Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Sharon Resigns

24

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Those arabs whom you would like to dismiss as having no legitimate claim are those who were displaced from LEGALLY held land, many of whose families still retain the original deeds. Even the Ottomans respected landholding rights.

    Those European Zionists who came fully with the intent to forcibly displace the indigenous populations did so through terrorism every bit as heinous as that for which these same ideologues have historically tarred those who dare fight against them to reclaim their stolen property. That Zionists have successfully revised the record out of a fundamental paranoia that only their colonialist vision of the land can maintain a place for them is the issue that must be addressed openly.

    Only a one state solution, free of the infernal influence of the founding racist apartheid Zionist dogma and lies, will ensure peace for all. So long as the state remains under the helmsmanship of this anachronistic ideology, you can be sure that Israel itself will continue to pervert the course of any peace effort.

    I advise you to delve deeply into the works of Pappe and Said and come to grips with the truth of the ideology which birthed and has perpetuated the conflict by villifying the true victims every bit as much as Jews themselves were villified by those who victimised them in era's past. The principle remains the same, and no less evil.

    Zionists betray the very fundamentals of Jewish faith since of itself. Their claims are nothing but fanciful myths.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Hey - I am willing to let them have Israel as a homeland if they agree to open borders with Palestiniants and stop this secularlism, and isolationist ways.

    But once they are forcefully and terribly given land, it just takes the piss to want to take more through war and illegal means. Batards, really. No oging about making freinds, are they?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    ---
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What amazes me is that you all seem to think it's ok to shoot anyone as long as the right paperwork has been done.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Do be sure to let us know, slippy, when asylum seekers invade Britain, drive the legitimate legal landholders out of their homes and into exile (or simply massacred on the spot) at the point of a gun, and subsequently level British towns to leave no trace of the former inhabitants.

    Perhaps then your apples and oranges comparisons might have some shred of validity.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Interesting how the liberal mob call for your head if you want illegal asylum seekers deported, yet toady the Palestinians when they call for the deportation (to put it mildly) of an entire country, on the bases they are there illegally.

    How is seeking asylum "illegal"?

    Israelis call for Palestinians to be "transferred" and get seats in Sharon's cabinet.

    Israelis, like White South Africans fear the rhetoric of liberation movements - both dwelling on being driven into the sea.

    And yet White South Africans continue to enjoy a privileged lifestyle 10 years after the end of Apartheid - some even continue their racist practices.

    So why is it that your slippy little ears are deaf to the calls for "transfer" (a nice little euphemism for ethnic cleansing, no?) and wide open to rumours of calls for the colonialists to be driven into the sea?

    :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    subject13 wrote:
    So basically the Arab Muslims have only been there since thr 8th century and they have not controlled the region alone at any one prolongued period of time since then. So really, there claim to the land as it stands, is no greater or worse then absolutely any other person who wants to the claim the Holy Land, the Kingdom of Heaven if you will.

    What about when the Israeli people have been there over a hundred years and the Palestinians who were "displaced" are all dead, the fight for the region will be between people who were born there and have a right to be there, like most Israelis now.

    To say the Israelis should leave the land now after so many years there as inhabitants and so many been born there, is the same as saying the British government should deport any one who has descended from immigrants in the last generation or two. Anti-Israeli sentiments is just racism in the same way anti-palestinian feelings are racist!

    My conclusion on the situation after reading up on the topic!

    Hmmm, lets see - the zionists feel they are entitled to the land after 2000 years of exile - and yet once all the displaced Palestinians are dead, the Israelis are the natives.

    And apparently you got this from reading the BBC - who are actually in the process of reviewing their 'neutrality' after complaints from both camps. I think you have made it clear where their bias does lie.

    Try reading Truth vs Truth(pdf) put out by the Israeli group Gush Shalom and see if that helps.

    The conclusion you reached suggests a one state solution for Israelis and Palestinians........ do you realise that?

    :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well since Muslims and Jews are all descendents (genetically speaking of course) of the same race of people, then one state, one nation, one government would be a good solution.

