Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Top Hamas Military leader killed - Israel/Hamas on the brink of War??

1…5681011…21

Comments

  • #212
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    SamHarris wrote: »
    ...........

    Untill the Palestinians have a Gandhi or Martin Luther King they will remain where they are - and given the attitude polls show the people their have towards violence directed at Israel (even childern) it is incredibly difficult to see how any mass peace movement would take hold there.

    Given that the West Bank has been peaceful for many years now, and has received nothing but settlements and abuse for its trouble, I think its Israel that requires a "Gandhi or Martin Luther King".


  • #213
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,203 ✭✭✭✭Jelle1880


    KyussBishop: electronicintifada ?

    Seriously ?
    May as well post straight to a Hamas-linked website.

    The facts are that Hamas has been firing rockets for months now, that website makes it look like it started last month when Israel killed a Hamas official.

    Have you actually seen the interview on Newsnight ? Anyone who claims that the Israeli representative was not challenged is either stupid or outright lying.

    The BBC reporter constantly tried to shift the attention to the killed child, after every question.
    The bias towards the Palestinian side of things was clear as day.


  • #214
    coonecb1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 523 ✭✭✭coonecb1


    I think the term "Palestinians" is a little bit confusing seeing as there is such a split between them.

    - Gaza is a tiny enclave completely isolated in the south east, and is controlled by Hamas (believe in violence against Israel)

    - West Bank is the vast majority of what people think of as Palestine, and is a peacful adminstration which has no control over Gaza. This is where all the settlements are being built.

    Israel point to Hamas as justification for the settlements


  • #215
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    KyussBishop: electronicintifada ?

    Seriously ?
    May as well post straight to a Hamas-linked website.
    Bollocks; back up that smear with an argument, preferably showing why it's not a perfectly reputable source.
    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    The facts are that Hamas has been firing rockets for months now, that website makes it look like it started last month when Israel killed a Hamas official.
    It says right at the top of the article, it is a timeline of the current escalation; what is so hard to understand about that?
    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    Have you actually seen the interview on Newsnight ? Anyone who claims that the Israeli representative was not challenged is either stupid or outright lying.

    The BBC reporter constantly tried to shift the attention to the killed child, after every question.
    The bias towards the Palestinian side of things was clear as day.
    Oh I see, bringing attention to a murdered child is 'biased' in your world?

    Here are the specific criticisms made, which I'll requote:
    The 'taking' of Ahmed al-Jabari, Ayalon said, was 'self-defence, it’s a classic self-defence', adding:

    'There is no other way to deal with terrorists who you cannot reason with but by defending yourself in a way that they will not be able to operate again.'

    Esler did not counter the Israeli 'self defence' argument by pointing to the actual chronology of recent events. Ayalon then went on to state that Israel 'gave Gaza, entirely so, to the Palestinians. We left Gaza altogether in 2005, seven years ago.'

    Again, Esler failed to offer any serious journalistic challenge. He did not point out that although Israel says it 'withdrew' from Gaza in 2005, its control of Gaza’s water, electricity, sewage and telecommunications systems, and its control of Gaza’s land and sea borders and airspace, means that the UN still views Israel's control of Gaza's population as an occupation. As indeed does the UK government.
    What, exactly, is factually wrong with those criticisms?


  • #216
    arybvtcw0eolkf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,608 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    coonecb1 wrote: »

    Israel point to Hamas as justification for the settlements

    Actually as wrong as the settlements are, your statement is also wrong ~ they (Israel) don't.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,203 ✭✭✭✭Jelle1880


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Bollocks; back up that smear with an argument, preferably showing why it's not a perfectly reputable source.

    They're biased, they admit it themselves.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Electronic_Intifada
    It says right at the top of the article, it is a timeline of the current escalation; what is so hard to understand about that?

    If they think the current escalation started a week or so ago then I can see where they're coming from, but it's absolute bull****, since the facts are there to prove that it's been going on for months.
    Oh I see, bringing attention to a murdered child is 'biased' in your world?

    it is when you're trying to bring it up in completely unrelated questions.
    Here are the specific criticisms made, which I'll requote:

    What, exactly, is factually wrong with those criticisms?

