/ Newsnight bias, Again!

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
krikoman - on 17 Nov 2016

I know I've mentioned this before, and I don't know why I feel the need to post again about this, but FFS.

If the BBC is being accused of bias towards the Israeli government, why aren't they more careful? Do they even care, or do they do it anyway?

Is there ever anyone else on Newsnight who you would expect to never be challenged on anything they say? Except a member of the Israeli government.

Last nights Newsnight at 28 minutes in we get Kirsty "interviewing" Yair Lapid, where he gets tell his version of what anti-Semitism is.

In the absence of Kirsty asking any questions I asked a few of my own, maybe the UKC massive can enlighten me.

For the record and so we don't get into the "you're anti-Semitic", "no I'm not" argument. I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm pro Palestine and dislike a lot of the things the Israeli government is doing, but I don't want Israel to disappear.

Kristy, leading question "What do you put the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe down to?"
Yair, "People are now surrounded by people who don't like anyone different than them and us Jews are different."

Me, "What about the Arabs aren't they different to Jews in Israel? Does this not apply to them?"

Kristy, "But you do accept it's on the rise"
He then decides it might not be on the rise but legitimised.

Yair, "Jeremy Corbyn has a problem with Jews" , "he never calls us his friends", the best Kirsty can come up with is to repeat what he just said!

Me, "But are we sure there were Jews at the meeting, which he's talking about, if there were (and I don't know if any were invited) I'm pretty sure they'd have been called friends too."

Yair, "have we come to the point in the world where everything is just a narrative, or truth counts..."

Me, "What about the truth for the Palestinians, what about the truth for the people who's homes are being demolished so Israel can occupy more territory?"

Kirsty, "Is it possible to be anti-Zionist and not be anti-Semitic?"

Yair, "I think not I have no problem with Jews I just don't like what Israel is doing....."
"When you don't know something you go to the experts, .... you know who the experts are? The Jews."

Me, "So what about the Jews who are speaking out about what Israel is doing? Are they anti-Semites?
How can people criticise the Israeli government and not be accused of anti-Semitism?"

Why did she just sit there and listen to every word this bloke spouts without ANY challenge what so ever?

does anyone else get a free ride on Newsnight?
Post edited at 00:32
10
winhill - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> For the record and so we don't get into the "you're anti-Semitic", "no I'm not" argument. I'm not anti-Semitic,

"I'm not racist but..."

You don't get to arrogantly tell people what you are, they judge you by your Jew baiting.
44
krikoman - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to winhill:

> "I'm not racist but..."

> You don't get to arrogantly tell people what you are, they judge you by your Jew baiting.

Thanks that's really helped clarify the questions I had. If only the rest of the world was so easily sorted out, it's all my fault.

of course there was no BUT their either BUT you chose to see one.

Cheers
3
Jim Fraser - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

If you barge in and steal somebody else's country your a c9nt.

Dakota, Palestine, Formosa, New South Wales: c9nts.


Next question.

5
aln - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

If you were on the programme why didn't YOU do the challenging questioning?
2
jondo - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to Jim Fraser:
> If you barge in and steal somebody else's country your a c9nt.

> Dakota, Palestine, Formosa, New South Wales: c9nts.

> Next question.

I think a few history books would do you good.
No matter where you live, surely one of your ancestors treated a native wrong, so you are a c*nt. Fraser logic.

Next comment...
Post edited at 04:08
6
krikoman - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to aln:

> If you were on the programme why didn't YOU do the challenging questioning?

Again very enlightening, but I don't see where it says I was on the programme.

I was obviously asking the questions that Krirsty SHOULD have been asking, but she never really asked any questions rather lead Mr. Lapid where they both wanted to go.

They might have given a warning beforehand saying, "and now here's a five minute advert by the Israeli government" then just let him say whatever he wanted to.
4
krikoman - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:

> I think a few history books would do you good.

> No matter where you live, surely one of your ancestors treated a native wrong, so you are a c*nt. Fraser logic.

> Next comment...

Don't you think we've moved on a bit since the Romans were around?
5
Duncan Bourne - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

I do take your point that if you are kicking someone in the head and someone calls you out for it saying that they are a racist for doing so is deflecting the argument from a genuine concern. That said I also understand that Israel has to be tough to hold onto a country that was carved out of other countries by other countries.
jondo - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Don't you think we've moved on a bit since the Romans were around?

almost everyone in the 'west' has moved around countless times. who knows their own heritage more than a few generations anyway ?
people hold on to identities and nationalities for comfort. sense of safety.
unfortunately that often leads to the most unsafe circumstances - that of war.
jondo - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Again very enlightening, but I don't see where it says I was on the programme.

> I was obviously asking the questions that Krirsty SHOULD have been asking, but she never really asked any questions rather lead Mr. Lapid where they both wanted to go.

> They might have given a warning beforehand saying, "and now here's a five minute advert by the Israeli government" then just let him say whatever he wanted to.

maybe the BBC feels it should be like that precisely because they were biased in the past ?
unfortunately two wrongs doesn't make a right.
the really tough questions would be relating to the process of settlement. what are the real reasons ? strategic depth concerns is one big factor (take a look at the map of the region..).
ideology another.
i would bet that money and corruption up there. (follow the $ trail).
it is peculiar that israelis have in fact lost their demographic majority in the north and south of israel and invested everything in settlements that would be hard to sustain in the long run (with the exception of those close to Jerusalem) and impossible to evacuate .
Offwidth - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

So in what senses exactly are you pro Palestine? Are you supportive of Hamas who continue to murderously attack their neigbours (including other Palestinian groups)? Some ex SWP members I know that are now Momentum and Labour were effectively apologists for terrorist acts and we wonder why the Israel government gets twitchy with Jeremy (who's had a long history of associating with SWP linked organisations like Stop the War).
4
krikoman - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:

> maybe the BBC feels it should be like that precisely because they were biased in the past ?
But they keep telling people they are not biased, so we should expect better, it shouldn't matter what happened in the past

> unfortunately two wrongs doesn't make a right.

Agree

> the really tough questions would be relating to the process of settlement. what are the real reasons ? strategic depth concerns is one big factor (take a look at the map of the region..).