    I am sorry, but legal documentation is one thing, i can abide by that and say, yes the Palestians have a claim, but this who "mass invasions of zionists" to the region is total gufaw! Pilgrims and immigrants have been making their way to the holy land for thousands of years. Jews were immigrating there on mass for hundreds of years and forming their own communities. The Ottoman Empire fell, it was crushed under the weight of modern change at the end of world war one. If we are going to start talking about how this empire or that kingdom did things, what about the Byzantium Empire? Surely by the arguments most are making their descendents have as much of a claim as anyone.

    I have become interested in this and started reading a lot more then just the BBC stuff now, but frankly, Zionist conspiracy theory is becoming so hilariously unbelievable the more i read, it is the same as arguing Lee Harvey Oswald did not actually shoot Kennedy based on watching the film JFK by Oliver Stone.

    One more thing, i do not think killing people is right so long as paperwork is in order. Im just saying it is unfair hypocracy for some to say Palestian suicide bombers are riteous for killing civilians but Israeli troops are the devils own for doing it. They are all bad for killing when killing can be avoided!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No, subject, jews were not "making their way there for thousands of years". The jewish minorities in Palestine were fairly static until the inception of the Zionist political agenda by Heyzl and Weizmann in the late 1800's. Even then the proponderance of the population was of Arab Muslim extraction with scant numbers of Arab Jews and Christians.

    As for your contention that both are of the same "race" I would remind you that Judaism is a religion, not (as Zionists desperately sought to contend for the past century) a "race". The bulk of those who began emigrating to Palestine in keeping with Zionist doctrine were Eastern European in both race and culture and not remotely related to the ancienct Hebrews as the ideologues have claimed as another of the central doctrinal pillars. They are descendants of ancient Khazars who converted to Judaism and were wholly alien colonialist invaders bent on forcibly dispossessing those whose families had owned and inhabited the land for generations.

    Excerpt from What Price Israel?

    Once again, rather than spouting off on what you wish to believe or not believe, go read the works suggested to you and gain some valid insight into the myths perpetrated by the 19th century colonialist ideology which gave rise to this conflict in the first place and which has maintained it through historic whitewashing and revisionism to the present day.

    You claimed an interest in understanding the subject beyond the status quo PR, but yet appear unwilling to do the reading required.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Ive posted from him before, says a lot I agree with actually

    http://www.johannhari.com/index.php

    Sharon's vision of peace is so flawed that the Palestinians can never accept it The selling of Sharon as a dove is setting up the Palestinians for another fall

    It would make a beautiful biopic: the blood-splattered old General, in his 77th year, discovers the cause of peace. The movie opens with a young Ariel Sharon leading Unit 101 - a notorious Israeli death-squad that was sent into Palestinian villages to burn houses and terrorise civilians in raw revenge attacks. Cut to Sharon 50 years later, sitting over a plate of gefilte fish with Abu Mazen, the elected Palestinian leader, haggling over he status of east Jerusalem as grandchildren play at his feet.

    This story is so intoxicating that many Israelis -desperate for an end to the grinding war of attrition that has haunted the country since its creation - have convinced themselves it must be true. Look at the changes Sharon is bringing, they say: he has now dismantled two big settlement blocs in his career - Sinai in 1982, and Gaza in 2005. He has torched the Israeli political landscape by quitting his own right-wing party, Likud, and formed a new centre party for peace. His people are briefing the Israeli press that they want a binding peace treaty and the creation of a Palestinian state in Sharon's third term. So is it time to clear the Israeli film studios and start casting the movie?

    The facts, alas, do not back up this blissed-out fantasy. Ariel Sharon has dedicated his career to destroying any sort of peace negotiations, and to denying the Palestinians a viable state. Far from representing a Damascene conversion, his statements reveal the underlying continuity of his plans. Just a year ago, Sharon said he accepts the road-map because "first and foremost, it does not demand a return to the 1967 borders; it allows Israel permanently to keep large settlement blocks which have high Israeli populations; and [it entrenches] the total refusal of allowing Palestinian refugees to return to Israel." Yesterday his top political strategist, Eyal Arad, said that the idea of swapping land for peace was "false philosophically, and naive politically", and insisted Sharon would never lead his new party to a return to the Green Line. You can't say they didn't warn us.

