt
That rumoured IHT cut which never happened may still need to be rolled out at next year's budget then and a rise in the threshold for the Conservative manifesto. Reform on 8% still
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1728518034397319640?s=20
International editor says he doesn't 'feel particularly bad about' his inaccuracies
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/11/25/bbc-bowen-wrong-gaza-hospital-no-regrets/
So yes by that definition it would be reasonable to say that they were terror attacks. Uncomfortable as that may be for people including me. Of course that is exactly what the Nazis called them.
I think that these days we would normally define them as war crimes rather than terrorism but that is just semantics really.
And people on here bought the original stance even now, asked for proof, proof given.
Due process and the rule of law is why they are not the same
The UN has been quick to issue plenty of condemnation of what Israel is doing in Gaza and sympathy for the Palestinians suffering there. But it chose not to say anything about the suffering inflicted on women and girls in Israel, not all of whom were Israeli or even Jewish.
It's the disparity which is sickening. The UN - and UN Women and the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women & Girls in particular - should have spoken up before now. They did not. They gave every impression that they did not care about brutal sexual violence inflicted on women in Israel - or not enough to bother making a statement about it - whereas they were quick enough to make statements about everything else happening in this conflict.
https://twitter.com/LeoVaradkar/status/1728535065242612184
Lost.....she didn't go wandering in the mountains and couldn't find her way back.
Even today, most people who die in armed conflicts are civilians.
Geopolitics
https://www.youtube.com/@ZeihanonGeopolitics
https://www.youtube.com/@GoodTimesBadTimes
https://www.youtube.com/@CaspianReport
https://www.youtube.com/@StrategyStuff
Human Geography
https://www.youtube.com/@MrSinn
American History
https://www.youtube.com/@AtunSheiFilms (pre-ACW)
https://www.youtube.com/@CynicalHistorian (20th century)
https://www.youtube.com/@MonsieurDean (Trump and after)
History General
https://www.youtube.com/@OldBritannia
https://www.youtube.com/@TheArmchairHistorian
https://www.youtube.com/@UsefulCharts
General
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6LR-UJsYRc (Lewis Sorely on General Westmoreland)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T67PQWX7UI (Michael Neiberg on Vichy France)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OehvY94N-WA (Thomas Ricks on George C Marshall)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJhjEoxxj1s (Thomas Ricks on O.P. Smith)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1l9Wod2DqQ (Thomas Ricks on the US civil rights movement)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiUPD-z9DTg (Ian Bremmer on Neofeudalism/technofeudalism)
I won't go into the tanks/guns/space/sci-fi/planes stuff. There's a lot...
Qatar also has ties with Iran which led to the blockade a few years ago by UAE & Saudi - and which could be reimposed without much provocation.
Morning.
Or the other side of the Med?
Betting PostGood morning, everyone.
F1: backed Perez at 36 (boosted) to win each way, laid at 3 on Betfair for the outright win just in case weirdness happens.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2023/11/abu-dhabi-pre-race-2023.html
His pace in qualifying was far better, just starting place of 9th is due to a track limits violation. The Red Bull loves passing on the straights and Perez has had two very good race performances recently.
Thankfully no chance of rain for the F1 in Abu Dhabi later though.