Today's discussion about the news
Comments
-
you would have to tell us what you thought the coverage of the IRA was likerick_chasey said:
I'd hope they didn't report Russia Ukraine in the same way, as they're very different.surrey_commuter said:
I am not an expert on the BBC but did they report the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the same way, ie did they give equal weight to both sides.rick_chasey said:Not especially happy with the ability of Israel and Palestine to export their conflicts to the rest of the world.
Don't really why we need to see commentators like Andrew Neil referring to the BBC's "viseral hatred" of Israel, when they're literally just interviewing people and challenging their assertions.
Meanwhile on the the drive to the local national trust I saw two Palestinian flags hanging out.
Come on Britain, we can obviously do better than this.
imo not referring to Hamas as a terrorist organisation is a big mistake
UK reporting on israel/gaza, to my young eye (am not old enough to know back in the 70s and 80s) seems closer to coverage of Northern Ireland, albeit with more graphic footage.0 -
I don't think that the stuff that Dan Hodges and Simon Schama help in the least: I'm pretty sure that I saw a tweet by Schama (now deleted) which claimed that London was becoming a no-go area for Jewish people (palpable nonsense, as far as I can see, notwithstanding some recent hate crimes), and Dan Hodges keeps on claiming that Saturday's rally in support of Palestinians was all about intimidating "the Jewish community", despite there being only two arrests (so far - I gather that there are some enquiries ongoing about certain individuals)
I think it's a positive thing that there was also a 'pro-Israel march' that also passed without major incidents in London.
I suspect that there's a heavy Russian social media input: anything that sows division and destabilisation in democracies is something that they look to foment: trying to get normal folk to 'pick a side' and get worked up about it helps Putin.
0 -
Policy is quite clear. They don't report them as terrorists but commenters can and do.surrey_commuter said:
I thought the USA, EU and UK have designated Hamas as a terrorist organisation, if so then not referring to them as such just seems bloody mindedDeVlaeminck said:surrey_commuter said:
I am not an expert on the BBC but did they report the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the same way, ie did they give equal weight to both sides.rick_chasey said:Not especially happy with the ability of Israel and Palestine to export their conflicts to the rest of the world.
Don't really why we need to see commentators like Andrew Neil referring to the BBC's "viseral hatred" of Israel, when they're literally just interviewing people and challenging their assertions.
Meanwhile on the the drive to the local national trust I saw two Palestinian flags hanging out.
Come on Britain, we can obviously do better than this.
imo not referring to Hamas as a terrorist organisation is a big mistake
Are you saying that they should be consistent in condemning the side that has taken land from the other ?
One man's terrorist etc.
I mean, let's be clear. If Hamas had the firepower Israel did it would be a more conventional guerrilla war and they wouldn't resort to terrorism, as they'd just carpet bomb 'targets' to the same effect, right?
In the end both sides are killing civilians to make a point. One side can do it more effectively with more detached means but it's the same idea.0 -
Because it's quite a different situation?surrey_commuter said:
but why don't they report why Russia considers itself to have a claim on various lands?Jezyboy said:
The conflict in Ukraine is generally reported on in a much simpler way.surrey_commuter said:
I am not an expert on the BBC but did they report the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the same way, ie did they give equal weight to both sides.rick_chasey said:Not especially happy with the ability of Israel and Palestine to export their conflicts to the rest of the world.
Don't really why we need to see commentators like Andrew Neil referring to the BBC's "viseral hatred" of Israel, when they're literally just interviewing people and challenging their assertions.
Meanwhile on the the drive to the local national trust I saw two Palestinian flags hanging out.
Come on Britain, we can obviously do better than this.
imo not referring to Hamas as a terrorist organisation is a big mistake
Imo far too much attention is spent on whether to call Hamas terrorists or not. Just report in detail what they have done, because much of it sounds genuinely horrifying.
Obviously that doesn't mean you can starve hundreds of thousands though.
why do they take it at face value that Russia is the aggressor?
for clarity my point with the above is why don'tthe BBC feel the need to give the same impartial coverage when reporting on Russia?0 -
Yes I think the BBC have done a reasonable job. I agree just detail what they've done - if there is evidence of murder, rape, mutilation of bodies etc report it. If Hamas are forcing civilians to act as human shields say so.