    In reality, what Sharon means by "peace" and a "Palestinian state" is so withered and weak that the Palestinians can never accept it. He is proposing - as a non-negotiable starting point to talks - to annexe much of the West Bank, one of the few remaining scraps of land inhabited by the Palestinians.

    Today only 22 percent of historical Palestine is designated for its Arab inhabitants, and this is too much for Sharon: he will append even more to Israel by force and seal it off with an iron wall. All that will remain on the other side is a Palestinian statelet consisting of the scrag-end of the West Bank, an isolated Gaza, and a lonely east Jerusalem. Three decades ago, Sharon said the way to control the Palestinians was to "salami slice" their land, separating them from each other and surrounding them with armed Israeli settlers. That is precisely what he is proposing today.

    Even to get to the miserable position where this offer is made, the Palestinian leader Abu Mazen has to do the impossible and dismantle "all terrorist organisations" operating on his soil. This is hard when almost all your police stations have been demolished or blown up. And it is harder still for Mazen to persuade a people living under vicious occupation that they should pre-emptively hand over all their weapons, on the off-chance that Sharon is now suddenly interested in peace after all these years of killing them.

    Yet most of the world is ignoring Sharon's explicit statements and buying the rhetoric of Sharon as centrist peacemaker. Partly, this is because the genuine shift that occurred in Sharon's political thought in the early Noughties has been poorly understood. He has genuinely moved - but only a few inches. He used to believe in a Greater Israel stretching from the river to the sea, populated by new waves of pioneering Jewish settlers like his parents. He was the leading champion of these settlers in the Knesset, allocating huge funds for them to build homes on Palestinian land.

    But then - some time earlier this decade - he began to understand that this bloated Israel was resting on a demographic time-bomb. Because Palestinians have far more children than Jews, within 20 years Israel was set to become an apartheid state presiding over an Arab majority. This is unthinkable - so Sharon had to claw back Israel's borders to accommodate a firmer Jewish majority. His advisor Dov Weisglass explained that Sharon gave up as little as possible to the Palestinians, shedding Gaza - "which is of no strategic importance" - precisely so he could retain control of the choicest morsels of the West Bank. "The settlers should have been dancing around the Prime Minister's office" in glee at this clever move, he said.

    So here's the reality: Sharon has shifted from believing in Greater Israel to believing in the greatest Israel compatible with a Jewish majority. This is enough to enrage the crazies in Likud, but it is hardly a conversion to the cause of peace. It is not likely to end in a Palestinian state that even moderates like Abu Mazen can settle for. That's why I am extremely nervous about the pre-emptive selling of Sharon as a dove: it is setting up the Palestinians up for another fall.

    There is now a real danger that Sharon will be elected on a "peace" landslide, sweep up to Mazen with a derisory, dangerous offer, and be rejected. (If Mazen gives in to American pressure to accept a lousy deal, there is a risk of triggering a third Intifada among an outraged population.) Cue the accusations once again that the Palestinians have inexplicably rejected Israel's Generous Offer (copyright Ehud Barak), when in fact they have merely been offered a cheap Tesco Own Brand peace they could never accept.

    I hope I am wrong. I hope Sharon has - in his late seventies - undergone a much larger change of heart than is revealed in his words and actions.

    But everybody who has put their trust into Sharon seems to have been cruelly disappointed. Levi Eshkol - the Israeli Prime Minister during the 1967 war - trusted the general, only to find out years later that Sharon had suggested mounting an anti-democratic military coup against him. Menachem Begin - the first Likud Prime Minister - trusted Sharon in 1982 when, as Minister of Defence, he led the country into an invasion of Lebanon he claimed would last a matter of weeks. Israeli troops remained for 18 years, and Begin retired into near-seclusion, believing Sharon had deliberately deceived him. Sharon's own soldiers trusted him, until he was found by the Israeli Knesset's own investigation to be indirectly responsible for the 9/11-sized massacre of over 2,000 innocent Lebanese civilians.

    If you were a Palestinian or an Israeli peace activist, would you trust in this half-offer of a half-state?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Actually Clandestine, it seems that it is infact you who is unwilling to see anything beyond your small opinion of the situation and it is infact you who is unwilling to accept any facts that dispute your beliefs. I do not know why you are so blinded to the facts that you are so selective of them. I in contrast have no stake of any kind, i have no malice towards either Jew nor Arab and i have no favouritism between them.

