I was just watching the latest reports of the 'tit for tat' violence between the IDF and Gaza militant.

The narrative presents Israel as having kicked off this violence.

It can be summarised by this Telegraph article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...nd-Israel.html

But the reality is that almost every week this year there have been rockets fired into Israel from Gaza, but our media present the IDF attack on the Jihadist leader as occurring in some vacuum, which has precipitated a 'latest' round of rocket attacks.

Israel gets the blame again. So much for our media being pro-Israeli?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...n_Israel,_2012

 

Our media, and our Foreign Office for that matter, have always been pro-Arab.

It's probably just a commercial thing, after all, the Israelis don't buy any weaponry from us

 

Its like the news reporting of the FTSE

"The FTSE had a 1% rise* today"
"The FTSE had another 1% rise today"

We don't here anything for a couple of days during which all the rises are negated because of some reason or other that is not that newsworthy then it goes up again

"The FTSE had its biggest rise of the week today"...

(*You can interchange rise with fall obviously)

FFS the FTSE goes up and down the whole time but newspeople use it to indicate glad tidings or woe depending on how or what they want to illustrate at that time

 

I think that we need an independent body to go to Gaza. I vote for TdW to be that body.

 

Anyone care to chip for this going away pressie?

 

+1 for the above.


Pack yer bags, Tony, the job is yours.....

 

Unfortunate use of words!

 

ScoobyWon't's reply #4 at least had a modicum of wit in its favour, the same can't be said about the follow-ons to it.

 

So once again the Palestinians are criticised for attempting to defend themselves against a brutal occupying, child murdering army. I forgot that they were expected to lie down and let the Israelis murder them and take all of their land. Seeing as they lost 80% of what was theirs its a shame that they try to fight for the remaining 20%.

 

Gaza isn't occupied, why are they firing rockets every other day?

How did the Arabs 'own' the land prior to the formation of Israel and the Arab state? It was under the sovereignty of the British prior to that, and the Ottomans prior to them.

 

They lived there it was theirs, the rulers during and after the ottoman empire are irrelevant. people belong to land, not land to people. Tell me tony have you every met or spoken to people removed from their farms and orchards by force ? Do you have any idea what it is like to have something that was yours for generations stolen under the threat of guns and bullets ? Does it surprise you that some of the millions of refugees are a bit pissed off to have their homes stolen and their land declared a Jewish state ?

 

OK so firstly it is about blood and soil now is it? Can I go and support the BNP by that logical and kick out immigrants.

Secondly the land was not stolen. Arabs in Israel were promised Israeli citizenship if they did not put up resistance and for that reason there are many Israeli Arabs.

The ones who lost property are the ones who fled or left as a result of the WAR the Arabs initiated. They then found themselves outside of the Israeli borders in refugee camps and they should be blaming the Arabs no Israel.

 

So the arabs ethnicaly cleansed who had their land appropraited for JEWISH only use did not have their Land stolen ? I like how you claim the Arabs started a war, its not like the creation of a country had anyting to do with it was it. I like how you expect the arabs to stay and become second class citizens in a Jewish state. So if the UK was declared an Islamic state and English people became second class citizens that is OK by you is it ?

 

FFS do you two really need to have this argument again??? Pathetic!

 

No, they don't