Israel's Gaza news management

Indeed Mr Urban, he who controls the pictures controls the news.

As soon as the pictures dry up, by dint of lack of reporters 'on the ground', the coverage will slip down the batting order.

All the fine words of the journalists will be for the web or the newspapers - which as we all know just don't have the 'reach' of television.

But the problem is that the attention span for tv news is getting shorter and shorter, so any in-depth explanation, rebuttal of spin and the context for people's explanations is harder to deliver.

You see it would just be so much easier and a lot less stress for you to be like Fox News and only bother with one side of the story.

Sounds like a whinge to me Mark.

Yes, I would say that the Israeli Prime Minister's spokesman, Mark Regev, has every reason to be feeling smug and content that investigative reporting has not been granted unfettered access to Gaza where it would undoubtedly become corrupted by input from Hamaz propaganda.

As it stands, Hamas portray themselves as the victims but, lest it not be forgotten, it was Hamas that declared the truce ended and it was Hamas that had continued to support their militants in delivering rockets aimed at civilians in Israel - some 50 rockets launched form Gaza during the 6 month truce. Of course, one does not hear or read that kind of information relayed too often via the BBC!

Who knows what the attention span of the viewer is? We're either treated to drums and an agitated camera or a shouting match between two sides. Sides of what doesn't matter. It's all about keeping 'excitement 'going in case the audience switch to another channel. There is more visual movement and sound including explosions and speed than ever but almost nothing is happening except destruction. A small child with a match can cause damage. Creating something worthwhile takes time and talent. There's a form of censorship that allows murder,mayhem, football and bad taste. God forbid we should think.

The one lesson government PR machines learned from the Vietnam war was not to let the media anywhere near the action. This was evidenced in the Iraq wars where journalists were, 'for their own safety', coralled in packs only allowed to go where the military wanted.

Israel has just taken this 'censorship' to the ultimate extreme by simply excluding all media. For a while this backfired, as the pictures of injured and dead told their own stories. But the Israeli approach is now paying dividends. The pictures tell an unchanging story. All the bodies now look the same and our audience is bored. Without access the journalists cannot undertake the investigative journalism which refutes the lies.

The US puts great stress on the freedom of the media at home, but allows its Israeli ally to trample all over it; much as it does the Geneva Conventions. Shame on them; and on us who turm away in boredom!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Interesting insight again Mark.

It's not just the IDF managing the news.

I notice that the image for the video on this page is a small child. Watching TV or internet one would think that the only people hurt in this fighting are children. Thats the only people we ever see footage of being carrired into hospital or curled up on a hospital bed.

How come there is not a single second of footage of a fit young man with a beard and a combat vest lying in hospital? Is there really not a single one them that has been hit?

To believe this, one would have to think that the IDF has some sort of new smart bomb - like the old neutron bomb that killed people leaving the buildings intact. This new weapon kills only chlidren and leaves combatants intact.

My guess is that Hamas is doing a bit of 'media management' with the footage it releases.

Only the media are playing along with this one and not even commenting on the manipulation.

Maybe the Israelis have longer memories than the BBC.

I recall the 2002 "Jenin Massacre" as widely reported by BBC (and others). The IDF forces were accused of butchery of a massacre on the scale of the Sabra and Chatilia massacres. When the facts emerged some news agencies had the courage to admit that their reporting had been incorrect. The loss of 52 lives (UN Report) is regretable -although 46 were terrorists- but nevertheless is not on the scale that the BBC were reporting. The damage done by such reporting can not be undone and the BBC has never acknowledged the distorted nature of it's reporting in the region.

Even the occasional report of rockets being fired on Israeli citizens (estimated 8,000 attacks) is invariably downplayed by the BBC as causing only minor damage, or the like, inferring such everyday events were nothing to get upset about.

The the BBC's senior reporter John Simpson confirmed the organisation's liberal approach by being unable to refer to a terrorist as such but more correctly as a freedom fighter - ask the passengers of London Underground on 7/7 what a Terrorist is?

Alan Johnston has commented that almost every other family has a member or two in Hama and that Hamas is everywhere.Unfortunately a regime that indoctrinates its very young to kill the enemy and persuades youngsters to carry suicide belts can not cry foul when they are killed in the heat of battle.

The BBC psyche assumes women and children to be innocent yet the reality can be very different and other news agencies have woken up to that fact.

No one is justifying the killing of innocents but Hamas has deliberately made the distinction between innocent and combatant extremey vague.

The BBC is rightly frustrated that it's reporters are being held back but it is also deluding itself into believing that it is deserving of special treatment as the paragon of impartial reporting.

Incidentally the current Government campaign in Sri Lanka against the Tamils has involved the estimated loss of 65,000 lives, mainly civilians - why so little BBC reporting? Nor have I seen any film from Tibet recently - over 1 million killed by Chinese.

Why is the BBC so obsessed with Israel's brutal treatment of it's neighbours who have sworn to wipe it off the map?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Sour grapes I think.