    The facts are that the two peoples are very much alike. There forms of worship, their traditions and yes their race. There are more then the minority of Jews who are Hebrew not converts. They both worship one God who is the same God. It is both sides using Religion to justify actions that go against the beliefs of their faiths.

    Immigration was a continuous action and no settlements in the region were truly static. Examining the evidence tells us so, as it shows the migration of the Jewsish people and that of other peoples all over the region.

    You talk about 19th century colonialist immigration, actions that occured over a hundred years ago. surely harping back to a time before anyone today was born adds weight to arguments of true claim to land. Christians did control the region for 100 years in the 12 century, maybe the European Christian nations should claim th land as rightfully theirs too? Or the Romans descendents, they have the best claim as they completely conquered that region?

    Surely the solution is for Israel to offer terms to Palestian. Surely the notion of open or at least more relaxed boarders so families could be reunited is not completely impracticle? Surely offering freedoms to the Palestian leadership provided they hunt down and eradicate Hamas from the region completely is not a bad idea. Finally, surely the notion of making Jerusalem an international city of free worship with the Unted Nations controlling the city and having a perminant peace keeping force there, is not bad either?

    Or am i just a dreamer who wants to see peace and not continued hatred by those who wish to maintain needless arguments, claiming they are right and everyone else is wrong?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You clearly misrepresent any effort to educate you to the historic reality of the matter, subject. I have no selectivity except to weed out bogus falsifications of the record long injected into the public arena by powerful ideologues in the media and political arenas. This fact is recognised by a broad spectrum of Jews the world over who similarly decry Zionism for the racist colonialist idelogy it is, not to mention its wholly secular roots.

    Unless and until you are willing to delve into the suggested readings rather than reactionistically spouting off a catalogue of ridiculous and ill informed notions based on personal sentiment and not research, discussion with you is pointless.

    All but a precious few arab Jews can have any remote claim to descendance from the ancient Hebrews. The bulk of Israel's society being Ashkenazi and thus Khazari (Turko-Finnish) in origin have no such lineage, simple as.

    As for your suggestion that I advocate hatred toward Jews, you are in point of fact utterly misguided. My disdain is for a wrongful ideology, not the state of Israel itself (which is a fait accomplis). If you wish to address hatred, address it toward the ideologues who suggest that anything other than a particularist Jewish state model in which all other peoples and religions are deemed second class would be the destruction of Israel. That is a belief rooted in raccism and hatred handed down from the Zionist founding fathers Herzl and Weizmann to the present day.

    No, kindly do yourself a favour and go do some actual reading of the "facts" before spouting off more the bs posted above. Thanks.

    edited to add: And do bother noting that I have already argued that only a one state solution in keeping with a true pluralistic, democratic character would provide a socially just solution for all parties involved.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well until your last post Cland you hadnt said anything of the sort in this thread about one state or about a peaceful people. From what you have said in this thread up until your last post i could not see your argument as anything other then Jew hating pro-Palestian rhetoric. Until your last post you had not made it clear in this thread at all about your views of a one peaceful state for the region. Remember i have only been on this site for a month or two, so i have not seen any of your prior posts on the topic of the Middle-East crisis.

    I have began reading the texts you have recommended now, but i still find it strange that you will only accept any argument i make if it is based on texts you believe to be true and you reference all the time, but if anyone makes an point based on any other text, you not only will not argue the point as you said above, but you will not acknowledge that the text can be even remotely correct because it disagrees with your views it is in your words a "piece of revisionist PR" history.

    I think it is rather unfair to simply dismiss my desire to see peace in the Middle-East as "personal sentiment" when i am making suggestions of practical actions to be taken.

    And placing the word "facts" in speach marks as you did says quite alot about the "facts" to me!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    subject13 wrote:
    Well until your last post Cland you hadnt said anything of the sort in this thread about one state or about a peaceful people. From what you have said in this thread up until your last post i could not see your argument as anything other then Jew hating pro-Palestian rhetoric. Until your last post you had not made it clear in this thread at all about your views of a one peaceful state for the region.

