Israeli and Palestinian conflict

[leicsmac]

Just now, st albans fox said:

This was in the aftermath -  bbc world - it matters  - oh yeah - ‘according to Palestinian officials’.  I’m sure everyone reads that ….

 

 

It's right there in the headline. I'm not sure what's wrong with that reporting or how they could add more clarity.

[bmt]

56 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

They BBC seem very ready to believe the worst of Israel.  It is disappointing.

I find this comment a bit weird to be honest. As pointed out BBC has tried to report objectively and has slipped up in its reporting of other things (see my support of hamas comment).

 

But I find "believe the worst of Israel" quite weird. Not like they've systematically oppressed a group of people for a large period of time, shown blatant disregard for Gazan civilians in this conflict and DID hit a UN school which is sheltering thousands of people literally 10 mins before news about this came hospital strike came out is it?

[st albans fox]

Just now, leicsmac said:

It's right there in the headline. I'm not sure what's wrong with that reporting or how they could add more clarity.

If you can’t see it then you’re not looking properly mac

How about 

‘Hamas health officials have reported that an explosion at a hospital has caused many casualties.  Awaiting more details’

 

 The way it’s presented - look at the quoted bbc headline below - ‘officials’. Most people will read that as being ‘official’ - true - fact. 

 

[Bryn]

57 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

They BBC seem very ready to believe the worst of Israel.  It is disappointing.

Yawn.

 

This isn’t Russia unilaterally invading their neighbour for no reason but to gain power. It’s far more complicated. The initial narrative was entirely pro-Israel but it’s far more complicated with fault on both sides. There was rightly a backlash against this unimpartial reporting not just from the BBC, as it was not reflective of the reality nor of how people in this country as a whole see it.

 

Whenever the BBC doesn’t just propagate tedious conservative boomer nonsense it’s always disappointing to tedious conservative boomers.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

If you can’t see it then you’re not looking properly mac

How about 

‘Hamas health officials have reported that an explosion at a hospital has caused many casualties.  Awaiting more details’

 

 The way it’s presented - look at the quoted bbc headline below - ‘officials’. Most people will read that as being ‘official’ - true - fact. 

 

Hmmmm... it doesn't stop the original headline being accurate, nor is it a lie of omission (a favoured tactic along some media outlets).

 

I can see what you mean about framing of sentences and statements being very important, though.

 

Still maintain that the Beeb are doing the best they can and I'd go to them for reliable information on this matter before practically anyone else, though.

[Trav Le Bleu]

This is all a bit, I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy.

 

We didn't bomb the hospital... Oh... The school?

 

I'm thinking they probably didn't bomb the hospital, but as I've said previously, point made, stop killing people.

 

And they call this civilisation.

[MPH]

2 hours ago, StanSP said:

I'm still sceptical given its a rep from Israel. 

 

would you believe a rep from Hamas? 

[ClaphamFox]

17 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

This is all a bit, I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy.

 

We didn't bomb the hospital... Oh... The school?

 

I'm thinking they probably didn't bomb the hospital, but as I've said previously, point made, stop killing people.

 

And they call this civilisation.

Yes, not killing people is always better than the alternative. And I agree with those who think it would be best if Israel opted against a ground invasion, which would inevitably cost many innocent lives.

 

But it does raise the question of what happens next. Hamas invaded Israel and committed a genocide in the most horrific way imaginable. It will do so again and again if it is not stopped. A return to the pre-October 7 world is not possible. The blockade of Gaza will never be lifted while Hamas remains in charge. Hamas is not going to willingly give up power (it is an Islamic death cult, not a political movement). Ordinary Palestinians probably don't have the means, and may not even have the will, to overthrow Hamas.

So what do we do now?

Edited 18 October 2023 by ClaphamFox

[ClaphamFox]

4 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

would you believe a rep from Hamas? 

You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) at just how many people on social media appear willing to automatically dismiss everything Israel says as lies while automatically believing everything Hamas says without question. It really is quite extraordinary.

[MPH]

Anyone here speak Arabic?

 

 

i don’t suppose there is a way to know if this is genuine or not…

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) at just how many people on social media appear willing to automatically dismiss everything Israel says as lies while automatically believing everything Hamas says without question. It really is quite extraordinary.

And likewise the other way, usually on bigger media outlets (looking at you, UK print media).

 

There's a glut of misinformation coming from all sides here. Which makes it very difficult for the Average Joe trying to make sense of it all while being pressured to pick a side in a conflict where both are treating the death of innocent people as secondary to their objectives.

[ARTY_FOX]

No outlet is neutral regardless oh what they may say. There's always a path they're pointing you towards. 

[Mickyblueeyes]

I think the difficult thing post invason is that there is so much distrust (rightly so) by the Palestinians of the UK, US and Israel that any regime placed in play by any of them will just not be trusted. Recent examples also show the US and UK are just not very good at it. 