I've found some of the Rest Is Politics podcasts on this conflict quite good. Introduced by Rory Stewart and Alistair Campbell - but even if you don't like those two they've had people on from both sides giving a Palestinian and an Israeli perspective in a certain amount of depth. Ok they haven't had a representative of Hamas or a fanatical religious zionist on which may be a weakness seeing as those extremes seem quite influential.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
why does Russia's special military operation not require impartiality so that the viewers can make their own mind upJezyboy said:
Because it's quite a different situation?surrey_commuter said:
but why don't they report why Russia considers itself to have a claim on various lands?Jezyboy said:
The conflict in Ukraine is generally reported on in a much simpler way.surrey_commuter said:
I am not an expert on the BBC but did they report the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the same way, ie did they give equal weight to both sides.rick_chasey said:Not especially happy with the ability of Israel and Palestine to export their conflicts to the rest of the world.
Don't really why we need to see commentators like Andrew Neil referring to the BBC's "viseral hatred" of Israel, when they're literally just interviewing people and challenging their assertions.
Meanwhile on the the drive to the local national trust I saw two Palestinian flags hanging out.
Come on Britain, we can obviously do better than this.
imo not referring to Hamas as a terrorist organisation is a big mistake
Imo far too much attention is spent on whether to call Hamas terrorists or not. Just report in detail what they have done, because much of it sounds genuinely horrifying.
Obviously that doesn't mean you can starve hundreds of thousands though.
why do they take it at face value that Russia is the aggressor?
for clarity my point with the above is why don'tthe BBC feel the need to give the same impartial coverage when reporting on Russia?0 -
do you really not differentiate between one side whose objective is to maximise the number of civilian deaths on both sides and the other who are trying to protect their own civilians and could/should be trying harder to minimise the other sides civilian casualties?rick_chasey said:
Policy is quite clear. They don't report them as terrorists but commenters can and do.surrey_commuter said:
I thought the USA, EU and UK have designated Hamas as a terrorist organisation, if so then not referring to them as such just seems bloody mindedDeVlaeminck said:surrey_commuter said:
I am not an expert on the BBC but did they report the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the same way, ie did they give equal weight to both sides.rick_chasey said:Not especially happy with the ability of Israel and Palestine to export their conflicts to the rest of the world.
Don't really why we need to see commentators like Andrew Neil referring to the BBC's "viseral hatred" of Israel, when they're literally just interviewing people and challenging their assertions.
Meanwhile on the the drive to the local national trust I saw two Palestinian flags hanging out.
Come on Britain, we can obviously do better than this.
imo not referring to Hamas as a terrorist organisation is a big mistake
Are you saying that they should be consistent in condemning the side that has taken land from the other ?
One man's terrorist etc.
I mean, let's be clear. If Hamas had the firepower Israel did it would be a more conventional guerrilla war and they wouldn't resort to terrorism, as they'd just carpet bomb 'targets' to the same effect, right?
In the end both sides are killing civilians to make a point. One side can do it more effectively with more detached means but it's the same idea.0 -
So this is my point aboutsurrey_commuter said:
do you really not differentiate between one side whose objective is to maximise the number of civilian deaths on both sides and the other who are trying to protect their own civilians and could/should be trying harder to minimise the other sides civilian casualties?If Hamas had the firepower Israel did it would be a more conventional guerrilla war and they wouldn't resort to terrorism, as they'd just carpet bomb 'targets' to the same effect, right?
Hamas obviously do not have the firepower to even compete with the Israeli military.
Obviously if they had better means they'd be waging a more conventional war.
It's quite hard to kill members of the israeli military if you only have a few small arms.
There is an argument that there is a strategic purpose to the terrorism - lure Israel into making a strategic mistake and that so far, that is playing out - so I think, it is helpful to refer to them as fighters as that is ultimately what they're doing.
When soldiers commit other terrorising war crimes we don't give them the terrorist label so I think it is helpful all round for *reporting* to avoid the term in this context.0 -
They have repeatedly mentioned that they are proscribed by the UK government and others as a terrorist organisation. The main objection seems to come from people who also, purely coincidentally, want to give the BBC a good kicking.surrey_commuter said:
I am not an expert on the BBC but did they report the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the same way, ie did they give equal weight to both sides.rick_chasey said:Not especially happy with the ability of Israel and Palestine to export their conflicts to the rest of the world.