    Then obviously you don't actually bother reading what I have written, save for what you wish to read to suffice your snap retorts...

    http://vbulletin.thesite.org.uk/showpost.php?p=1486496&postcount=8 (note point #3)
    I have began reading the texts you have recommended now, but i still find it strange that you will only accept any argument i make if it is based on texts you believe to be true and you reference all the time, but if anyone makes an point based on any other text, you not only will not argue the point as you said above, but you will not acknowledge that the text can be even remotely correct because it disagrees with your views it is in your words a "piece of revisionist PR" history.

    No less than one would and should decry the falsity of revisionists who would deny the holocaust and seek to whitewash the atrocities of yet another historically heinous ideology and its adherents. False history is false history my friend, and only concerted study and comparison of the conclusions drawn by those historians faithful to the facts and those who seek to bend them to fit an ideological belief structure will enable you to discern the truth of matter.
    I think it is rather unfair to simply dismiss my desire to see peace in the Middle-East as "personal sentiment" when i am making suggestions of practical actions to be taken.

    I don't dismiss your desire to see peace, however i submit to you that no peace can be achieved so long as the status quo is determined by historical revisionism and falshood. Revisionism which excuses and justifies the atrocities of Zionism and its adherents and villifies its victims as it has since before the founding of the modern state to the present day. When that ideology is buried in the graveyard of prior militant colonialist ideologies and Israel acknowledges its guilty past can a brighter future of reconciliation and restitution be achieved.
    And placing the word "facts" in speach marks as you did says quite alot about the "facts" to me!

    The fact of ethnocide remains the truth however much those with their paranoid agenda of an exclusivist state have sought and do seek to bury it and villify those who seek to hold it up to public scrutiny. By putting the term in quotes I merely suggest that those who would argue otherwise seek to impose a reading upon the historic record which is not born out by actual fact.

    With study I hope that you might even come to understand that simple truth.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well, i think you should look back over what you have written and i think you will find, your position was not made clear at all. All that was clear was that you believe in a great Zionistic conspiracy to commit ethnic cleansing.

    I have been following some of the links you have put and found on the other ends, highly biased and completely unsupported theories of history. Where is the actual evidence or anything. Its just wild statements such as the six day war was a zionist plot to lure the pwerful muslim nations into wars they couldnt win. The facts of that war and not what i am sure you will call a revisionist version of events was that Israel was prepared for an attack and when it came and weas clear it was coming, they were simply too good for their attackers. The had superior strategies which, as we see all over history such as the german empires "Schleiffen plan" such strategies can go very wrong. The links you out of texts are just propaganda with no evidence at all behind them. I am not surprised so few people sahre your views with such little factual evidence to support it. But i shall continue to read on until i find something with evidence and not wild statements.

    Frankly, its just not so one sided in reality.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Don't hide behind intellectually dismissive terms such as "Conspiracy", subject. The forcible dispossession of the indigenous population was every bit a factual pillar of the Zionist agenda itself. Perhaps (once again I reiterate) if you bother to do the legwork and inform yourself of the ideology, the declarations of its most prominent advocates, and the factual roster of militant purges perpetrated by the founders (and subsequent leaders) of the state, you may just realise how much hot air you wasting arguing with me over historic fact.

    Whatever it is you claim to be reading, it certainly it isnt the acknowledged scholarly works of Pappe, Said or Lilienthal. Pick up their books if need be and read them through rather than grasping the first paragraph which challenges your misconceptions in order to once again leap to the board with more emotive bs.

    You certainly wont gain any perspective unless you go back alot further than the 1967 war. This conflict was born decades before the state itself was even realised. I suggest you enlighten yourself with the Irgun and Stern Gang along with the other works pointed out. Perhaps that might open your eyes to the terrorist roots of Zionism.

    Sorry son, but so far youve been here almost hourly with some fresh attack which only leads me to conlcude that you have no intention of actually taking time to study anything.

    You also highlight your ignorance of the subject by claiming "few agree with the perspective ive adopted" (which to correct your additional faulty claim is not MY view, but simple historic fact). Quite many who oppose zionist revisionism including noted academics and numerous Jewish groups share the same perspective, thank you very much. The evidence is referred to in the works I suggested. do yourself a favour and cease from these hourly emotive outbursts.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Further annotated references on the Zionist agenda of ethnic cleansing going back well before the state itself was realised can be found here...