    As for the criticism, I strongly urge you to look at the Newsnight interview.


  • #218
    Offy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,701 ✭✭✭Offy


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    KyussBishop: electronicintifada ?

    Seriously ?
    May as well post straight to a Hamas-linked website.

    The facts are that Hamas has been firing rockets for months now, that website makes it look like it started last month when Israel killed a Hamas official.

    Have you actually seen the interview on Newsnight ? Anyone who claims that the Israeli representative was not challenged is either stupid or outright lying.

    The BBC reporter constantly tried to shift the attention to the killed child, after every question.
    The bias towards the Palestinian side of things was clear as day.

    When Israelis in the occupied territories now claims that they have to defend themselves, they are defending themselves in the sense that any military occupier has to defend itself against the population they are crushing... You cant defend yourself when your militarily occupying someone else's land. That's not defence. Call it what you like, its not defence.
    -Noam Chomsky


  • #219
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Jelle1880 wrote:
    Have you actually seen the interview on Newsnight ? Anyone who claims that the Israeli representative was not challenged is either stupid or outright lying.

    The BBC reporter constantly tried to shift the attention to the killed child, after every question.
    The bias towards the Palestinian side of things was clear as day.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01nzqz7/Newsnight_14_11_2012/

    I actually just watched this now (it's in just the first 10 minutes), and you completely lied here (after accusing MediaLens of lying, about their pretty much dead-on criticism), the reporter just asked the rep if he would apologize for civilian deaths, at which point he said that was the fault of Hamas, that they use the population as human shields, and the newsnight reporter did not contest a single thing, he just said "ok we'll leave it at that", basically giving the rep complete freedom to spout rhetoric.

    At no point did he bring up anything about a killed child, let alone 'after every question'; that was a total lie by you, which you used to try and present the show as having a pro-Palestinian bias, after they had let just about all of the Israeli reps claims go completely unchallenged, giving him that platform to spout rhetoric.

    Imagine a leader of Hamas being given that kind of freedom on the show, to put forward whatever rhetoric he liked, without any challenge!


    Totally hypocritical, that you accuse other sources of bias, and try to put doubt on criticism of pro-Israeli sources, when you lie yourself to try and make the argument.


  • #220
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    They're biased, they admit it themselves.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Electronic_Intifada
    Care to quote where they say that? Or is this another assertion without facts? After the unreliability of your previous claims, I'm not going to take this on faith.
    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    If they think the current escalation started a week or so ago then I can see where they're coming from, but it's absolute bull****, since the facts are there to prove that it's been going on for months.
    As we can see now, you're very 'loose' with the facts; point out any factual fault with the timeline.

    One thing that nobody is contesting, is that Israel broke the truce on the 14th, when they assassinated Ahmad al-Jabari, and that is one of the clearest, uncontestable escalations in this current round of conflict.
    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    KyussBishop wrote:
    Oh I see, bringing attention to a murdered child is 'biased' in your world?
    it is when you're trying to bring it up in completely unrelated questions.
    Yes which we now find out is not factually true at all; at no stage in the interview, was a murdered child ever mentioned.


  • #221
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Jelle1880 wrote:
    ...
    I've even gone through the other newsnight programs from 13-16, just to see if it may have been a different days program, and there was no kind of interview where the newsnight reporter was continually drawing attention to a killed child or anything like that; that was completely made up by you.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Offy wrote: »
    When Israelis in the occupied territories now claims that they have to defend themselves, they are defending themselves in the sense that any military occupier has to defend itself against the population they are crushing... You cant defend yourself when your militarily occupying someone else's land. That's not defence. Call it what you like, its not defence.
    -Noam Chomsky

    It sure helps Israel as a ready excuse every 5 mins to go on the rampage and play the victim. Those bad Palestinians want their autonomy and next their lands back and do not like being kept prisoners...... we can't be having that.


  • #223
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,203 ✭✭✭✭Jelle1880


    Apparently I was talking about the interview which was broadcasted on Radio Scotland (Also BBC) with an Israeli official, so it was not Newsnight, apologies.

