Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Israel - A Rant


Rashid
 Share

Recommended Posts

One of many annoyances about BBC reporting of Israel and Palestine is the phrase "considered to be against international law" to describe the occupation, the settlements, the annexation of lands seized in war, etc.

 

It's not a question of whether it's "considered" illegal  - it fucking is illegal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

One of many annoyances about BBC reporting of Israel and Palestine is the phrase "considered to be against international law" to describe the occupation, the settlements, the annexation of lands seized in war, etc.

 

It's not a question of whether it's "considered" illegal  - it fucking is illegal. 

The thing with the BBC is that they always try to be seen as impartial and therefore never take a position on anything. I haven’t really made up my mind whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing. It would’ve been interesting to see how they reported apartheid SA back then for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

The thing with the BBC is that they always try to be seen as impartial and therefore never take a position on anything. I haven’t really made up my mind whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing. It would’ve been interesting to see how they reported apartheid SA back then for example.

But surely the law is the law. By all means, call someone an alleged arsonist until they're proven guilty; but don't spread doubt over whether arson is illegal or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, viRdjil said:

The thing with the BBC is that they always try to be seen as impartial and therefore never take a position on anything. I haven’t really made up my mind whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing. It would’ve been interesting to see how they reported apartheid SA back then for example.

They would have glorified it just like Thatcher did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, viRdjil said:

The thing with the BBC is that they always try to be seen as impartial and therefore never take a position on anything. I haven’t really made up my mind whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing. It would’ve been interesting to see how they reported apartheid SA back then for example.

It’s a bad thing.  When they discuss climate change they have a denier to provide ‘balance’. That’s stupid. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too close to call in the election apparently. Don’t know why. 

 

Gantz has headed a campaign squarely focused on Netanyahu’s divisive politics and personal scandals, presenting himself as a clean and responsible alternative.



To win support from Israeli rightwingers and settlers, both men have attempted to sell the promise of an expansionist Israel that extends its borders deep into Palestinian territory.

Netanyahu vowed last week to declare up to a third of the occupied West Bank as part of Israel if he was re-elected and Gantz swiftly accused his political opponent of stealing his idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like a bit of a nightmare for either side to form a coalition as the two main parties have 32/31 but the third party will not support either unless Netanyahu & Gantz go into a coalition together. Reported as a massive smack in the face for Netanyahu as he only really called the election to try to get a big enough majority to allow him to give himself immunity against the corruption charges he is facing and it looks as if he will almost certainly not be the new premier however the coalitions work out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
Just now, Nelly-Torres said:

Wow. And I imagine it won't be in normal prison conditions. He will probably get put up in a nice hotel and just told to stay out of the way of people for a month. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...