Any question would have been better than what we got, I'm bemused to be honest.


1
krikoman - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> So in what senses exactly are you pro Palestine?

I the way that people should have the right to live without the threat of violence.

That they shouldn't have land and housing taken away by force.

That they shouldn't be collectively punished for the actions of a few.

That they should have the right to self determination.

That they should be able to trade freely and to have access to electricity and water.

That they shouldn't be blockaded into a ghetto.

Mostly that they be treated fairly, how you might treat someone in your own family, that's probably the easiest way to put it.
2
Dr.S at work - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

It was quite clearly stated that it was an excerpt from a much longer interview.
Mike Highbury - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman: Nurse, Nurse!

2
jondo - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

"When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent.

Do you see why it is violent?

Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind.

When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence.

So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind. "

- Jiddu Krishnamurti

not sure it necessarily breeds violence in every individual. certainly for the masses though.

1
winhill - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to Jim Fraser:

> If you barge in and steal somebody else's country your a c9nt.

> Dakota, Palestine, Formosa, New South Wales: c9nts.

> Next question.

Pakistan?

Jerusalem?
2
winhill - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

Krishnan Guru-Murthy shows how it's done with Jeremy Corbyn getting a bit angry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOZZF5XCDBM
2
krikoman - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to winhill:
> Krishnan Guru-Murthy shows how it's done with Jeremy Corbyn getting a bit angry:


At least he asked some questions and I think JC explained what the issue was and why he used the terms "friends".

Shouldn't the whole world be friends? If he'd have said, "I'd like to welcome our friends from..... but not Israel" then obviously this is very different.

It's pretty obvious he was getting angry because he was being interrupted all the time.

Whereas Kirsty, didn't ask one probing question or interrupt at any point, so what was the point of the interview?
Post edited at 09:53
2
krikoman - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:


> Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind.

Unfortunately the quote separates itself from roughly 50% of humankind because of the word "man", so you see how ludicrous the statement is?

I doesn't necessarily follow that there is violence or that labels create violence, I'm a an Electrical Engineer, it doesn't mean people are going to hate me because of it, or that I hate Plumbers because they are different.

I understand the sentiment, of tribalism, but it doesn't have to be violent in any way, only for people who want it to be.

We haven't gone to war with Scotland or Wales fro a considerable length of time, so I don't see the relevance.

It's not labels that make trouble it's people using labels for their own ends.
4
Postmanpat on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Whereas Kirsty, didn't ask one probing question or interrupt at any point, so what was the point of the interview?
>
Did you miss the long preamble in which Evan Davies explained that this was a short excerpt from a long interview which took place a week or two previously and, because it was overtaken world events, they had never managed to screen and hence they only screened this short excerpt?

Castleman - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

Does that make it worse though? That in the extract they didn't show any challenging of his view - so possibly presenting a more biased impression that was actually the case in the interview?

1
Postmanpat on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to Castleman:
> Does that make it worse though? That in the extract they didn't show any challenging of his view - so possibly presenting a more biased impression that was actually the case in the interview?

Possibly, but the segment was never presented as a time restricted opportunity to do more than highlight a few of the new Israeli PM's views. So it highlighted a few of the more interesting ones.
Post edited at 11:01
jondo - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> Unfortunately the quote separates itself from roughly 50% of humankind because of the word "man", so you see how ludicrous the statement is?

you didn't seem so pedantic in earlier posts

> I doesn't necessarily follow that there is violence or that labels create violence, I'm a an Electrical Engineer, it doesn't mean people are going to hate me because of it, or that I hate Plumbers because they are different.

> I understand the sentiment, of tribalism, but it doesn't have to be violent in any way, only for people who want it to be.

> We haven't gone to war with Scotland or Wales fro a considerable length of time, so I don't see the relevance.

> It's not labels that make trouble it's people using labels for their own ends.

well, it wasn't I who said it. I see your points.
I think he was stressing that when we label ourselves or others it creates the potential for hostility in certain scenarios. so if you are an electrical engineer then in some scenario you may look at plumbers based on the fact they are plumbers and not just people.
meaning in different situations the humanity of others can take a secondary importance over 'what they are'.

doesn't matter in the end i guess, people are half ape, half abstract thinkers.
the ape usually wins....
Post edited at 11:09
1
jondo - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Possibly, but the segment was never presented as a time restricted opportunity to do more than highlight a few of the new Israeli PM's views. So it highlighted a few of the more interesting ones.

'the new Israeli PM' ?
wishful thinking , at least for the secular capitalist center-right Israelis.
Postmanpat on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:

> 'the new Israeli PM' ?

> wishful thinking , at least for the secular capitalist center-right Israelis.

Whoops, got carried away!!
1
krikoman - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Did you miss the long preamble in which Evan Davies explained that this was a short excerpt from a long interview which took place a week or two previously and, because it was overtaken world events, they had never managed to screen and hence they only screened this short excerpt?

No I didn't, but it would have been more honest if he'd said, "We had an interview with Mr.Lapid, but we haven't got time to show it all, so here's a party political broadcast on behalf of Israel"

If you're suggesting that brevity should discount any reasonable challenge or debate then what's the point? We all pretty much know how most Israeli politicians are going project Israel, if there's no challenge to anything they say, he might have just as well come on and said, "Israel's ours because God gave it to us"

Even in that section of what was broadcast, there were opportunities to challenge Lapid on his assertions.

There are plenty of anti-Zionist Jews around for one.
Post edited at 11:54
4
aln - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Again very enlightening, but I don't see where it says I was on the programme.

You said in the OP "In the absence of Kirsty asking any questions I asked a few of my own" That sounds like you were on the programme, Kirsty didn't ask any questions, but you did.
5
krikoman - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to aln:

> You said in the OP "In the absence of Kirsty asking any questions I asked a few of my own" That sounds like you were on the programme, Kirsty didn't ask any questions, but you did.

I'm asking you, or the UKC massive or anyone that thinks if you're interviewing someone on a TV News / political program you don't just let then come on and tell you what they think, unchallenged.

Obviously if I'd been there I would have asked the questions posed.