    Weird though, how the opinions between local BBC brances differ so much.
    I would suggest looking into The Balen Report.

    As for EI:
    ABOUT THE ELECTRONIC INTIFADA

    The Electronic Intifada is an independent online news publication and educational resource focusing on Palestine, its people, politics, culture and place in the world.

    Founded in 2001, The Electronic Intifada has won awards and earned widespread recognition for publishing original, high-quality news and analysis, and first-person accounts and reviews. The Electronic Intifada’s writers and reporters include Palestinians and others living inside Palestine and everywhere else that news about Palestine and Palestinians is made.

    http://electronicintifada.net/about-ei

    So it's pretty clear that they're biased towards the Palestinian view of things, even taking a look at the website itself makes that crystal clear.

    As for that timeline: So firing hundreds of rockets into Israel for months on end is not breaking a truce, it's only that when Israel hits back.
    Gotcha :pac:


  • #224
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    Apparently I was talking about the interview which was broadcasted on Radio Scotland (Also BBC) with an Israeli official, so it was not Newsnight, apologies.

    Weird though, how the opinions between local BBC brances differ so much.
    I would suggest looking into The Balen Report.

    As for EI:



    http://electronicintifada.net/about-ei

    So it's pretty clear that they're biased towards the Palestinian view of things, even taking a look at the website itself makes that crystal clear.

    As for that timeline: So firing hundreds of rockets into Israel for months on end is not breaking a truce, it's only that when Israel hits back.
    Gotcha :pac:
    That's their stated topic of focus, it's ridiculous to use that as claim of unbalanced reporting, just because they don't focus on global affairs; that's just like the silly argument that comes up anytime someone criticizes the US "why don't you criticize Russia, China, Iran etc. too".

    Point out any factual faults with their timeline, and tell me how Hamas are responsible for breaking the truce on the 14th, and not Israel.

    If all you can give is a pretty weak attempt at smearing a source of facts, then you don't have an argument.


  • #225
    Jelle1880
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,203 ✭✭✭✭Jelle1880


    How hard is it to understand that something that happened on the 14th is not breaking a truce, if that truce has been broken on a continuous basis for months on end ?
    I would even wonder how much of a truce it really was, considering that there was never really a stop to the rocket attacks since january of this year.

    And I'm not criticizing them for only focusing on the Israel-Palestine conflict, I'm saying that it's very clear that they are biased towards the Palestinian side of things and there is no denying that.

    edit: To make it a bit clearer for you, since you seem to have problems understanding it.

    The problem with their timeline is that they only start from when Israel killed that Hamas official.

    They conveniently forget that 3 days before that happened over 100 rockets were fired into Israel.

    So there's your 'faults with their timeline'.


  • #226
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    How hard is it to understand that something that happened on the 14th is not breaking a truce, if that truce has been broken on a continuous basis for months on end ?
    I would even wonder how much of a truce it really was, considering that there was never really a stop to the rocket attacks since january of this year.

    That truce was brokered the day earlier, as outlined here:
    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/how-israel-shattered-gaza-truce-leading-escalating-death-and-tragedy-timeline
    Jelle1880 wrote: »
    And I'm not criticizing them for only focusing on the Israel-Palestine conflict, I'm saying that it's very clear that they are biased towards the Palestinian side of things and there is no denying that.
    You haven't contested a single fact from the article I originally linked (which happens to be the one I link above); you have done nothing to back up your claims here, you have just asserted, and appear just to be trying to dishonestly smear the factual claims of a perfectly valid source.

    Try contesting any of the actual facts; you arguments so far have been totally unbacked assertions (some of which have turned out to be quite enormously false) and smears.


  • #227
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Another good article on BBC bias, in allowing wholly uncontested pro-Israeli voices, free reign to put out propaganda/rhetoric:
    http://electronicintifada.net/content/israel-assaults-gaza-bbc-reporting-assaults-truth/11894

    Goes into even more detail than the MediaLens article, listing a plethora of historically one-sided interviews from the BBC.