    Zionism and ethnic cleansing

    Add that to your reading list.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    The BBC is as impartial as it gets

    Funny how even the BBC admits that it isn't. Unbiased BBC? Also, Biased BBC fantastically lists the frequent examples of the BBC's 'impartiality'.

    Impartiality is obviously a difficult if not unachievable aim, the BBC however comes nowhere near that aspiration. Although to be fair neither does Sky News, in terms of the Middle East I've actually found CNN among the most balanced.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Impartiality is obviously a difficult if not unachievable aim, the BBC however comes nowhere near that aspiration. Although to be fair neither does Sky News, in terms of the Middle East I've actually found CNN among the most balanced.

    CNN is alright. The BBC is probably the least Biased though. Or Al Jazera, I always trust good old Al Jazera! :p TBH, I found CNN is (inevitabley) a slightly pro-US stance. Unbiased news is an impossible thing to acheive. But when you reac the levels of Fox, who won't let the truth get in the way of a good story, ever, it takes the piss.

    Channel 5 news is where it's at mind.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Impartiality is obviously a difficult if not unachievable aim, the BBC however comes nowhere near that aspiration..

    I agree wholeheartedly with disillusioned on this one. Here's some findings from an academic study of BBC bias:
    There is a preponderance of official ‘Israeli perspectives’, particularly on BBC 1, where Israelis were interviewed or reported over twice as much as Palestinians. On top of this, US politicians who support Israel were very strongly featured. They appeared more than politicians from any other country and twice as much as those from Britain.
    Because there was not account of historical events such as the Palestinians losing their homes, there was a tendency for viewers to see the problems as “starting ” with Palestinian action. On the news, Israeli actions tended to be explained and contextualised - they were often shown as merely “responding ” to what had been done to them by Palestinians (in the 2001 samples they were six times as likely to be presented as “retaliating ” or in some way responding than were the Palestinians). This apparently influenced many viewers to blame Palestinians for the conflict
    There was a strong emphasis on Israeli casualties on the news, relative to Palestinians (even though Palestinians had around 2-3 times the number of deaths as Israelis). In one week in March 02 which the BBC reported as having the most Palestinian casualties since the start of the intifada, there was actually more coverage on the news of Israeli deaths. There were also differences in the language used by journalists for Israelis and Palestinians - words such as ‘atrocity’, ‘brutal murder’, ‘mass murder’, ‘savage cold blooded killing’, ‘lynching’ and ‘slaughter’ were used about Israeli deaths but not Palestinian. The word ‘terrorist’ was used to describe Palestinians by journalists but when an Israeli group was reported as trying to bomb a Palestinian school, they were referred to as ‘extremists’ or ‘vigilantes’

    :eek2:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Funny how even the BBC admits that it isn't. Unbiased BBC? Also, Biased BBC fantastically lists the frequent examples of the BBC's 'impartiality'.

    Impartiality is obviously a difficult if not unachievable aim, the BBC however comes nowhere near that aspiration. Although to be fair neither does Sky News, in terms of the Middle East I've actually found CNN among the most balanced.
    You can moan all you want about the BBC Disillusioned- the fact remains that it is with very little doubt the most impartial broadcaster when it comes to Israel.

    The fact that both Palestinians and Israelis complain in equal measure is as good as indication as any of the impartiality of the BBC.

    What I find extraordinary is most people who complain about the BBC being biased against their side do so because the BBC dares to report certain unpleasant facts and to call a spade a spade. That's what all comes down to doesn't it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    You can moan all you want about the BBC Disillusioned- the fact remains that it is with very little doubt the most impartial broadcaster when it comes to Israel.

    The fact that both Palestinians and Israelis complain in equal measure is as good as indication as any of the impartiality of the BBC.

    What I find extraordinary is most people who complain about the BBC being biased against their side do so because the BBC dares to report certain unpleasant facts and to call a spade a spade. That's what all comes down to doesn't it?

    Thats a nice way of avoiding calling a spade a spade Aladdin.