Shouldn't we all be asking questions, isn't that were we gain more knowledge? (Ooops there's another one )
2
Mike Highbury - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> I'm asking you, or the UKC massive or anyone that thinks if you're interviewing someone on a TV News / political program you don't just let then come on and tell you what they think, unchallenged.

No, I don't believe that the insistence on balance in broadcast journalism is necessary at all times.
aln - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

That's not what you said. As for your point, I'm not sure. Maybe not asking too many questions can be the 'Give them enough rope' approach.
2
earlsdonwhu - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

You are assuming bias, which implies a deliberate strategy. Maybe she is just not a good interviewer and let the guy off the hook?
captain paranoia - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to aln:

> That sounds like you were on the programme,

Is krikoman a regular on Newsnight, then?

I didn't read it as him being on the programme; just that they were the questions he would have liked to have seen asked. I suspect deliberate 'misunderstanding' for effect on your part...

As to krikoman's OP, it does seem to me to be a particularly easy interview*, if reported accurately.

* whether due to the more taxing questions simply not being asked, or being edited out of the final transmitted 'highlights'.
3
aln - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to captain paranoia:

Are you his mum?
5
Dr.S at work - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> I'm asking you, or the UKC massive or anyone that thinks if you're interviewing someone on a TV News / political program you don't just let then come on and tell you what they think, unchallenged.

i think there is a continuum, I find (for instance) that KGM,s interview of Corbin was too aggressive, and did not allow him to express his views. In general I'd like more of the "long form" interviews where the subject can express their views. Modern news and politics is too shrill and catastrophises incessantly driving our discourse away from consensus to division.
That Shallot on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:


I know I've mentioned this before, and I don't know why I feel the need to post again about this, but FFS.

Go for it we are all ears ?



krikoman - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to earlsdonwhu:

> You are assuming bias, which implies a deliberate strategy. Maybe she is just not a good interviewer and let the guy off the hook?

But that's just it, she is a GOOD interviewer, so what happened?

KGMs good to, though I do think he went a bit too aggressively in the clip above.

Krirsty is usually very calm but tenacious one of the reasons I like her, so either she had a very bad day or the clip was very badly put together or she didn't care. Either way I don't think it was an interview at all.

And I don't expect all interviews to be balanced, but there were questions anyone could come up with to challenge Yair if even just slightly, no one bothered.

Considering the BBC are at pains to tell us they AREN'T biased, they didn't seem to bother about that either.
2
Offwidth - on 17 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:
Why is that Pro Palestine? Hammas are also guilty of failing at times on all of that list (affecting other Palestinian people). I'm no fan of the Isreal government but supporting a political structure that is even worse seems bonkers. Why is it always problems in Palestine the SWP raise loudest rather than the other countries where people fare even worse on your list? It sure looks like political rather than humanitarian motivation to me.
Post edited at 20:44
3
Dave Kerr - on 18 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:
What we need to end bias in the media is a gigantic pulsing news computer, programmed with all the facts and capable of issuing reports giving equal weight to all view points.

I've a suspicion that:

a. We'd hate it because it would be anodyne, stilted and dull.
b. Allegations of bias would continue because what people really want isn't unbiased news but news that tallies with their bias.
Post edited at 06:38
ian caton on 18 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

I agree with your sentiments.

I think the reason is that the formation of Israel is a done deal. By that I mean greater Israel including the West Bank. The Palestine of the British Protectorate included what is now called Jordan. Jordan was created by the British to limit the area of Jewish settlement. No Jews were allowed to settle in Jordan. That gave De facto green light for greater Israel. The difficulties of bringing that to fruition are:

1. The nastiness of nation state creation, usually hidden, but here on public display.

2. Our problem, we created it, hence the BBC line and also why other Arab countries are unwilling to step in and help.
2
GrahamD - on 18 Nov 2016
In reply to Dave Kerr:

> What we need to end bias in the media is a gigantic pulsing news computer, programmed with all the facts and capable of issuing reports giving equal weight to all view points.

That in its self is bias when some points of view are demostrably wrong. Climate change is a great one. The overwhelming concensus is that climate change is significantly and detrimentally affected by our activity, yet the BBC still give (not so recently to be fair) a disproportionate platform to nay sayers.
2
Hardonicus - on 18 Nov 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

I thought Lord Lawson was an expert? He has been chancellor after all?
krikoman - on 18 Nov 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> Why is that Pro Palestine? Hammas are also guilty of failing at times on all of that list (affecting other Palestinian people). I'm no fan of the Isreal government but supporting a political structure that is even worse seems bonkers. Why is it always problems in Palestine the SWP raise loudest rather than the other countries where people fare even worse on your list? It sure looks like political rather than humanitarian motivation to me.

What the SWP got to do with it, it's about humanity and caring for other people.

Hammas isn't any better but they weren't on the programme. The OP was about an Israeli minster getting a free ride on a news / political program, the piss poor interview is more of the issue here, rather than who's wrong or right.

I'd still like to know what anti-Zionist Jews are supposed to do?
Are they anti-Semitic, because that's what Lapid was saying.

No one here seems to have offered any suggestions, the best Mr. Winhill can come up with is calling me a racist.
1
MikeTS - on 18 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

If it is any consolation there is a whole organisation that monitors and reports the BBC for bias against Israel. https://bbcwatch.org/
So the BBC should self-censor and not allow Israelis to speak? Or they are obliged to interrupt when an interviewee disagrees with krikoman's rather extreme and fact-free anti-Israel views?
Or maybe listeners should be able to listen and make up their own minds??
6
MikeTS - on 18 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

On BBC2's Newsnight, Lapid said to Kirsty Wark, "Jeremy Corbyn [called] Hezbollah and Hamas his friends. These are terrorist organizations - for the EU, for international law - terrorists. He called them his friends."

Regarding Corbyn's relationship with Israel, Lapid continued: "He never called us his friends. So, he has got a problem with Jews."

So, you would require Kirsty to disagree and say Hamas and Hezbullah are not terrorists and should be friends with the UK?
3
Mike Highbury - on 18 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> No one here seems to have offered any suggestions, the best Mr. Winhill can come up with is calling me a racist.

Let's be frank here. If the cap can shrink enough, I reckon that it'll fit you very well indeed.
5
jondo - on 18 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> What the SWP got to do with it, it's about humanity and caring for other people.

