Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates
- Thread starter dreng3
- Start date
No, the Palestinian claim to land is that they had it in 1948 (although numerous other years, particularly 1967, may apply depending on how we frame it). International law is supposed to uphold principles that individuals are not driven from their land or unfairly dispossessed, and that nations should not be able to expand their territory through military coercion. Yes, there's lots of dodging around the letter of the law, but by the spirit of the law Israel blatantly is both annexing territory through military force and driving Palestinians off their land.
The question is why anyone thinks this shit is reasonable when equivalant conduct draws so much condemnation anywhere else.
Well, one of the propaganda arguments deployed that has gained traction - even going back over 100 years - is that the Jews have some sort of right to their ancestral homeland. In a sane world, this should be dismissed out of hand. After all, the English don't get to invade Lower Saxony and expel all the Germans just because their ancestors came from there many centuries back. Nevertheless, it is deployed and a significant number of people credit it. The fact that the Palestinians are too the descendants of the ancient inhabitants (except that their ancestors did not fuck off elsewhere many centuries ago) helps expose the claim's absurdity.
The general reasoning throughout recent history can be summated as “God’s Chosen People”, “Rules for thee, not for me”, etc.
So the UK has suspended some of its arms export licenses to Israel, on the grounds that there are credible reports of breaches of humanitarian law and it cannot be sure they wouldn't be used.
By 'some', I mean a relatively paltry 30 out of ~350, and not including the British parts of the bomber aircraft.
What I'd really like to know is how that argument applies to these 30, but somehow not the remaining ~320. We know the remainder aren't all just defensive.
The legal challenge against UK arms sales continues in the background. I expect that claimants will point out that the British government has now effectively conceded that they can't guarantee Israel won't use the stuff in illegal activity.
By 'some', I mean a relatively paltry 30 out of ~350, and not including the British parts of the bomber aircraft.
What I'd really like to know is how that argument applies to these 30, but somehow not the remaining ~320. We know the remainder aren't all just defensive.
The legal challenge against UK arms sales continues in the background. I expect that claimants will point out that the British government has now effectively conceded that they can't guarantee Israel won't use the stuff in illegal activity.
According to a report, the BBC has breached its own editorial guidelines more than 1,500 times during this war.
Honestly don't know what to make of this. The comments in that article don't help.
"A deeply worrying pattern of bias against Israel", "The research, led by British lawyer Trevor Asserson, also found that Israel was associated with genocide more than 14 times more than Hamas in the corporation’s coverage of the conflict.", AI analysis.
Speaking of bias, I feel some pretty damning biases here. Like why is this called a "report"? Who is this guy? It's just some random lawyer.
In case anyone (somehow) had doubt that our leaders love Israel more than our citizens
The BBC (and to a lesser extent it’s Australian cousin, ABC), as publicly funded entities are often trotted out by most right wing media as evidence of government money being improperly used to push a left wing agenda. Consequently they have their funding reduced and put under the sort of vigorous oversight that would otherwise outrage the right wing media if they were subject to even one tenth of the same scrutiny.
The guy heading this little exercise in think-tank wanking is probably a nobody, just the latest in a long line of shitheads who want to put the boot in.
It certainly is. It has been published by the so-called "Campaign for Media Standards", recently founded by one Trevor Asserson (funnily enough, author of the Asserson Report) seemingly for this purpose, who has a track record of campaigning against the BBC on behalf of Israel.
And indeed, it wears its allegiances openly, saying in its preamble:
* * *
I'd also just quickly note that in the space of a few days, Hamas killed around 1000 Israelis, whereas Israel's spent about a year totalling Gaza and causing well over 40,000 casualties. If Israel has been associated with "genocide" 14 times more often than Hamas in BBC reporting, it could consider itself the beneficiary of bias given that it has inflicted about 40 times as many deaths and spent 100 times as long at it.
I do find it a little funny that they're accusing The BBC of anti-Israel bias when The BBC has been using their passive "cop" voice when talking about Israel.
Palestinians die from fighting
Israelis are murdered by a Hamas Terror Attacks
A child is killed when Ukraine is bombed by Russia
A child dies from an explosion in Palestine
And so on...
Palestinians die from fighting
Israelis are murdered by a Hamas Terror Attacks
A child is killed when Ukraine is bombed by Russia
A child dies from an explosion in Palestine
And so on...
This was my immediate thought as well. News has a duty to cover the factual nature of ongoing events, much less so (if at all) to characterise particular groups. Hamas and the Israeli government/IDF certainly both have genocidal racists in positions of influence and power within their organisations. But it is undeniably the Israeli government/IDF that has been able to actually pursue those aims with so much more far-reaching impact. As you say, arguably ~40x more. News has a duty to report the facts of that situation.
The Israeli government/IDF are the beneficiaries of media bias in the UK and US.
The BBC has a long history of being heavily pressurised by Israel and its supporters, and absolutely hammered from some quarters. One of which in particular is very alarming for the BBC as it has had the ability to thoroughly gut the BBC - although those concerns have receded since it was voted out earlier this year.
Who hasn't been accused of anti-Israel bias if they hint at maybe saying Israel might have done something a tad not nice?