There's a petition doing the rounds for BBC to be less partisan in their reporting.
Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
It mentions the Palestinian dead before the Israeli ones (because there was a larger number). It then talks about the Israel deaths but then goes on to talk about the air strikes, quoting a correspondent on the ground in Gaza. Detail is quite scant about the deaths full stop - it has a prominent link to this article high up in the piece-
Israel-Gaza: Locals scramble for cover, some hiding in wardrobes
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-57076399
You could argue it lacks a bit of back story about what sparked the latest escalation, but it has plenty of links. There's certainly no heinous bias in the piece to the neutral, I'd have
thought.
EDIT: They seem to talk about Israeli casualties in more depth first, which I get could be annoying and seen as bias.
Deleted
Last edited:
That's the bottom line. They are fundamentalists, they believe the entire land should belong to them (or "us") and the people in power support them. Getting rid of the Palestenians allows them to take control of the land and once they do that, the chances of them being evicted are low. Even if they are evicted, they come back. And the army is quietly in support of that, supposedly for security reasons - but at the end of the day, the army takes orders from the govenment.
Being of Jewish descendence allows you to become a citizen and once that happens, no one is going to tell you where to live.
It's not about taking jobs from the Palestenians, as they normally do jobs Israeli don't want to do - such as contruction.
Her assertion about the ‘oil reserves in Palestine’ is spectacularly incorrect.
Yeah Venezuela has the most oil reserves in the world and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East so not sure where she was going with that
everything else is true though this whole thing is about unlawful occupation of Palestine territory rather than religion as people seem to thinkAlmost all of her history is wrong.Yeah Venezuela has the most oil reserves in the world and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East so not sure where she was going with that
Have to disagree.Yeah Venezuela has the most oil reserves in the world and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East so not sure where she was going with that
Remove the silly fight over perceived validity of one’s respective believed fairytale over another, this issue morphs drastically.
You serious?
Sorry what part is wrong other than the bit about oil? Literally every summarisation about what stemmed this would tell you it’s because of the Zionist movement and their greed
"We condem the Dresden bombings from UK"
I think it's supposed to be a joke of some kind..?
A bad one.
What do you disagree with?
That religion isn’t the root cause of this.
Don't bother. The pro Israeli/Zionists will find a way to throw "context" into the past to muddle the reality of events. It's a decent summary if you're standing for what's right.
Was there truly ‘harmony for many years, especially in Jerusalem?’
It’s not about religion. Israel are not arguing over whose God is better or trying to convert anyone. It jusd so happens that people from one religious state wanted to expand their LAND into and claim LAND in another religious state
Last edited:
There's been loads of periods in Jerusalem's history where there's been little to no animosity.
Just a bit.
The common thread is religion. Thanks for agreeing.
Just like there’s been periods of strife & conflict.
That’s not exactly what she said in there.
I don't know whether the oil bullshit is on purpose now. Second time I've seen it.
It is about land it just so happens that the two countries involved differ in their respective dominant religions.
This is the best scenario.
100%
Tech is making it so these things don't go unseen anymore. It's just a matter of fighting the media narrative now and our own politicians; especially here in the UK - who played a significant role in creating this mess 80 odd years ago - and the US who's paying 3.8billion dollars in unconditional military aid while also allowing Israel to murder civilians with impunity.
I would say the first page is essentially a strawman
the last page is essenatially an antisemitic tropestastic ticklist
"Taking palestine for the oil"
blame the rothschilds
say they control the media
its a massivley complex issue and one that personally I think informed debate is essential for - what you posted serves no part of that
I mean, if you think that this issue can be reduced to inter-religious conflict then it shows you probably don't know the reality, context or history of the region. Or even the nuances of the last 5-6 days. I'd suggest you read up on some of the wider aspects.
(Edit: I'm not saying that religion isn't a factor at all either, before I'm misquoted.)
And that land represents key elements in their respective religions.
It’s impossible to divorce religion from this.
I gave a thought to such, but I just don’t think so.
It seems that the author’s Instagram post on this was posted on the previous page.
How is the first part a straw man that is basically what is happening do you not know what an analogy is?
You're half right - imagine the land was inhabited by a group of atheists. If the Zionist movement still went ahead as it did in history, there would still be the same level of disbelief and that homes, lands, civil rights, freedom of movement can be taken from these atheists and given to people who have no legitimate right to it (according to international law). Imagine that some atheists left out of fear of death and were basically made stateless by the people that took their land.
It's why reducing this conflict to a religious one is so inaccurate and shows a lack of understanding.
Uh, ok, I’ll do just the second page, which begins her “history”...
The assertion that Muslims, Jews, and Christians were living peacefully in harmony Palestine/Jerusalem before Zionism is not something that can be made without major caveats, such as recognition of the unequal legal status dividing Muslims from non-Muslims in the Ottoman system of governance.
She claims antisemitism grew in Europe and Jews were kicked out after the Holocaust. So she has zero grasp of European history (this is extremely basic stuff).
Palestine did not take most Jewish refugees. Many (perhaps most) Jewish survivors of the Holocaust went to Israel, which was established in 1948. If she’s referring to Jewish refugees from before the Holocaust, she would be correct if she stated that “most Jewish refugees in the 1930s” went to Palestine. However, this was due to British policies, not because Palestinian Arabs accepted them. In fact, Palestinian Arabs resisted Jewish immigration and colonization (understandably) and launched a major anti-British revolt in 1936 which ultimately led the British to put a stop to Jewish immigration on the eve of the Holocaust.
Her fourth paragraph is accurate enough except for the “Jewish only” state. It was never envisioned by the Zionist leadership that the state would have no Jews.
Britain did not issue the Balfour Declaration (which I assume she is referring to in the fifth paragraph) in order to get rid of all the Jews from Europe. They did it because they assessed it was in the interests of their Empire in the specific context of the First World War. They did not consult the United Nations because the United Nations did not exist in 1917. It is true they did not consult Palestinian Arabs on the matter. In any case, the Balfour Declaration is just one episode in the process that led to the establishment of Israel.
That is just one page. I don’t think I need to go on to show that Instagram history is probably not the best way to go about getting a handle on this topic.
Virtually impossible to divorce Judaism from the identity of Zionism. Thinking so is a bit daft.
"You take my water, burn my olive trees, destroy my house, take my job, steal my land, imprison my father, kill my mother, bombard my country, starve us all, humiliate us all but I am to blame: I shot a rocket back"
tell you what... Ill explain why its a strawman after you explain why you are using antisemitic tropes as part of the dialogue?
Btw I didn’t just get my information today from that post. This has been going on for years and it’s widely known that it’s about occupation of land. I’ve also read other sources etc.
Think you're clutching at straws a bit here. You're also wrong about the peaceful living. For that time and era Jewish and Muslims did live peacefully. Look at the amount of Jewish communities all over islamic territories when Israel was formed.
all the way back to the crusades the Jewish took refuge in Muslim lands.