> Hammas isn't any better but they weren't on the programme. The OP was about an Israeli minster getting a free ride on a news / political program, the piss poor interview is more of the issue here, rather than who's wrong or right.

> I'd still like to know what anti-Zionist Jews are supposed to do?

> Are they anti-Semitic, because that's what Lapid was saying.

> No one here seems to have offered any suggestions, the best Mr. Winhill can come up with is calling me a racist.

i remind you that you yourself are not anti zionist since you repeatedly say Israel has a right to exist.
the main idea of anti Zionists is that Israel should NOT exist, some would say the 'problem' should be corrected by war , others may suggest peaceful means.
just make up your mind on which of the two sides your'e on...

jondo - on 18 Nov 2016
In reply to ian caton:

> I agree with your sentiments.

> I think the reason is that the formation of Israel is a done deal. By that I mean greater Israel including the West Bank. The Palestine of the British Protectorate included what is now called Jordan. Jordan was created by the British to limit the area of Jewish settlement. No Jews were allowed to settle in Jordan. That gave De facto green light for greater Israel. The difficulties of bringing that to fruition are:

i think that is very simplified view of history.

> 2. Our problem, we created it, hence the BBC line and also why other Arab countries are unwilling to step in and help.

the UK was involved but far from 'created' it. the actual formation started in the 19th century and had other roots besides the British.
ian caton on 18 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:

Simplified - of course. But I believe essentially correct re: greater Israel.

Our problem - in that it was the British who created Jordan and hence defined greater Israel.

I agree that the beginnings of what became Israel started in the 19th C. and had little to do with us.

Give me a reliable source if you think I am way off.

1
ads.ukclimbing.com
jondo - on 18 Nov 2016
In reply to ian caton:

> Simplified - of course. But I believe essentially correct re: greater Israel.

> Our problem - in that it was the British who created Jordan and hence defined greater Israel.

> I agree that the beginnings of what became Israel started in the 19th C. and had little to do with us.

> Give me a reliable source if you think I am way off.

the British indeed created Jordan, as to the motives I am not sure.
It was created from the start as a state ruled by a minority, not unlike what was in Syria until a while ago.
It can be argued that Jordan is essentially bomb waiting to explode, though the current dictator seems to do a good job of keeping things silent.
Gerry_Doncaster - on 19 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

>I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm pro Palestine.....

Sadly being pro Palestine or even being the very slightest bit sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people is the very definition of anti-semitism in this modern world.
4
jondo - on 19 Nov 2016
In reply to Gerry_Doncaster:

> >I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm pro Palestine.....

> Sadly being pro Palestine or even being the very slightest bit sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people is the very definition of anti-semitism in this modern world.

really ? where does it say so except in your post ?
1
birdie num num - on 20 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:
You're passionate about the subject.
And you would like to replace one set of 'leading' questions, with your own set of leading questions
You have an opinion, and would like to steer an answer to bolster it. It's not unusual.
krikoman - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to birdie num num:

> You're passionate about the subject.

Yes.
> And you would like to replace one set of 'leading' questions, with your own set of leading questions

No I'd have like any question, but there weren't any real questions were there?

> You have an opinion, and would like to steer an answer to bolster it. It's not unusual.

Aren't the interviewers supposed to be neutral or at very least investigative?

Kirsty was piss poor and she isn't usually. It would have been great to get some real insight into the thinking of the possible future PM of Israel instead we got a monologue which we had for the past 30- 40 years..
1
krikoman - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:

> really ? where does it say so except in your post ?

Where would you like it to say so, would you like a affidavit from my Jewish friends, or are you happy just making your own mind up?
1
krikoman - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to MikeTS:

I'm not concerned about what they are labelling Corbyn as, I think he's explained his "friends" statement enough times, yet you still seem to think it means he loves Hezbollah and Hamas, yet hates Israel. You well know this statement was taken out of context, I realise others might not know, but I'm pretty certain you know.

And let's not forget that Hamas, were democratically elected.
I'm not a fan of Hamas or Hezbollah, so I won't try to defend them but that doesn't mean to say Mr.Lapid, should be given a free ride and not be asked an probing questions.


I'm still waiting for a possible explanation of how anti-Zionist Jews should be labelled anti-Semites? Maybe you might offer some suggestions?
1
krikoman - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to Gerry_Doncaster:

> >I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm pro Palestine.....

> Sadly being pro Palestine or even being the very slightest bit sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinian people is the very definition of anti-semitism in this modern world.

It doesn't seem to be far from the truth in most cases, the Jewish people calling for protest and boycotts seem to be branded "bad" Jews too.
1
Jon Stewart - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:

> i remind you that you yourself are not anti zionist since you repeatedly say Israel has a right to exist.

> the main idea of anti Zionists is that Israel should NOT exist, some would say the 'problem' should be corrected by war , others may suggest peaceful means.

> just make up your mind on which of the two sides your'e on...

You're using a definition of "anti-zionist" that suits your position, and then using that definition (not agreed by your opponent) to present a false dichotomy. It's not a good argument.
2
Jon Stewart - on 21 Nov 2016
jondo - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Where would you like it to say so, would you like a affidavit from my Jewish friends, or are you happy just making your own mind up?

i don't see why you feel you need to keep mention that you have Jewish friends.
i do not 'need' it to be said anywhere... this guy decided that any sympathy to Palestinians is immediately tagged as anti semitic... he is the one making accusations so i asked where does it say so except in his post ?
jondo - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> You're using a definition of "anti-zionist" that suits your position, and then using that definition (not agreed by your opponent) to present a false dichotomy. It's not a good argument.

aha, so mr Stewart what is your definition of anti Zionism.
would that be a definition that accepts Israel existing ?
a very strange definition indeed !
perhaps one where israelis are allowed to continue to breathe but live under Arab rule ?
any definition of Zionism roughly states that Jews have the right to a homeland where Israel exists today , not in Uganda or Texas.
If you are just anti west bank settlements, that not anti Zionism .
Post edited at 11:51
krikoman - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:

> i don't see why you feel you need to keep mention that you have Jewish friends.