Don't really why we need to see commentators like Andrew Neil referring to the BBC's "viseral hatred" of Israel, when they're literally just interviewing people and challenging their assertions.
Meanwhile on the the drive to the local national trust I saw two Palestinian flags hanging out.
Come on Britain, we can obviously do better than this.
imo not referring to Hamas as a terrorist organisation is a big mistake
This all reminds me of the slightly silly interviews with Sinn Fein voiced by an actor.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Where do you think they have been partial. I forget their Moscow correspondent's name but he has given a very good report of public opinion from the other side.surrey_commuter said:
why does Russia's special military operation not require impartiality so that the viewers can make their own mind upJezyboy said:
Because it's quite a different situation?surrey_commuter said:
but why don't they report why Russia considers itself to have a claim on various lands?Jezyboy said:
The conflict in Ukraine is generally reported on in a much simpler way.surrey_commuter said:
I am not an expert on the BBC but did they report the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the same way, ie did they give equal weight to both sides.rick_chasey said:Not especially happy with the ability of Israel and Palestine to export their conflicts to the rest of the world.
Don't really why we need to see commentators like Andrew Neil referring to the BBC's "viseral hatred" of Israel, when they're literally just interviewing people and challenging their assertions.
Meanwhile on the the drive to the local national trust I saw two Palestinian flags hanging out.
Come on Britain, we can obviously do better than this.
imo not referring to Hamas as a terrorist organisation is a big mistake
Imo far too much attention is spent on whether to call Hamas terrorists or not. Just report in detail what they have done, because much of it sounds genuinely horrifying.
Obviously that doesn't mean you can starve hundreds of thousands though.
why do they take it at face value that Russia is the aggressor?
for clarity my point with the above is why don'tthe BBC feel the need to give the same impartial coverage when reporting on Russia?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I read an article on this subject that reasoned that if people are predisposed to believe good or bad about a country then they will see everything through that lens.rick_chasey said:
So this is my point aboutsurrey_commuter said:
do you really not differentiate between one side whose objective is to maximise the number of civilian deaths on both sides and the other who are trying to protect their own civilians and could/should be trying harder to minimise the other sides civilian casualties?If Hamas had the firepower Israel did it would be a more conventional guerrilla war and they wouldn't resort to terrorism, as they'd just carpet bomb 'targets' to the same effect, right?
Hamas obviously do not have the firepower to even compete with the Israeli military.
Obviously if they had better means they'd be waging a more conventional war.
It's quite hard to kill members of the israeli military if you only have a few small arms.
There is an argument that there is a strategic purpose to the terrorism - lure Israel into making a strategic mistake and that so far, that is playing out - so I think, it is helpful to refer to them as fighters as that is ultimately what they're doing.
When soldiers commit other terrorising war crimes we don't give them the terrorist label so I think it is helpful all round for *reporting* to avoid the term in this context.
It sounds obvious but my flabber is well and truly ghasted by your posting.
To take the heat out of the debate look at the Putin thread where if you knew no better you would think that Russia can do nothing right and are being overwhelmed by the all conquering Ukraine1 -
This is sort of what I mean when I say it's hard to discuss it without someone accusing you of being on the other side.surrey_commuter said:
I read an article on this subject that reasoned that if people are predisposed to believe good or bad about a country then they will see everything through that lens.rick_chasey said:
So this is my point aboutsurrey_commuter said:
do you really not differentiate between one side whose objective is to maximise the number of civilian deaths on both sides and the other who are trying to protect their own civilians and could/should be trying harder to minimise the other sides civilian casualties?If Hamas had the firepower Israel did it would be a more conventional guerrilla war and they wouldn't resort to terrorism, as they'd just carpet bomb 'targets' to the same effect, right?
Hamas obviously do not have the firepower to even compete with the Israeli military.
Obviously if they had better means they'd be waging a more conventional war.
It's quite hard to kill members of the israeli military if you only have a few small arms.
There is an argument that there is a strategic purpose to the terrorism - lure Israel into making a strategic mistake and that so far, that is playing out - so I think, it is helpful to refer to them as fighters as that is ultimately what they're doing.
When soldiers commit other terrorising war crimes we don't give them the terrorist label so I think it is helpful all round for *reporting* to avoid the term in this context.
It sounds obvious but my flabber is well and truly ghasted by your posting.