  • #228
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Another good article on BBC bias, in allowing wholly uncontested pro-Israeli voices, free reign to put out propaganda/rhetoric:
    http://electronicintifada.net/content/israel-assaults-gaza-bbc-reporting-assaults-truth/11894

    Goes into even more detail than the MediaLens article, listing a plethora of historically one-sided interviews from the BBC.

    electronic intifada talking about the bbc being biased? pot, kettle, black an all that.


  • #229
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    electronic intifada talking about the bbc being biased? pot, kettle, black an all that.
    Again the usual smears; point out a single factual fault with their reporting, or you're spreading FUD.

    They've outlined extensive and detailed faults with the BBC's coverage, how they do not challenge the factual accuracy of pro-Israel statements, so if you claim they do the same, putting out factually false articles, back it up with actual arguments (preferably quoting the false statements), or you're also just baselessly smearing them.


  • #230
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,722 ✭✭✭SeanW


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Bollocks; back up that smear with an argument, preferably showing why it's not a perfectly reputable source.
    The clue is in the name "Electronic Intifada!" Is that not a clue?

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #231
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    SeanW wrote: »
    The clue is in the name "Electronic Intifada!" Is that not a clue?
    Heh, this is a ridiculous clutching at straws now; 4 posters, trying to smear MediaLens and/or Electronic Intifada, and can't come up with any actual quotes or factual inaccuracies in their articles, to back up their criticisms, and even resorting to trying to use the outlets name as an example.

    Again, if you don't have any examples of factual inaccuracies, you are spreading FUD and have no argument, trying to smear outlets in a knowingly dishonest way.

    You've either got quotes and examples to back up your arguments, showing factually false claims, or you have nothing.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Again the usual smears; point out a single factual fault with their reporting, or you're spreading FUD.

    They've outlined extensive and detailed faults with the BBC's coverage, how they do not challenge the factual accuracy of pro-Israel statements, so if you claim they do the same, putting out factually false articles, back it up with actual arguments, or you're also just baselessly smearing them.

    The article basically states that the BBC should be positively biased in favour of the palestinians, that attacks on Israel should be minimized and attacks on Gaza exacerbated. It also complains about the BBC interviewing Israeli government spokespersons and that the Israeli position should not be put forward. Electronic Intifada wants to muzzle objective reporting and replace it with Palestinian bias. EI's articles are ALL from the Palestinian side, there is nothing covering the Palestinian attacks on Israel.


  • #233
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    The article basically states that the BBC should be positively biased in favour of the palestinians, that attacks on Israel should be minimized and attacks on Gaza exacerbated.
    Quote that. Where exactly did it say that?
    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    It also complains about the BBC interviewing Israeli government spokespersons and that the Israeli position should not be put forward.
    Again, quote exactly where it said that, because it did not say that, it criticized the BBC leaving factually false claims unchallenged.
    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    Electronic Intifada wants to muzzle objective reporting and replace it with Palestinian bias. EI's articles are ALL from the Palestinian side, there is nothing covering the Palestinian attacks on Israel.
    Again, the usual whataboutery, exactly the same as what comes up whenever the US is criticized "What about Russia, China etc. etc."; their stated focus is on Palestine, that does not affect the factual accuracy of their articles in any way.

    Once again, show me a single factually false claim in any of their articles; you can't show that, so you're spreading FUD to try and smear the source.


  • #234
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,722 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Again, show me one article on EI that is critical of the Palestinians, or one critique of anti-Semitism like the promotion of the TV series Zahra's Blue Eyes.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #235
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Quote that. Where exactly did it say that? Again, quote exactly where it said that, because it did not say that, it criticized the BBC leaving factually false claims unchallenged.

    You might try reading my post again before reacting, I boiled down the screed on the link you posted to its essential conclusions.
    Again, the usual whataboutery, exactly the same as what comes up whenever the US is criticized "What about Russia, China etc. etc."; their stated focus is on Palestine, that does not affect the factual accuracy of their articles in any way.

    Once again, show me a single factually false claim in any of their articles; you can't show that, so you're spreading FUD to try and smear the source.
    [/QUOTE]

    I didn't mention anything about Russia, China or any other country. If you are going to post a link then you have to realise that the bias of the site and the piece in question is going to be challenged. If someone posted a link from an Israeli government site then the pro-palestinian side would challenge it. What you seem to be doing in your post is attacking the poster rather than the post ifself.