> i do not 'need' it to be said anywhere... this guy decided that any sympathy to Palestinians is immediately tagged as anti semitic... he is the one making accusations so i asked where does it say so except in his post ?

But you included my original comment "> >I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm pro Palestine....." I said that, not anyone else.

Then you put this "> >I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm pro Palestine....."

So either you made a mistake or it looks like you telling me that only my post is saying I'm not anti-Semitic.
1
jondo - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> I'm not concerned about what they are labelling Corbyn as, I think he's explained his "friends" statement enough times, yet you still seem to think it means he loves Hezbollah and Hamas, yet hates Israel. You well know this statement was taken out of context, I realise others might not know, but I'm pretty certain you know.

> And let's not forget that Hamas, were democratically elected.

several murderous dictators in the XX century were also democratically elected.
how you got to power doesn't always mean a lot on how you wield that power.
If what Corbyn said was quoted out of context he could correct that statement easily and clearly. he did not choose to do so ....

> I'm not a fan of Hamas or Hezbollah, so I won't try to defend them but that doesn't mean to say Mr.Lapid, should be given a free ride and not be asked an probing questions.

who said he should be given a 'free ride' ?

> I'm still waiting for a possible explanation of how anti-Zionist Jews should be labelled anti-Semites? Maybe you might offer some suggestions?

why should they be labelled anti semites ?
some anti semites are anti Israel, some people are anti Israel without being anti semites.
pretty simple logic...
jondo - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> But you included my original comment "> >I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm pro Palestine....." I said that, not anyone else.

> Then you put this "> >I'm not anti-Semitic, I'm pro Palestine....."

> So either you made a mistake or it looks like you telling me that only my post is saying I'm not anti-Semitic.

not sure what you mean, but to sum it I don't see why sympathy for one group of people would automatically mean someone wishes bad things for another group who happen to be in conflict with the first group.
krikoman - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:

> any definition of Zionism roughly states that Jews have the right to a homeland where Israel exists today , not in Uganda or Texas.

> If you are just anti west bank settlements, that not anti Zionism .


Then you need to educate a LOT of Jewish people because that not what many of them think.

Like most of our language it's evolved and I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that most people not think it's different to your statement.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=anti-Zionist&gws_rd=ssl

http://www.nkusa.org/

http://www.ijan.org/

To name a few.
1
jondo - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Then you need to educate a LOT of Jewish people because that not what many of them think.

i don't know where you get statistics from, i imagine you havent asked millions of Jews.

> Like most of our language it's evolved and I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that most people not think it's different to your statement.




> To name a few.

again you link to these extremist websites (the fact that they are to your liking does not make them non extreme politically).
neturei karta is a bunch of nutter religious guys who would love to see Iran destroying Israel. they were good friends with Ahmadinijad , yeah that a*hole...
you really expect me to take anything a bunch of ultra religious nutters say seriously ?
regardless if they are Jewish , christian or bloody flying sphagetti monster priests...
(except fanatic Jedi's those are cool)

Jon Stewart - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:

> aha, so mr Stewart what is your definition of anti Zionism.

I don't have a definition of anti-zionism, I haven't used the term. But I would be happy to agree one if I was to enter a discussion about it.

If you want to have any meaningful debate in which you actually explore what other people believe and where you differ, then you'd need to agree definitions for the terms you're using (where the terms are controversial), otherwise all you get is confusion. You'll need to start by admitting that there is no shared definition of zionism that you can assume is being used (and by extension, anti-zionism).
Mike Highbury - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:
> I don't have a definition of anti-zionism, I haven't used the term. But I would be happy to agree one if I was to enter a discussion about it.

But I suspect that the vast majority of us aren't terribly interested in such a debate and certainly not here but left shuddering after KK's latest stream of bile.
1
krikoman - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:
Here's another "extremist "website that might shed some light on it for you

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-zionist-case-for-boycotting-israel/2015/10/23/ac4dab80-735...

Note the date, and tell me where the improvements have made since then.

I picked the first three sites I came to.

I must admit this is very extreme, "We support full Palestinian self-determination and the right to resist occupation. We look to the Palestinian grassroots and Palestinian-led organizations as our primary points of reference in this struggle."

Too busy to rehash the same old arguments again and again, but JVP are anti-Zionist and their membership is neither insignificant nor nut case radicals.

If you'd rather substitute anti-Expansionist for anti-Zionist, feel free, it still doesn't excuse Kristy not asking the question!

If nothing else it would have given Mr. Lapid an opportunity to explain the difference and what we should be calling it. Once again, we all know what we're talking about, and it's not the destruction of Israel, but it's useful tactic to stop the conversation and halt any discussion of the real issues.
Post edited at 12:53
krikoman - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> But I suspect that the vast majority of us aren't terribly interested in such a debate and certainly not here but left shuddering after KK's latest stream of bile.

If KK refers to me, I don't think there was much bile at all. I just don't understand why the Israeli Government seems to get such an easy ride.

An if you think that being anti-Zionist is also anti-Semitic then I'm all ears on why you think so.

Would YOU prefer anti-Expansionist?

I might agree with you that at it's inception Zionism meant something different than it does today, if that's your argument. But when I was a lad it wasn't unheard of for someone to get a good fisting, and for both participants to remain fully clothed, so language does change and evolve.
jondo - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:
>You'll need to start by admitting that there is no shared definition of zionism that you can assume is being used (and by extension, anti-zionism).

for sure there is a mainstream definition of Zionism.

"a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann"

- first dictionary googled definition.

so anti zionism would mean you are against the establishment and development of Israel - meaning you would like it to cease to exist as a Jewish state.
Post edited at 13:13
Jon Stewart - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> But I suspect that the vast majority of us aren't terribly interested in such a debate

Well perhaps it would have been helpful to avoid manifestly false statements being used in place of arguments: "the main idea of anti Zionists is that Israel should NOT exist". That statement can't be true without a common understanding of anti-zionism.
2
jondo - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Here's another "extremist "website that might shed some light on it for you


> Note the date, and tell me where the improvements have made since then.

> I picked the first three sites I came to.

> I must admit this is very extreme, "We support full Palestinian self-determination and the right to resist occupation. We look to the Palestinian grassroots and Palestinian-led organizations as our primary points of reference in this struggle."