To take the heat out of the debate look at the Putin thread where if you knew no better you would think that Russia can do nothing right and are being overwhelmed by the all conquering Ukraine
I guess I think there is more legitimacy to the argument that Palestinians deserve better treatment than they currently do, and that Palestinians live on the wrong side of an apartheid structure, than Russian imperial desire to annex Ukraine.
We can all decry Hamas yada yada - fine, you won't find any disagreement on the forum.
You can see the context though. In a context ripe for extremism, in an area where neighbouring regimes are remarkably comfortable with inflicting human suffering and misery and have a decades long track record of funding extremism and terrorism, it's probably not surprising that you have a pretty well armed terrorist organisation who are particularly cruel.
You can also see that in the context of Israel/Palestine, one side has dramatically more power and control than the other, and so that changes the dynamic. So it is not remotely surprising that their tactics versus each other are hugely different.
This isn't a state v state issue, it's sectarian and I really don't think drawing parallels to Ukraine/Russia are helpful.0 -
What's more grimly predictable is the lack of similar coverage in Sudan where we have evidence of a full blown genocide (rather than different sides hyperbolically accusing the other of one) but because it's not really western or developed no-one gives a sh!t.
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2023/10/05/genocide-returns-to-darfur
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/21/1206104009/sudan-war
5.6million refugees, troops rounding up groups of refugees and killing all males (including babies) on the stop, full blown ethnic cleansing etc etc.0 -
Re Gaza - I guess I ultimately see a state with the overwhelming power in the scenario, so i think with that comes a responsibility to lead on the solution. It's not a fair fight and so far the Israeli approach has not really done much to bring more moderate and representative palestinians to the table, who, let's be honest, have much less to lose at this point.0
-
I think it is state versus state. One state is hiding behind a couple of pretty heavily armed militias, but let's not pretend these are plucky resistance fighters.rick_chasey said:
This is sort of what I mean when I say it's hard to discuss it without someone accusing you of being on the other side.surrey_commuter said:
I read an article on this subject that reasoned that if people are predisposed to believe good or bad about a country then they will see everything through that lens.rick_chasey said:
So this is my point aboutsurrey_commuter said:
do you really not differentiate between one side whose objective is to maximise the number of civilian deaths on both sides and the other who are trying to protect their own civilians and could/should be trying harder to minimise the other sides civilian casualties?If Hamas had the firepower Israel did it would be a more conventional guerrilla war and they wouldn't resort to terrorism, as they'd just carpet bomb 'targets' to the same effect, right?
Hamas obviously do not have the firepower to even compete with the Israeli military.
Obviously if they had better means they'd be waging a more conventional war.
It's quite hard to kill members of the israeli military if you only have a few small arms.
There is an argument that there is a strategic purpose to the terrorism - lure Israel into making a strategic mistake and that so far, that is playing out - so I think, it is helpful to refer to them as fighters as that is ultimately what they're doing.
When soldiers commit other terrorising war crimes we don't give them the terrorist label so I think it is helpful all round for *reporting* to avoid the term in this context.
It sounds obvious but my flabber is well and truly ghasted by your posting.
To take the heat out of the debate look at the Putin thread where if you knew no better you would think that Russia can do nothing right and are being overwhelmed by the all conquering Ukraine
I guess I think there is more legitimacy to the argument that Palestinians deserve better treatment than they currently do, and that Palestinians live on the wrong side of an apartheid structure, than Russian imperial desire to annex Ukraine.
We can all decry Hamas yada yada - fine, you won't find any disagreement on the forum.
You can see the context though. In a context ripe for extremism, in an area where neighbouring regimes are remarkably comfortable with inflicting human suffering and misery and have a decades long track record of funding extremism and terrorism, it's probably not surprising that you have a pretty well armed terrorist organisation who are particularly cruel.
You can also see that in the context of Israel/Palestine, one side has dramatically more power and control than the other, and so that changes the dynamic. So it is not remotely surprising that their tactics versus each other are hugely different.
This isn't a state v state issue, it's sectarian and I really don't think drawing parallels to Ukraine/Russia are helpful.