  • #236
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Nodin wrote: »
    Given that the West Bank has been peaceful for many years now, and has received nothing but settlements and abuse for its trouble, I think its Israel that requires a "Gandhi or Martin Luther King".

    I wouldn't say many years but the West Bank has been better for a few years. And you should remember that I am implacably anti-settler so lets not do that dance, you'd get no argument from me on that score.

    The palestinians do need a Gandhi or Martin luther king but you're right in implying how bloody awful the Israeli leadership is. Netanyahu is an absolute snake in the grass, Ehud Barak basically betrayed the Labor party and then left them, Liebermann is a nutjob, Tzipi Livni vacillates continually and Yachimovich has no public profile. The current crop of Israeli leaders is deeply uninspiring and needs a radical shakeup.


  • #237
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    SeanW wrote: »
    Again, show me one article on EI that is critical of the Palestinians, or one critique of anti-Semitism like the promotion of the TV series Zahra's Blue Eyes.
    Again, whataboutery; they don't need to, and the factual accuracy of their articles stand on their own merit.
    BlassForRafa wrote:
    You might try reading my post again before reacting, I boiled down the screed on the link you posted to its essential conclusions.
    No you did not, you made claims about what the article was saying, without backing that up with quotes, and if you are refusing to back up your claims with actual quotes from the article itself, you are knowingly misrepresenting them and being dishonest.
    BlaasForRafa wrote:
    I didn't mention anything about Russia, China or any other country. If you are going to post a link then you have to realise that the bias of the site and the piece in question is going to be challenged. If someone posted a link from an Israeli government site then the pro-palestinian side would challenge it. What you seem to be doing in your post is attacking the poster rather than the post ifself.
    People are trying to refute the factual claims made articles on the site, with reference to smears rather than dealing with any of the actual claims/facts presented in the articles; and I am attacking peoples posts, and heavily criticizing their arguments (particularly the methods of argument).


  • #238
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    No you did not, you made claims about what the article was saying, without backing that up with quotes, and if you are refusing to back up your claims with actual quotes from the article itself, you are knowingly misrepresenting them and being dishonest.

    You don't get to determine the nature of the argument here, I can respond to your posts in any way I see fit as long as its within the board's charter. And you are attacking the poster by making claims about my honesty.


  • #239
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    You don't get to determine the nature of the argument here, I can respond to your posts in any way I see fit as long as its within the board's charter. And you are attacking the poster by making claims about my honesty.
    If you're unable to back up your misrepresentations, it is a perfectly valid criticism of your posts; it's not an ad-hominem personal attack, it's a criticism based on the falsities in your post, which is based on something concrete unlike peoples smears/diminishment of the facts, in the articles I posted.


  • #240
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    If you're unable to back up your misrepresentations, it is a perfectly valid criticism of your posts; it's not an ad-hominem personal attack, it's a criticism based on the falsities in your post, which is based on something concrete unlike peoples smears/diminishment of the facts, in the articles I posted.

    I have responded to your link in the way I see fit, you don't get to dictate how I or any other poster respond. You have engaged in a personal attack on my character as a tactic to smear my argument.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    I have responded to your link in the way I see fit, you don't get to dictate how I or any other poster respond. You have engaged in a personal attack on my character as a tactic to smear my argument.
    Heh; look, you misrepresented the article, knowingly, and if you take offense at me stating that, that doesn't magically make it a personal attack.
    Such a ridiculous tactic, to try and restrict me from criticising your post, by taking personal offense; come off it.

    Lets go back to one of the quotes (regarding this article):
    KyussBishop wrote:
    BlaasForRafa wrote:
    The article basically states that the BBC should be positively biased in favour of the palestinians, that attacks on Israel should be minimized and attacks on Gaza exacerbated.
    Again, quote exactly where it said that, because it did not say that, it criticized the BBC leaving factually false claims unchallenged.
    Nowhere does that article say attacks on Israel should be minimized, and attacks on Gaza exacerbated. That is not just a misrepresentation, that is a lie.


Advertisement