> Too busy to rehash the same old arguments again and again, but JVP are anti-Zionist and their membership is neither insignificant nor nut case radicals.

> If you'd rather substitute anti-Expansionist for anti-Zionist, feel free, it still doesn't excuse Kristy not asking the question!

> If nothing else it would have given Mr. Lapid an opportunity to explain the difference and what we should be calling it. Once again, we all know what we're talking about, and it's not the destruction of Israel, but it's useful tactic to stop the conversation and halt any discussion of the real issues.

im the last person to think politicians shouldn't be asked tough and embarassing questions regardless where they come from.
"We support full Palestinian self-determination and the right to resist occupation..."
can mean MANY things. for instance self determination can mean replacing Israel rather than co-existing. 'resist occupation' can mean armed resistance.
If you bothered to really check what the PA is all about you would notice that both cases are what they are actually after. the armed resistance didn't work out 12-15 years ago, but they still refuse to recognize Israel as a JEWISH state, and that point which they are very very insistent on has been a major obstacle for the Israeli side, not excusing the Israeli government's part in the stalemate.
Jon Stewart - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:
> - first dictionary googled definition.

I know. But that doesn't answer any of the questions about what it means to be a zionist, of which there are many permutations (religious and secular being two obvious strains).

> so anti zionism would mean you are against the establishment and development of Israel - meaning you would like it to cease to exist as a Jewish state.

No, that's what you mean by it. Ask a load of different people who say they're anti-zionist, and then you'll get an idea of what they mean by it. If it's so simple, then can you explain why the wikipedia article is so long?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism
Post edited at 13:23
1
jondo - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I know. But that doesn't answer any of the questions about what it means to be a zionist, of which there are many permutations (religious and secular being two obvious strains).

> No, that's what you mean by it. Ask a load of different people who say they're anti-zionist, and then you'll get an idea of what they mean by it. If it's so simple, then can you explain why the wikipedia article is so long?



well , i would agree that people have used the term differently, but i still think that anti Zionism mostly means someone is against the right of Jews to settle in Israel (67 borders) and/or the continued development and existence (more extreme version) of Israel as a Jewish nation. that would be the most straightforward definition in my opinion.

Jon Stewart - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:

Now you've been pretty explicit about what you mean, that's going to be helpful. I think that the term "Jewish nation/state" is ambiguous and controversial but anyway...
1
Mike Highbury - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> If KK refers to me, I don't think there was much bile at all. I just don't understand why the Israeli Government seems to get such an easy ride.

I know, I know, it's appalling that the Govt gets such a soft ride. You should read the Jewish Chronicle, it burns my eyes, never a cross word said.

And, yes, my apols for the ambiguity, I usually call you KKK.
jondo - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:


> If you'd rather substitute anti-Expansionist for anti-Zionist, feel free, it still doesn't excuse Kristy not asking the question!

you see that is one of the problems in world politics today. substituting anti-Zionist with anti-Expansionist is very problematic. that is taking one generic term ('expansionist') instead of a term related to a specific location and chain of history ('zionism').
that's exactly what anti-Zionists do especially in Europe, they see Israel as 'another case' of colonialism.. if asked about it they would quote Algeria and other examples without any regard to the fact that Israel was never a 'colony' of any empire.
anti-Expansionist would mean to me that you are against the development of Jewish settlements deemed illegal by the international community, a position many center viewed Israelis ('Zionists') hold as well....
krikoman - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:

> well , i would agree that people have used the term differently, but i still think that anti Zionism mostly means someone is against the right of Jews to settle in Israel (67 borders) and/or the continued development and existence (more extreme version) of Israel as a Jewish nation. that would be the most straightforward definition in my opinion.

Because that's what you want it to mean, because it suits your argument that you can't be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic. Why do you pick the 67 border as the standard? why not the 1948 border. If you actually look at what's happened to the borders over time perhaps you could come up with a year in which enough is enough.
1
krikoman - on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> I know, I know, it's appalling that the Govt gets such a soft ride. You should read the Jewish Chronicle, it burns my eyes, never a cross word said.

> And, yes, my apols for the ambiguity, I usually call you KKK.

Well that's a very good argument, you've obviously been thinking about that one for a long time, well done.

Of course you've done nothing but stick you fingers in your ears and gone la la la I can't hear you.

I'm sure they must mention the cross sometime or other.
1
ian caton on 21 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

Centenary of the Balfour declaration next year, so give it break, it will get done to death. That is, if the world hasn't ended in the mean time.
jondo - on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Because that's what you want it to mean, because it suits your argument that you can't be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic. Why do you pick the 67 border as the standard? why not the 1948 border. If you actually look at what's happened to the borders over time perhaps you could come up with a year in which enough is enough.

If you read my post you will see I did not imply anywhere that an anti-Zionist is automatically an anti-Semite. I meant the pre '67 border. I said you can be against the settlements deemed illegal and NOT be anti Zionist. my definition was pretty much 'Zionism is X by the dictionary, therefore anti Zionism is anti X'.

I will go even further, I can see why some liberal Europeans will want Israel to cease to exist (hardcore anti Zionism) and NOT be anti Semitic.
My explanation for that would be that these people have been brainwashed over the years by pro Palestinian media which equates Israel to colonialism, Nazism, and pretty much everything that is thought as evil. While these Europeans may not usually be an anti Semitic crowd they mostly read media that often is ('anti Jewish ' if you want to call it that). The Arab and Palestinian media is anti Jewish , they borrowed the worst classical anti Semitic imagery and use it freely on a daily basis in their media and mainstream education systems (even in Egypt, a 40 year peace partner of Israel).
Then they water it down a bit ('make it nice'), replace the word 'Jews' with the word 'Israelis' and put it on websites destined for the liberal European.
call it what you want that seems to be the 'cultural transmission' that happens.
krikoman - on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:

Why does any talk about Israel always end up NOT about anti-Semitism, but about semantics?

Why can't you just see that people don't like what the Israeli government are doing and what to speak out about the horrors they are inflicting. Why is that so hard, why is it always turned to "well you might be just being anti-Semitic".