On the other hand, the idea that you can bombard a very densely populated urban area with the slightest pretence of attempting to preserve civilian life is, bluntly, nonsense. The best argument against Israel's current tactics is that they aren't going to work. They could raze the whole place to dust and it still wouldn't completely destroy Hamas, let alone Hexbollah.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Where's the territory, where are the lines and who is invading who?rjsterry said:
I think it is state versus state. One state is hiding behind a couple of pretty heavily armed militias, but let's not pretend these are plucky resistance fighters.
It's absolutely sectarian. They're not "plucky resistance fighters" but they're hardly a well organised military are they?
They don't have the right political or military structures to be a state.
That's half the problem..!
0 -
You don't think this is just a fight between Israel and Iran?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
No and that's far too reductive.rjsterry said:You don't think this is just a fight between Israel and Iran?
The great powers narrative is a easy way to explain things like Ukraine or this but it's inevitably more complicated.
Are they heavily involved on one side? Yes. As much as US is with Israel, probably.0 -
Their attack the other week suggested they were better organised than anyone gave them 'credit' for.rick_chasey said:
Where's the territory, where are the lines and who is invading who?rjsterry said:
I think it is state versus state. One state is hiding behind a couple of pretty heavily armed militias, but let's not pretend these are plucky resistance fighters.
It's absolutely sectarian. They're not "plucky resistance fighters" but they're hardly a well organised military are they?
They don't have the right political or military structures to be a state.
That's half the problem..!0 -
Neither are great powers. But I don't think Hamas would be carrying out attacks of that scale without Iran's funding.rick_chasey said:
No and that's far too reductive.rjsterry said:You don't think this is just a fight between Israel and Iran?
The great powers narrative is a easy way to explain things like Ukraine or this but it's inevitably more complicated.
Are they heavily involved on one side? Yes. As much as US is with Israel, probably.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
How soon till this is USA v Iran?
Scary prospect.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Nor would Israel with us backing etc.rjsterry said:
Neither are great powers. But I don't think Hamas would be carrying out attacks of that scale without Iran's funding.rick_chasey said:
No and that's far too reductive.rjsterry said:You don't think this is just a fight between Israel and Iran?
The great powers narrative is a easy way to explain things like Ukraine or this but it's inevitably more complicated.
Are they heavily involved on one side? Yes. As much as US is with Israel, probably.
Reminded of this on Twitter:
0 -
Israel hasn't carried out anything like the Hamas attack. Feels slightly nuts that I'm even having to point that out.rick_chasey said:
Nor would Israel with us backing etc.rjsterry said:
Neither are great powers. But I don't think Hamas would be carrying out attacks of that scale without Iran's funding.rick_chasey said:
No and that's far too reductive.rjsterry said:You don't think this is just a fight between Israel and Iran?
The great powers narrative is a easy way to explain things like Ukraine or this but it's inevitably more complicated.
Are they heavily involved on one side? Yes. As much as US is with Israel, probably.
Reminded of this on Twitter:
It wasn't an act of resistance against occupation, it was just killing as many Jews in the most gratuitous way possible. Just bloodthirsty antisemitism (not sectarianism, by the way, which is hostility between sects of the same religion).1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
No one is disputing that RJS. Israel has probably killed more Palestinians civilians than hamas has killed Israelis too. Because of the difference in power as discussed.
It’s not offering an excuse to say that terrorism, and the clue is in the name, is a tactic or even a strategy those without comparable military use.
And yes it is sectarianism > doesn’t have to be the same religion, nor does sectarianism even need to be religious.0 -
I think I'd find air strikes pretty terrifying. Maybe that's just me. I'm of the opinion (and stated as much last week) that soon there will be no "good guys".rjsterry said:
Israel hasn't carried out anything like the Hamas attack. Feels slightly nuts that I'm even having to point that out.rick_chasey said:
Nor would Israel with us backing etc.rjsterry said:
Neither are great powers. But I don't think Hamas would be carrying out attacks of that scale without Iran's funding.rick_chasey said:
No and that's far too reductive.rjsterry said:You don't think this is just a fight between Israel and Iran?
The great powers narrative is a easy way to explain things like Ukraine or this but it's inevitably more complicated.
Are they heavily involved on one side? Yes. As much as US is with Israel, probably.
Reminded of this on Twitter:
...The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Of course it's an act if resistance and some of you are very much over estimating Hamas' capabilities. They are not equipped with anything like the capability of Hezbollah and Rick Is absolutely right that their tactic - namely terrorism - is dictated by their lack of alternative military option.