    THE Glasgow University study consistently found that BBC news, which is the main point of information for most views contained a strong pro-Israel bias, as demonstrated in the link to their study.

    A fair number of bbc news watchers beleived that Palestinians were occupying Israeli land...

    Bad news from Israel

    The fact that both camps complain indicates that there are 2 different narratives - not that the BBC is impartial.

    :yuck:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    wow...

    quite some history lessons there. Impressive stuff.

    However I find Clandestine simply spouting more and more of anti-isreal, and yes anti-jewish rhetoric that has been been abound for years. It truely is teerible this anti-semetic feeling that has lasted so long and through nearly every country in the world over the years.

    I am not opposed to consipracy theories, in fact I believe in quite a few of them, but I have never found any real evidence to the Zionist consiparcy claims and everything that is labelled at Israeal. Yes they have hidden nukes but thats about it and while yes they have commited some questionable actions, its hardly liek they are the only or the worst. The Palestnian bias that is abound these days is truly disturbing and I doubt there wil be any peace with such numbers vilifying the Israealies all the time while caliming the palestinians are the constant victims when it cane be seen they are as much the perpetrators as anyone.

    Can't frankly I think some people on here about 1 step away from typing the holocaust never happend and was all one big conspiracy to steal a nation. I hope non one does belive that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Walkindude wrote:
    The Palestnian bias that is abound these days is truly disturbing and I doubt there wil be any peace with such numbers vilifying the Israealies all the time while caliming the palestinians are the constant victims when it cane be seen they are as much the perpetrators as anyone.

    Hmmm, yes - I can see where you're coming from. The people who came from outside and stole the land and drove the people out bear the same responsibility as the people who lived there, and were driven out so that their land could be stolen.

    You're about to show us how the Palestinians bore responsibility for the Holocaust.

    Yes or no?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yawn, thanks for your non-studied opinion but your pathetic allegations of anti-semitism miss the mark entirely as does your dismissal of quite academically acknowledged victimisation, by purposed intent of Zionist ideology and ideologues, of the indigenous Palestinian population.

    Opinion has little place in a discussion of historic fact and all the more so when that fact is chronicalled by anti-Zionist Jewish historians and organisations themselves.

    Do be so kind as to refrain from presumptive slurs as to my disposition toward the Jewish religion which are, in point of fact, as non-relevant to discussions of the driving ideology of a state (and a wholly secular one at that) as they are false.

    Thank you.

    [Edited to add: for those with a true interest to understand more about the depth of Zionism's ideological role in perpetuating the conflict, this excerpt from the work of yet another intellectually honest Israeli thinker...

    acknowledging the sins of Zionism as a first step to true reconciliation
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well Cland, you say i am not studying anything because of my hourly posts.
    Well firstly i do not post on the hour every hour.
    Secondly, i am reading all the links you keep putting up and seeing in plain English NOTHING! There is no Historic fact at all in what you claim is historic fact. You say i have not studied anythign but i have studied both ACTUAL factual evidence and what you claim is evidence. None of th elinks you have given have taken me to anythign that have actually be facually or supported in anyway by facts.

    If you were actually bothering to read my posts fully you would have seen the example on the six day war, which you apparently do not disagree with me on as you did not place any counter argument, was just ONE single example. I know when this conflict was first born and it goes back much further then when you claim it does. This i a blood hatred that has spanned two millenium.

    You Cland are not saying anything factual or showing anythign to support what you are saying. What i have studied in history lessons in this country about Israel was not part of this "conspiracy" (a term you are always using not me, for unlike you, i do not need to hide behind such words) you are always ranting about, what i have studied is simply the evidence. That is all that matters in history, what actually occured, the facts and the evidence, not theories and conspiracies and ranting statements with out eveidence.

    Finally Cland, its time to switch off your broken record, it really shows you lack of any real evidence to always say in ever post to me the same things, which are, "your emotive bs" and "i refuse to argue with someone who refuses to read anything about the facts" because what i read does have the facts in it, what you read is nothing more then the most pittiful and embarressing attempts at propaganda!

    What happened to the Palestians was a bad thing and what continues to go on is terrible, but please Cland, at least argue the case, not made up and ridiculous rantings of nothing!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I do not use the term conspiracy subject. You and those who have shown nothing but ignorant derision throughout this thread on the other hand have used it in almost every post.

