BBC is not openly pro-Iarael

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Jun 25, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5115092.stm

    It seems to me that BBC has never used a word "kidnaped" toward Israeli side. Israeli soldiers usually (according to BBC) "detain", "arrest", "capture" but not "kidnap" Palestinians. So it is a biased approach.

    From formal point of view Palestinian militants performed a military action and captured a PoW.
     
  2. Depends on whether they treat him like a POW or not though doesn't it. Past experience is that it is a "kidnap" because they're not treated as a POW or combatant etc.
     
  3. in some peoples eyes the israeli's are the lesser of two evils or in other's the richer of two evils and seeming we're on this negtivity of islam quest at the moment i don't think the BBC want to offend the israeli's due to the fact they don't want none of their reporters shot by phsycotic crab magda sporting, galil armed IDF soldiers!!!!!
     
  4. Sergey,

    Palestinian militants (that's touchy-feely speak for 'terrorists') are not representative of any legally established sovereign political entity - Israeli soldiers are. Therein lies the difference.

    Do you similiarly feel that that the jihadists who abducted, murdered and mutiliated (and booby-trapped the remains of) the two American paratroopers are morally and legally comparable to members of the Coalition forces in Iraq?
     
  5. As I understand BBC is absolutely unaware how captured Israeli soldier is beeing treated. So your argument is irrelevant.

    But how do Israeli soldiers treat captured Palestinians?

    http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=28440/highlight=Bethlehem.html
     
  6. Going on past experience and how said solider is expected to be treated I think they're well within their rights to use the words kidnapped.

    As has been said "Palestinian militants (that's touchy-feely speak for 'terrorists') are not representative of any legally established sovereign political entity - Israeli soldiers are"

    I normally value your threads sergey, you give a different point of view sometimes - but I think this is scraping the bottom of the barrel
     
  7. Hi Gallowglass!

    Israel forbids a creation of Palestinian state so Palestinians are not guilty that they haven't their own "political entity".

    No of course. Coalition troops are invadors that committed many war-crimes (if you disagree then we can discuss it with concrete examples) while Iraqis fight on their soil and are free to use any means to push out foreign invadors.

    So I absolutely agree with you. From moral point of view we can't use an equal sign.
     
  8. Seeing as the jewish state has been repeatedly attacked by it's neighbours who want to KILL them all, I feel very sorry for any member of the IDF who falls into the hands of the arabs (I don't consider 'palastinians' anything other than arabs). Arabs who fall into the hands of the IDF should have learnt from history by now that their shiite and they should know they are were getting one over on the State of Israel is concerned! How many countries have attacked her, how many times have they ALL lost?
     
  9. Well. Let look at this situation more closely. Do you agree with these statements.

    1. There is a conflic between Israel and Palestinians. From my point of view both sides have equal rights.

    2. Palestinians performed a military action. It is not a terror act.

    3. In a military conflict any side has a natural right to capture POWs.

    By the way suppose that somebody (a civilian) is captured by soldiers (or militants) and as a result he is beaten to death in a custody. Can we use a word "kidnapped"? I think that no and hope that you agree with me.
     
  10. How do you know, did you ask them all? Also the term 'The Jewish State' is often used by opponents of Israel

    Well the Palestinians are collectively known as Arabs because they share the same language as other Arabic speaking peoples but if you want to continue with your one man mission of ignorance, you go girl

    Egypt, Jordan and Syria - formally lost 3 (but drawn 1 due to US intervention, Suez)
     
  11. This would be the same BBC that refuses to call terrorists terrorists? That continually downplays Kassam rocket attacks deliberately aimed at civilians and plays up the collateral damage caused to Palestinian human shields? That swallows every Cock and Bull story that the Palestinian propaganda machine puts out as irrefutable fact (Jenin, Pallywood etc)? That refuses to even mention the hundreds of thousands, possibly in one million Jews forced out of Arab land from 1948 onwards? That also refuses to mention that most of the Palestinian "refugees" that left Israel did so at the behest of the Arab league who promised they could return once the Arab league had crushed the nascent state of Israel, even though the Israelis begged them to stay? And also refuses to mention the fact that there is a sizable Arab Muslim minority in Israel who are full Israel citizens with full civil rights?

    Just making sure we're singing from the same hymn sheet here...
     
  12. Sergey, if the Palestinians in question committed a military act, were they:

    a) in uniform?
    b) in a declared war?

    And if the A & B above are true, does Israel then not have the right to invade Palestine to respond to an aggressive act of war?
     
  13. Perhaps 3/4 of these arab so-called palastinians should be know as former Jordanians, better description though not quite as accurate as West Bank terrorist breeding ground dwellers...
     
  14. Stoatman!

    I don't know about uniforms. Maybe yes, maybe no. Thay were armed and weapons in their hands were anyway thei "uniforms"

    Declared war? If Israel kills Palestinians on a weekly basis then we have de facto military conflict.

    Of course Israel has right for selfdefence.
     
  15. Well since Jordan, in its modern form only came into being in 1922 and the British controlled the then mandate of Palestine (modern Israel and Palestine) and since the only migration that occured was Jewish. The people of Palestine are actually Palestinian. (Shocking but true)

    Also don't forget that before 1922 it was all the Ottoman empire! (Palestine being sub-divided between the Villayets of Jerusalem, Damascus and Lebanon).