Why can't people just care about others?
2
jondo - on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Why does any talk about Israel always end up NOT about anti-Semitism, but about semantics?

i'm pretty sure my last post wasn't about semantics. the FB page you linked a while back wasn't about semantics either , it was full of vile anti Semitism.

> Why can't you just see that people don't like what the Israeli government are doing and what to speak out about the horrors they are inflicting. Why is that so hard, why is it always turned to "well you might be just being anti-Semitic".

i can see that, but if 'people' presented things that way maybe people would not suggest they are anti semitic ? (speak out about what they say are horrors vs incitement for violence and vilifying Israelis or Jews in general - big difference ?)

> Why can't people just care about others?

good question.
1
ian caton on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:

I think k you will struggle to find d anti Jewish media in this country. Anti Israeli yes, but not anti Jewish.

People have a perfect right to think that Israel as a country shouldn't exist. The UN.mandate was for a homeland. There is semantics for you. I am not one.of them. It has just as much right as any other country to exist in my opinion, but the point is debatable.

However I couldn't ever see the Israeli government agreeing to the right to exist for a Palestinian state within Israel if the UN said that they should have a homeland there. Nor would I expect them to, likewise I would never expect the Palestinians to agree to the existence of Israel.

But as I said earlier it's a done deal, the greater Israel thing. There truly is no hope for the Palestinians which they know full well.
1
jondo - on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to ian caton:

> I think k you will struggle to find d anti Jewish media in this country. Anti Israeli yes, but not anti Jewish.

what do you mean 'this country' ? these days that has no meaning ....

> People have a perfect right to think that Israel as a country shouldn't exist. The UN.mandate was for a homeland. There is semantics for you. I am not one.of them. It has just as much right as any other country to exist in my opinion, but the point is debatable.

of course they have a right, i was debating what that opinion means.

> However I couldn't ever see the Israeli government agreeing to the right to exist for a Palestinian state within Israel if the UN said that they should have a homeland there. Nor would I expect them to, likewise I would never expect the Palestinians to agree to the existence of Israel.

the Israeli government already agreed for a two state solution. (Rabin, Barack, Olmert to name a few...). the Palestinians recognized the existence of Israel but not as a Jewish state. If you think the latter is just semantics... well what could i say to that....

> But as I said earlier it's a done deal, the greater Israel thing. There truly is no hope for the Palestinians which they know full well.

I don't know why you speak in the name of millions of people. I think the only done deal are certain blocks (cities) around Jerusalem, I think the rest which is 97+% of the west bank and all of Gaza are still negotiable. The deal back then was land exchange near Hebron for the areas around Jerusalem. It isn't much different to 15 years ago, the main thing that's changed is the level of mistrust and hate on both sides, and the complete lack of leadership.
ian caton on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:

You literally made me laugh out loud.
krikoman - on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to ian caton:

> You literally made me laugh out loud.

Ditto

jondo - on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

& caton :
well you can both entertain each other then.
here's some more you will both find funny :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2171227.stm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dizengoff_Center_suicide_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matza_restaurant_suicide_bombing

laughing my ass off :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gl-HzgpMBo

hahahaha

now upload some gaza war links and act like you care at all.
ive had enough of hypocrisy.
goodbye.
2
krikoman - on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:

Desmond Swayne MP (Conservative) said today in Parliament:

"Has [the Minister] walked the streets of Hebron, which Palestinians may not use? We used to call that apartheid."

It's not only the occupied West Bank where Israel's ethnic cleansing and apartheid policies affect Palestinians: Palestinian citizens of Israel are also subject to segregationist Israeli state crime.

In the Negev desert in Israel, Palestinian Bedouin face demolitions of their homes, in the attempt to drive them from their land.

Please write to your MP asking them to challenge today's planned demolition of Umm Al-Hiran, which threatens many families:

krikoman - on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:

2002
1996
2002

But what's happening NOW in the Negev, and two years ago in Gaza.

It would be easy to play Top Trumps with you and I know who'd win, but that isn't the point is it?

It's about doing the right thing, not who's right or wrong, but being humanitarian.

We can argue till the cows come home on who's the worst, but until people stop supporting or excusing the excesses of the Israeli government nothing is likely to change.

If you really think that comparing is a good rational for a post then you might like to read this http://imemc.org/article/75027/

181:21
krikoman - on 22 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:

And how for some good news

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20161121-muslims-christians-jews-raise-call-to-prayer-together-in-...

Maybe a little too biased for yourself, but it's good all the same
2
jondo - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> 2002

> 1996

> 2002

> But what's happening NOW in the Negev, and two years ago in Gaza.

the level of hypocrisy is beyond measurement.
you want videos of palestinians running over people from several months ago ?
go on youtube....
whats happening NOW in the negev ? illegal towns erected by Bedouin ?
you think if Israelis build something illegal it stays ? if I or you build something on public land in the UK it stays?
do you REALLY need examples of how Gypsies are treated in the UK and Europe ?

how about this for a terror attack ? (evidence emerging of deliberate arson).
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38088651

I wonder what the government here would do if someone tried to burn down a major city based on whatever ideology ?
Post edited at 14:02
1
Mike Highbury - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:
> whats happening NOW in the negev ? illegal towns erected by Bedouin ?

Just one moment comrade. KKK and his pals are crashing bores, that much we all know, but the Israeli authorities' recent treatment of the Bedouin is not to their credit.
krikoman - on 24 Nov 2016
In reply to Mike Highbury:

> Just one moment comrade. KKK and his pals are crashing bores, that much we all know, but the Israeli authorities' recent treatment of the Bedouin is not to their credit.

Thanks, for the second part not the first

Much as you may like to cast me as the anti-Christ, I'm really only after a little fair play.

Jondo, has pretty much convinced me he knows little about what's going on but is prepared to defend Israeli actions regardless.

Just for the record, I don't want to see Israel disappear, I'd like them to have a strong leader that is prepared to openly say and mean, he wants peace and to really try for it. I don't believe Bibi has ever wanted peace and never will.
1
jondo - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> Thanks, for the second part not the first

> Much as you may like to cast me as the anti-Christ, I'm really only after a little fair play.