All we are getting here in UK appears one sided - but that's not all down to difficulty of access on the ground.

To reply to jon112uk.

Of course "Hamas" fighters have been killed. Wouldn't you fight if this was happening in your city?

You cannot get over the fact that at least 320 children have been killed by the Israelis and God knows how many more injured.

There seems to have been indiscriminate bombing and shelling by the IDF, including using white phospherous shells, so they knew full well that many 100s of civilians would be killed and injured.

The fact that no journalists were allowed in by Israel says it all. They were committing atrocities that they didn't want anyone to see.

All this has done is alienate people like me who used to support Israel but now see it is a manipulative bully state who attacks it's neighbours at will.

this is fantastic news that israel is winning the media war.

freedom from a tirade of anti-israeli reporting.

israel is finally learning!

"You cannot get over the fact that at least 320 children have been killed by the Israelis and God knows how many more injured.

Is this a fact as is reported by Palestinian and NGOs affiliated to the Palestinian cause reporting these figures?

The first casualty in any warfare is truth and, whillst I sympathise with Mark's whinge about lack of access to the Gaza strip, the whole point of Mark's whinge is that, because the "free" press cannot access Gaza, reports from Gaza are corrupt and remain unproven until "unbiased" reporters freely access the Gaza Strip and confirm these figures after the warfare is ended.

Whilst I have every sympathy for any "innocent" civilian killed in error by Israeli weapons, the fact is that Hamas are located within the civilian population of Gaza and have the support of that civilian population. The civilians could give up their support for Hamas and Hamas would melt away as the cowards that they are having used their own people as their human shield.

Truly double standards are at work in the Middle East. It is reported as an Israeli crime to kill "innocent" civilians in the Gaza Strip but nobody seems to sympathise with the victims of the Hamas' Rockets which were fired at Israel indiscriminately killed "innocent" Israelis before, during and after the 6 month truce that Hamas, themselves, declared ended.

#12 - Menedemus

As regards casuality figures, it is in my view a question of proportionality. Israel says it wishes to bring to an end the rocket attacks from Gaza. Fair enough but just look at the figures.

According to the Israeli military's count on December 27th, 3,000 rockets hit Israel since the beginning of the year. A total of eight people were killed by Qassam rocket, Grad rocket and mortar attacks on Israel in 2008.

Is a figure of more than 1,000 dead really a proportional response?

So, coming back to Mark's comments about access to the conflict zone, if the Israelis are not successfully concealing the dis proportionality of their response, it is certainly what they are trying to do. They cannot deny the figures but they can prevent some of the more harrowing images from reaching the outside world. A victory for news management and a slap in the face for respectable journalism.

threnodio @13

Firstly, the figure of 1000 deaths and up to 4500 casualties is not yet proven by independent news reporters. Which was the main thrust of my argument and a matter to which Mark alludes in his item.

Secondly, the fact that 8 people have died within Israel from the launching of such an indiscriminat weapon as a Grad, Quassam or a Mortar rocket launched from within Gaza is simply Israeli luck and not the skill, accuracy nor intent of the Hamas militants within Gaza.

Were it 3000+ deaths of Israelis caused by 3000 rockets fired from with Gaza during 2008, the Hamas militants would be leaping with joy and whooping it up in their delight yet they hypocritically abhor any Palestinian civilian death!

Proportionality is actually irrelevant as I do believe that the need to respond to the Hamas threat is because it is a real and present danger that has continued despite a truce. With Hamas declaring the truce over, they have reaped the whirlwind of Israeli anger and, much as I regret the death of one innocent person, it is a fact that Hamas have embedded themselves within the civilian population of Gaza and the blame for any civilian casualties lies with Hamas as much as it does with the Israeli DF.

The Middle East and the quagmire that is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only be resolved by dialogue but I don't believe that Israel could stand back and let the Hamas militants simply hide behind the Gaza civilians and continue to freely launch rockets at Israeli territory indefinitely - each rocket fired by Hamas could kill none, one or many Israelis and this just simply could not continue without a response.

I am not arguing that the Israeli response is not excessive ( I know not the facts!) but I merely suggest the result of the response are not yet proven beyond the shadow of doubt that the civilian death and casualty toll may be being exaggerated or manipulated by Hamas vitriole.

I entirely agree with your last sentence but, if I were a military planner, I would certainly seek to be as succesful as the IDF war planners have been on this occasion. I think this news blackout is something that will be repeated more and more as future wars and conflicts are played out. News Reporters have themsleve become the innocent tools of propagandists and so no news can sometime be better than perverted or corrupted news.

Once again threnodio sums up the situation perfectly.

Israeli's response is totally out of proportion to the actions of HAMAS.
Whilst i don't condone HAMAS's actions I understand there helplessness against the Israeli Apartheid regime.
Its very strange that the most nationalistic and volatile regime in the Middle East is the only one which has Nuclear Arms.