    I have no idea what you consider to be "evidence" if you will not examine the scholarly historical analyses of those with the peer reviewed creds on the matter. Seems you wish to remain beholden to your false notions of history (such as this ridiculous 2000 years of animosity nonsense). The modern state of Israel was the work of Eastern European ideologues not ancient Hebrews or any descendents thereof, perhaps when you actually go educate yourself instead you might come to understand that.

    Do be so kind as to follow your own demands and present any such "evidence" since the works of reknown scholars on the matter fails to come up to your standard.

    I will agree that what "actually occurred" is precisely the point that I have vainly endeavoured to point out to you. The book and author references and the links are left for you to do with as you will, ignore and deride it to your hearts content.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I havnt ignored any of your links to websites or pages with information to read. I have happily sought to better my knowledge, but frankly, if i was to write a history essay on the crisis in the region and quote these sources as references and use them as references i would undoubtedley be given a failing grade even at GCSE standard, because of the sheer lack of sourcing. Records, first hand accounts, documentation, logisitcal analysis, anything of that nature. So far, i have only come across long-winded, and increasingly arrogant nonsensical ramblings that become increasingly unbelievable.

    I do concede 100% to you on the documentation of legallity of land with those who have deeds and those with witnesses to those who had deeds. I do not in anyway argue that undisputable fact.

    The only reason anyone on here used the words "conspiracy" is because you used it first when refering to zionism.

    Of course hatred existed long before the recent colonial movements. Arabs, Christians and yes, Jews slaughtered each other in the crusades and before that all over the land, but then it was not a claim of land for homes, it was a claim of land for its holyness. Nevertheless, hatred existed.

    In recent times, i do not argue that colonialism of the region is reason for hatred, but unlike the colonialism of the rest of the world, the "invaders" never returned to their homeland or rather land of birth as they believed Israel was indeed their homeland. European colonialism was, as we know, Empire building, where as the Jewish immigration was a homeland claim.

    I think we do actually both agree, historical facts are undisputable, it is the subjectivity that is brought by the reader of such evidence that makes the difficulties.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No subject, I have never used the term "conspiracy" when referring to Zionism. Only those who foolishly dismiss that which they are too intellectually dishonest or patently ignorant to acknowledge use the term "conspiracy".

    As for your demands for records and firsthand accounts, you will find more than sufficient references in the works of Said, Pappe, Shlaim, Lilienthal and other non-Zionist scholars to satisfy your demands. I'm afraid you wont find these just readily reproduced on some handy website.

    But I tire of your inane excuses for your unwillingness to recognise the central role of the ideology which birthed the state through terroristic and ethnocidal practices. The acknowledgements of many recognised scholars more than vindicates the position I have come over many years to understand as historical fact.

    Perhaps you also think Nazi Germany and its atrocities, for example, can be explained and understood divorced from the ideology which controlled it or similarly Apartheid South Africa or Stalinist Russia? The principle remains no less true for Zionist founded and perpetuated Israel, however much its ideologues would seek to revise and whitewash the record to excuse and justify their guilt and that of their progeny to the present day.

    I wish you all the best should you ever bother to become informed, but these ongoing ill informed retorts of yours are leading this discussion nowhere. Believe whatever you wish. Enough said.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Well the fact you think i can dismiss the holocaust, of stalinism or apartheid shows how little you bother to ever read any posts or actually examine any one elses point of view that does not conform to your little idea of things that so far you have not produced evidence for. At least what i have said is the believed truth of the majority of historians and any body who examines the evidence.

    Convenient that all of a sudden your links do not lead to any evidence and so i can not check up on them when i am on the internet with your wild claims at hand to check.

    You have bored me to no ends with your ridiculous ramblings with no facts to support them, well no facts you are willing to give at least. I find no more need in wasting my energy with this argument, when it is with some one who can not see beyond their tiny little world view and inbuilt prejudices. Wehn you no longer are biased in your thinking and ramblings i will be happy to have a serious conversation with you on the topic. Until then, i am happy in the knowledge i have at least been presented with some webistes i can laugh at for how blatently propaganderish they are!
Sign In or Register to comment.