> Jondo, has pretty much convinced me he knows little about what's going on

Two jokes in two lines!
If you knew what I know your jaw would drop a little, no showing off intended here.
Post edited at 18:00
jondo - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to Mike Highbury:

I am not defending the israeli government, but if i was leading it i would probably take down illegal shanty towns built by bedouin or anyone else, including settlers in the west bank.
The bedouin have many social problems, sone i think is the states fault, others is just a never ending escalation of organized crime, etc... (the biggest drug smuggling operations and crime families in the area are bedouin).
The state responsibility is to solve these complex problems, but i think the rule of law should be above everything meaning if anyone builds illegally it should either be taken down or made legal somehow.

I Really cant see how israel treats the bedouin worse than europe treats it's current immigrants or it's long standing roma population which are treated like ABSOLUTE SHIT.
1
Mike Highbury - on 26 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:
> Two jokes in two lines!

You've got to cut the Goyim a bit of slack here. They ain't natural at the jokes and all that but, in any case, I thought that the anti-Christ bit was quite smart.

Also and on the day that FC died, can we shave the celebration of the authoritarian state and the rule of law? It just ain't cool, you know?
Post edited at 19:10
1
jondo - on 27 Nov 2016
In reply to Mike Highbury:
> You've got to cut the Goyim a bit of slack here. They ain't natural at the jokes and all that but, in any case, I thought that the anti-Christ bit was quite smart.

> Also and on the day that FC died, can we shave the celebration of the authoritarian state and the rule of law? It just ain't cool, you know?

Advocating the rule of law doesn't mean advocating the rule of law by violence and oppression.

P. S im a complete atheist regarding religion. Couldn't care less were someone comes from, i only see monkeys who recently came of the trees.
Post edited at 05:28
ads.ukclimbing.com
krikoman - on 27 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:

> I Really cant see how israel treats the bedouin worse than europe treats it's current immigrants or it's long standing roma population which are treated like ABSOLUTE SHIT.

Is that REALLY the point?You talk about it as if it's a league table, where as long as you're not top of the "Treat People Like Shit" league, you get a free pass to do what you like.

Some simple questions,
How long have the Bedouin lived in the area?
Is Israel disrupting their way of life?

If this were rain forest people or any other indigenous tribe, would you be concerned about a similar type of policy?

1
krikoman - on 27 Nov 2016
In reply to Mike Highbury:

You're getting me worried now, that twice you've defended me, what are you after?
1
jondo - on 27 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Is that REALLY the point?You talk about it as if it's a league table, where as long as you're not top of the "Treat People Like Shit" league, you get a free pass to do what you like.

far from it, i think that if a government disrupts peoples lives then they should do the best to make their future comfortable.
example :Israel removed the settlers from the Gaza strip but badly mistreated them , basically just destroyed their homes and left them in caravans for years in random locations. (after sending them there in the first place).

> Some simple questions,

> How long have the Bedouin lived in the area?

> Is Israel disrupting their way of life?

they have lived in the area for thousands of years, as have native Americans in the states and native Australians to name but two examples. Israel is no exceptions to a government badly treating nomadic or native people, however YOUR problem is that you insist Israel is an exception. ( because of your basic hatred?)


> If this were rain forest people or any other indigenous tribe, would you be concerned about a similar type of policy?

As i said above , i am against mistreating any people .
however, IF a people wish to be part of a country (in this case Israel), and the Bedouin do want (they are some of the most combative soldiers on the Gaza strip border undoubtedly to your dismay... they receive free health care like anyone else... )
in that case of wishing to integrate they should not allowed to build shanty towns in a kind of 'semi nomadic ,free flowing sewer, lets make some weird electrical wiring here...' kind of town.
so the question is : what is their way of life ? very few of them are still 'nomads' , even in the Sinai if you've been there.
the Israeli government has never dealt well with illegal anarchic building and land grabbing, the same is true in the Galilee with Arabs but also with Israeli-jew 'Hippy' settlements .
krikoman - on 30 Nov 2016
In reply to jondo:


> they have lived in the area for thousands of years, as have native Americans in the states and native Australians to name but two examples. Israel is no exceptions to a government badly treating nomadic or native people, however YOUR problem is that you insist Israel is an exception. ( because of your basic hatred?)

Simply not true, I don't insist Israel is an exception and I don't single them out, there plenty of other issues I speak out against, but you've obviously made your mind up otherwise. I also don't have a basic hatred either (whatever that means) maybe that what you'd like so you can explain away any issues with the Israeli government, it makes it easier to excuse their actions. In the same way that saying "as have native Americans in the states and native Australians to name but two examples" is used to excuse such things. But it doesn't work does it? Why should we accept evil acts because it's happening elsewhere? If we do that, where do we end up, excusing everything?


https://www.facebook.com/socialtvinternational/#

Scroll down a bit, for the Bedouin video it's really quite interesting.
1
jondo - on 30 Nov 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> Simply not true, I don't insist Israel is an exception and I don't single them out, there plenty of other issues I speak out against, but you've obviously made your mind up otherwise.

of course you single them out, that is all you do. you are devoted to it for some reason.
how about the recent (last week ) attempted murder of 60,000 residents of Haifa, and complete burning down of entire forested areas by arabs who are israeli citizens ?
speak about that a bit.

> I also don't have a basic hatred either (whatever that means) maybe that what you'd like so you can explain away any issues with the Israeli government, it makes it easier to excuse their actions.

if you actually read my posts, you would agree that I don't 'excuse their actions'. In fact I criticized them quite a bit.

> In the same way that saying "as have native Americans in the states and native Australians to name but two examples" is used to excuse such things. But it doesn't work does it? Why should we accept evil acts because it's happening elsewhere? If we do that, where do we end up, excusing everything?

no, maybe you should not accept acts you think are evil. but you should also , in my view, not distinguish between such acts because you don't like who is behind them for other reasons. (which only you know..)


> Scroll down a bit, for the Bedouin video it's really quite interesting.

I have had enough of looking at anti Israeli links you post. put a reliable news source and I will have a look.
you conveniently ignore all my points and continue to maintain that Israel 'is evil'.
whether you ignore the points because you agree, or can't think of counter points I don't know.
Post edited at 09:51

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.