Israel has systematically been eliminating Palestine as an entity. Now you can argue it has justification for doing so if you want but they've flouted international law and killed many more Palestinians than vice versa.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Of course. And this was essentially Biden's warning to Israel to not repeat the same mistakes that America made, which led to the emergence of ISIS.pblakeney said:
I think I'd find air strikes pretty terrifying. Maybe that's just me. I'm of the opinion (and stated as much last week) that soon there will be no "good guys".rjsterry said:
Israel hasn't carried out anything like the Hamas attack. Feels slightly nuts that I'm even having to point that out.rick_chasey said:
Nor would Israel with us backing etc.rjsterry said:
Neither are great powers. But I don't think Hamas would be carrying out attacks of that scale without Iran's funding.rick_chasey said:
No and that's far too reductive.rjsterry said:You don't think this is just a fight between Israel and Iran?
The great powers narrative is a easy way to explain things like Ukraine or this but it's inevitably more complicated.
Are they heavily involved on one side? Yes. As much as US is with Israel, probably.
Reminded of this on Twitter:
...
There's still a fundamental difference between that and deliberately murdering civilians in as gratuitous a way as possible, filming it all for broadcast and for zero strategic gain.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Of course it's an act if resistance and some of you are very much over estimating Hamas' capabilities. They are not equipped with anything like the capability of Hezbollah and Rick Is absolutely right that their tactic - namely terrorism - is dictated by their lack of alternative military option.
Israel has systematically been eliminating Palestine as an entity. Now you can argue it has justification for doing so if you want but they've flouted international law and killed many more Palestinians than vice versa.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Which Israel is ignoring. What Hamas did is clearly very wrong but Israel is playing into their hands. There is a huge gulf between defence and revenge, however understandable.rjsterry said:
Of course. And this was essentially Biden's warning to Israel to not repeat the same mistakes that America made, which led to the emergence of ISIS.pblakeney said:
I think I'd find air strikes pretty terrifying. Maybe that's just me. I'm of the opinion (and stated as much last week) that soon there will be no "good guys".rjsterry said:
Israel hasn't carried out anything like the Hamas attack. Feels slightly nuts that I'm even having to point that out.rick_chasey said:
Nor would Israel with us backing etc.rjsterry said:
Neither are great powers. But I don't think Hamas would be carrying out attacks of that scale without Iran's funding.rick_chasey said:
No and that's far too reductive.rjsterry said:You don't think this is just a fight between Israel and Iran?
The great powers narrative is a easy way to explain things like Ukraine or this but it's inevitably more complicated.
Are they heavily involved on one side? Yes. As much as US is with Israel, probably.
Reminded of this on Twitter:
...
There's still a fundamental difference between that and deliberately murdering civilians in as gratuitous a way as possible, filming it all for broadcast and for zero strategic gain.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
rjsterry said:
Of course. And this was essentially Biden's warning to Israel to not repeat the same mistakes that America made, which led to the emergence of ISIS.pblakeney said:
I think I'd find air strikes pretty terrifying. Maybe that's just me. I'm of the opinion (and stated as much last week) that soon there will be no "good guys".rjsterry said:
Israel hasn't carried out anything like the Hamas attack. Feels slightly nuts that I'm even having to point that out.rick_chasey said:
Nor would Israel with us backing etc.rjsterry said:
Neither are great powers. But I don't think Hamas would be carrying out attacks of that scale without Iran's funding.rick_chasey said:
No and that's far too reductive.rjsterry said:You don't think this is just a fight between Israel and Iran?
The great powers narrative is a easy way to explain things like Ukraine or this but it's inevitably more complicated.
Are they heavily involved on one side? Yes. As much as US is with Israel, probably.
Reminded of this on Twitter:
...
There's still a fundamental difference between that and deliberately murdering civilians in as gratuitous a way as possible, filming it all for broadcast and for zero strategic gain.
But that *was* the point - to provoke Israel. They weren't doing it for territorial gain. Not that I can for one minute get my head in the mindset of murdering innocent people so grotesquely, and knowing the probable armageddon it would bring to Gaza, but it has changed the dynamic of the area (and possibly the world). In terms of terrorism, 9/11 was equally 'eye catching', I think you'd admit, with no reason other than the terror/death and to provoke a reaction.0