 

Its like Afghanistan - not only were they bombed, the Taliban forced out and a new Govt in play, within moments of external forces leaving, the Taliban were back in as if they hadnt been away. The reality is, where people feel aggrieved, there will always be a brutal force seen as "resistance". 

 

I think it is a bit different in Palestine. 1, There are some incredible expat Palestinian speakers, academics who are still trusted in both the West Bank and Gaza - these people need to be engaged on any future process. 2. The Palestinian people with hope of a homeland WITH unrestricted access to the Temple Mount/Al Aqsa would be seen as a win. 3. While there is distrust of Arab nations too, parties like Saudi, Qatar and perhaps Kuwait could play a vital role in future plans. 4. I'll get pelters for this but Iran will probably need to be involved somewhere. 5. Money - Palestinians feel agrieved - there will need to be some money coming in to "rebuild". 5. Palestinians do have a mixture of cultures and other religions. Some have taken part in the millitant groups but not all. Its important to engage those in any furture governance plans. 

 

Basically, Hamas needs to be destroyed but to end the cycle, you need to take the cause away from the loud minority and offer hope and a future to the silent majority. An indiscriminate bombing campaign with Israeli tanks rolling in is not going to be seen as a long term victory for the average Palestinian and we will very likely be back here in a year or 2. 

 

How we get there - not a clue.

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, ARTY_FOX said:

No outlet is neutral regardless oh what they may say. There's always a path they're pointing you towards. 

Perhaps Reuters/Associated Press are closest?

[ARTY_FOX]

12 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

I think the difficult thing post invason is that there is so much distrust (rightly so) by the Palestinians of the UK, US and Israel that any regime placed in play by any of them will just not be trusted. Recent examples also show the US and UK are just not very good at it. 

 

Its like Afghanistan - not only were they bombed, the Taliban forced out and a new Govt in play, within moments of external forces leaving, the Taliban were back in as if they hadnt been away. The reality is, where people feel aggrieved, there will always be a brutal force seen as "resistance". 

 

I think it is a bit different in Palestine. 1, There are some incredible expat Palestinian speakers, academics who are still trusted in both the West Bank and Gaza - these people need to be engaged on any future process. 2. The Palestinian people with hope of a homeland WITH unrestricted access to the Temple Mount/Al Aqsa would be seen as a win. 3. While there is distrust of Arab nations too, parties like Saudi, Qatar and perhaps Kuwait could play a vital role in future plans. 4. I'll get pelters for this but Iran will probably need to be involved somewhere. 5. Money - Palestinians feel agrieved - there will need to be some money coming in to "rebuild". 5. Palestinians do have a mixture of cultures and other religions. Some have taken part in the millitant groups but not all. Its important to engage those in any furture governance plans. 

 

Basically, Hamas needs to be destroyed but to end the cycle, you need to take the cause away from the loud minority and offer hope and a future to the silent majority. An indiscriminate bombing campaign with Israeli tanks rolling in is not going to be seen as a long term victory for the average Palestinian and we will very likely be back here in a year or 2. 

 

How we get there - not a clue.

Slightly different in that the afghan population didn't actually want us out for the very reason we saw. 

[ARTY_FOX]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps Reuters/Associated Press are closest?

Sadly closest is the best you can ask for. Aslong as you can keep an open mind and do your own research you'll always be alot better off. Something many do not do these days 

 

 

(I don't mean you specifically, just people in  general) 

Edited 18 October 2023 by ARTY_FOX

[ClaphamFox]

23 minutes ago, ARTY_FOX said:

No outlet is neutral regardless oh what they may say. There's always a path they're pointing you towards. 

I think this is unfair. I worked in the media at the beginning of my career and have many friends who still work there. And I know this squarely contradicts popular perception, but there are many, many journalists out there who genuinely want to report the truth and are not parroting an editorial line they've been given. Certain outlets, particularly in the print media, clearly have an angle they're likely to pursue, but by no means all do. Sometimes it seems that the public believes journalists are just taken aside and told to report something, and then just cheerfully obey orders even if they don't actually believe the thing they're reporting. But that wasn't my experience and I know it's not the experience of the people I know who still work in the media.

Edited 18 October 2023 by ClaphamFox

[StanSP]

56 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

would you believe a rep from Hamas? 

Nope! 

[ARTY_FOX]

21 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

I think this is unfair. I worked in the media at the beginning of my career and have many friends who still work there. And I know this squarely contradicts popular perception, but there are many, many journalists out there who genuinely want to report the truth and are not parroting an editorial line they've been given. Certain outlets, particularly in the print media, clearly have an angle they're likely to pursue, but by no means all do. Sometimes it seems that the public believes journalists are just taken aside and told to report something, and then just cheerfully obey orders even if they don't actually believe the thing they're reporting. But that wasn't my experience and I know it's not the experience of the people I know who still work in the media.

