The Middle East Thread

How many times does someone have to be shown to be willing to lie about committing atrocities before their claims of innocence lose any credibility? The reference to the death of Shireen Abu Akleh is not a one off incident, but was mentioned to illustrate that even in high profile cases where international eyes will be forced on the incident and their defenses are not credible their reflex position, something consistent enough to be taken as a official PR response, is still to blame Palestine for the crimes they have committed.

I have no idea who is responsible for bombing the hospital. I certainly have no reason to believe Hamas’ denials and will be totally willing to believe it was not the IDF when independent analysis comes to that conclusion. But it will take independent verification because I’ve seen the IDF lie often enough and barefaced enough to know that their denials should also be considered meaningless. The fact their official position was bolstered by video evidence, and that evidence was shown to be of a different incident within minutes of making the claim just reinforces that view.

5 Likes

Well, two points:

i) Hamas is a bizarre amalgam of terrorist organization and muncipal government.

ii) That strike on Israel was spectacularly well-organized. Very well-planned, reflecting detailed knowledge of Israeli defensive systems, and coordinated meticulously. I doubt any organization in the world can sustain that level of organization through ongoing combat, but it does reflect real sophistication.

1 Like

I can see how my words may have come across as patronising. When I spoke of people engaging in yah boo rhetoric , it wasn’t my intention to paint all those with an opposing view with that brush.

Rather , what I was getting at is that the more inflammatory , and less erudite , language was coming from those who were more receptive to the Israeli narrative. i.e. the right to defend itself. I have seen no blatant (or even muted as one poster suggested) anti-semitism but I have seen some comments that could easily be construed as Islamophobic.

For the record I am an atheist also.

1 Like

Misquoted.

“However, there have been times when Hamas, ironically, has cautioned the Islamic Jihad against attacking Israel. The Islamic Jihad, on most occasions, acts independently. Primarily focused on military confrontations, there have been times when the Islamic Jihad has taken the front seat while Hamas remained on the sidelines during clashes with Israel”

@wyld.at.hrt what’s an unbiased post, in your view! Here are my main views on this conflict

  1. Hamas has carried out an atrocious attack on innocent civilians.
  2. In the past, Hamas has shown disregard to civilian welfare while carrying out attacks.
  3. Israel is carrying out atrocious attacks on innocent civilians.
  4. In the past, Israel has shown disregard to civilian welfare while carrying out attacks.
  5. Over the last two decades, Israel continuously colonized the West Bank, abused the Palestinians there, and made Gaza an open-air prison.
  6. All these have created a situation so hopeless and toxic. Hamas has taken advantage of that and has thrived.

Do you consider my stand/opinion bised!

2 Likes

There are posters here who are clearly absolutely unwilling to contemplate the possibility that firing salvos of homemade rocket ordnance (assembled in makeshift factories) from inside a densely populated urban area could possibly lead to some sort of inadvertent strike.

4 Likes

lol … as if that’s gonna make any fucking difference.

Well it’s looking more and more likely that it’s the case.

I don’t think either one did it on purpose. I think was the second explosion did the damage, and that makes me think it was definitely an accident.

2 Likes

Basically what I was trying to say through sarcasm as people blindly look at a single sides past and then draw conclusions without proof. No side has credibility, so wait till there is evidence. There is a lot of shame on several high profiles news sites (bbc, etc) that naively jumped instantly on the Hamas accusation. They should have reported it impartially (hospital explosion) rather than “idf missile hits hospital”. They literally took no time to perform due diligence on the report.

A prime example on why these news organizations lose credibility, and rest assured, the next conflict, 10-20 years down the road, people will be quoting those potentially disproven articles.

1 Like

FWIW, sarcasm maybe isn’t the best approach in a conversation like this. Especially when it’s based on a strawman and can be inferred to be making a statement about someone’s motivations.

1 Like

I was the first to repeat on here what the BBC reported. You’re right , they fucked up big time with their initial reporting.

2 Likes

True.

1 Like

Biden’s flying visit is over.

Reuters summarised the key points of the press appearance as:

  • Biden urged Israelis not to be consumed by rage and said the vast majority of Palestinians were not affiliated with Hamas. The Palestinian people are suffering as well, he said.
  • In remarks after meeting Israeli leaders, Biden said he would ask Congress for an “unprecedented” aid package this week.
  • The president made reference to the Nazi Holocaust of the second world war when saying that Israel had the backing of its friends.
  • “We will not stand by and do nothing again. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever,” he said.
  • The US has urged Israel to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza.

The Israeli Security Minister stated, “The only thing that should enter Gaza as long as Hamas doesn’t release the hostages it holds is not a gram of humanitarian aid but hundreds of tons of explosives from the Air Force.”

So far those explosives have killed over 3000 including over 1000 children. Should BBC check these also? IDF said they don’t target civilians after all

1 Like

Ideally they should check everything

2 Likes

Civilian casualties have been explained over and over again, you are obviously never going to believe there is another explanation as to why innocent people die in a war zone, let alone any armed conflict in the world.

It’s also been explained over and over that this goes way beyond the standard ‘rules’ of war. Where else in the world is an entire civilian population being trapped, bombed, starved and dehydrated? If you can identify such a place do the aggressors/occupiers receive direct support from US, UK and EU?

5 Likes