I understand why what I'm saying could cause offence, Its not what I'm intending. I also know people in the media. Im not saying they all intentionally mislead people. I do believe most want to report what they believe to be true. Not all but most. However you'll never get a truly neutral report because someone has come to their conclusion and that's the path your set upon (where intentions are more pure). 

 

I've worded this horrifically aswell as I'm at work. So apologies. 

Edited 18 October 2023 by ARTY_FOX

[Lionator]

37 minutes ago, ARTY_FOX said:

No outlet is neutral regardless oh what they may say. There's always a path they're pointing you towards. 

Yep, the BBC tows the government line realistically when it comes to foreign policy.

 

For example, can you imagine the outrage if the BBC 'both sided' the conflict in Ukraine? Likewise with China, despite us knowing little about internal Chinese politics, they are reported through a hostile state lens by the BBC. There is nothing wrong with that of course.

[ClaphamFox]

2 minutes ago, ARTY_FOX said:

I understand why what I'm saying could cause offence, Its not what I'm intending. I also know people in the media. Im not saying they all intentionally mislead people. I do believe most want to report what they believe to be true. Not all but most. However you'll never get a truly neutral report because someone has come to their conclusion and that's the path your set upon (where intentions are more pure). 

Of course, but there's a big difference between a journalist who has studied the evidence and formed an honest conclusion (which may be flawed) and one who has been told to parrot a certain line and just dutifully obeyed orders. There are undoubtedly some who fall in the latter camp, but far fewer, I suspect, than is generally believed.

 

Just now, Lionator said:

Yep, the BBC tows the government line realistically when it comes to foreign policy.

 

For example, can you imagine the outrage if the BBC 'both sided' the conflict in Ukraine? Likewise with China, despite us knowing little about internal Chinese politics, they are reported through a hostile state lens by the BBC. There is nothing wrong with that of course.

Last night the BBC was falling over itself to blame Israel for the hospital explosion. Like many other media outlets it is now backtracking. As it happens I don't think the problem with the BBC's reporting was one of bias, but rather one of undue haste. But they certainly weren't towing the government line.

 

 

[MPH]

27 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Of course, but there's a big difference between a journalist who has studied the evidence and formed an honest conclusion (which may be flawed) and one who has been told to parrot a certain line and just dutifully obeyed orders. There are undoubtedly some who fall in the latter camp, but far fewer, I suspect, than is generally believed.

 

Last night the BBC was falling over itself to blame Israel for the hospital explosion. Like many other media outlets it is now backtracking. As it happens I don't think the problem with the BBC's reporting was one of bias, but rather one of undue haste. But they certainly weren't towing the government line.

 

 

 

 

Its also possible to give a ' balanced view' yet omit 1-2 very important details and those 1-2 views can be monumental in your decision making and opinion-forming

 

 

To me it can often be like a husband arguing. She has her version, he has his. The truth is often somewhere in the middle.  I'll often listen to more than one news report to try and form an opinion on an event.

[ARTY_FOX]

37 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Of course, but there's a big difference between a journalist who has studied the evidence and formed an honest conclusion (which may be flawed) and one who has been told to parrot a certain line and just dutifully obeyed orders. There are undoubtedly some who fall in the latter camp, but far fewer, I suspect, than is generally believed.

 

Last night the BBC was falling over itself to blame Israel for the hospital explosion. Like many other media outlets it is now backtracking. As it happens I don't think the problem with the BBC's reporting was one of bias, but rather one of undue haste. But they certainly weren't towing the government line.

 

 

Yes there is. I hadn't accessed anyone of the opposite? 

 

Just suggesting doing your own research and taking what your told with a pinch of salt. 

[CosbehFox]

4 hours ago, RowlattsFox said:

With all the tragedy that's happened since, the Israeli hostages are mainly forgot about. Can't see a positive ending for them one way or another. Would releasing them de-escalate the situation in the short term? 

 

What I don't understand is how little Hamas or other militant groups care about their citizens, potentially firing rockets next door to a hospital for ****s sake. 

I fear a repeat of Srebrenica for those hostages. (Good example there of why UN peacekeepers isn't always the answer). 

 

I am surprised at many's opinion towards the BBC here. Breaking news is never clear. They did exactly the same thing when two missiles landed in Poland recently and claimed it was Russia. When it was Ukraine. That's the news cycle and how it works in the current era. News has never been so 'live' as it is now. 

Edited 18 October 2023 by CosbehFox

[MPH]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Hmmmm... it doesn't stop the original headline being accurate, nor is it a lie of omission (a favoured tactic along some media outlets).

 

I can see what you mean about framing of sentences and statements being very important, though.

 

Still maintain that the Beeb are doing the best they can and I'd go to them for reliable information on this matter before practically anyone else, though.

 

 

I suppose right now looking back at it a potential headline could have been  " Hamas rocket misfires destroying hospital, according to Israeli officials"

 

 

 

If you are only going to mention one opinion in your headline, people will add truth to that. Especially if that report comes from an established and ( somewhat) respected news source.