The Israeli Beiteinu Party was behind recent moves to ban some Arab politicians from standing for re-election to the country's parliament, the Knesset, on the grounds that they were not loyal citizens.

The move has been passed provisionally, though may yet be struck down by the country's Supreme Court.

Police questioning

Meanwhile, Israeli police say they have brought "a number" of Israeli Arabs into police stations who have not committed any crimes, but just to warn them to stay within the law - a move one told me amounted to blatant intimidation.

#14 - Menedemus
#15 - WhiteEnglishProud

Thank you WEP.

The problem with ignoring or minimising the question of proportionality is that it raises all sorts of other questions. If the victim nations of terrorism are entitled to take any action however disproportionate, I assume you would argue that the British would have been entitled to decimate an Irish city every time there was a terrorist attack on the UK mainland or the Spanish would lay waste to Santander every time ETA planted a bomb.

Not only is this illogical but it is dangerous. The logical extension of this argument is that you could deal with Islamic terrorism by neuking the North West Frontier. Sooner of later these enemies are going to have to engage or the situation will continue indefinitely. All the overreaction does is to deepen the hatred and make the process that much more difficult.

Why not do a news feature on the lack of access, the effect this has on the coverage and how this type of censorship compares with other conflicts?

We hear a load of hype about 'the only democracy in the middle east', but this is not the action of a democracy, a free press is a pre-requisite.

threnodio @ 17

You use words like "decimate", "disproportionate" and ""nuking the north-west frontier". Is that not over-egging the pudding in relation to my point and the actual facts of the current situation?

We are talking about a city and territory containing millions of people and it is alleged (and I repeat my thesis that it remains alleged!) that 1000+ people have been killed in 14 days of war.

Even if it is found that 1000+ people have died, one would have to subtract a proportion of these victims as being combatants (and who is to say that Palestinian women and children cannot point a gun at an israeli soldier or throw a hand-grenade which make them combatants too) leaving several hundred as casualties of war.

In my view, either the Hamas Rockets have been extraordinarily inefficient and the Israelis are retaliating with excessive force (which would be naive in my opinion) or, more likely (in my opinion), the Hamas group will continue to fire rockets in increasing numbers at Israel and continue to hope that they kill more and more Israelis up to and more than thousands of innocent Israeli civilians.

I actually find it strange that Israel has not invaded the Gaza Strip before now and can only think that, unlike Hamas who continued to fire rockets at Israel during the one-sided truce, they have some degree of concern about the likely invasion causing excessive casualties.

Nevertheless, it was Hamas who declared the truce over and Israel has finally decided to invade Gaza and eliminate this threat to their civilians. They have simply executed that option and the number of casualiteis, given the population of the Gaza Strip and Gaza City is (if it is 1000+ dead) remarkably low.

I would suggest that the alleged casualty numbers are actualy quite low because the Israelis are taking far more care to try to avoid collateral damage than their foes who continue to fire indiscriminate weaponry at Israel and hope to kill as many Israelis as possible.

Let us also be clear about you drawing a simile with the threat of the IRA to Britain and the Hamas being a threat to Israel: The IRA operated from Ireland but did not and never had global civilian support. This hampered the British response to simply stationing British Troops in N. Ireland to protect civilians as best they could do.

For Gaza, the entire civilian population either through threat of force, passionate hatred of Israel's existence or political sympathy for the Palestinian Cause, support the aims of the Hamas Militants either proactively or as a human shield. If they support the rocketry fired by their militant sons and daughters then they should be prepared to take the retaliation.

Whingeing about the Israeli response is simply hypocracy as the Palestinians are happy to see Israeli civilains and IDF soldiers die but scream like stuffed pigs when the boot is on the other foot.

I think BBC should be greatful to the IDF for keeping them away from danger in Gaza. And I'm not just talking about the Palestinian terrorists but from Israeli soldiers too. Many may not think kindly about some of the reports BBC has been responsible for about Israel in the past and may look on this as an opportunity for revenge. I'm no longer sure the IDF command structure completely controls what its subordinates in the field do all the time. There's clearly lots of pent up emotion and anger among Israelis who feel under seige. BBC is generally viewed as a hostile entity among Israelis. Be glad you're being kept at a safe distance. When the fighting is over, you can go in and report on the results.

Whilst understanding the frustration of the BBC and other news organisations at being denied access to gaza, there are some matters worth considering.

1. There is an agreed need to avoid civilian casualties. Journalists are civilians and, in an 'asymmetrical' war where one or both of the protagonists are embedded amongst and dress as the civilian population, avoiding harm to civilians can be very difficult to achieve. In Iraq, where combatants were clearly distinguishable, well-known journalists were killed by 'friendly fire'. So what chance of avoiding this happening in Gaza?

2. It would be harder to have negative views of imbalanced reporting on the part of, say, the BBC if they were seen to be equally diligent in uncovering other newsworthy items - such as how it was that the worlds banking industry was so utterly incompetent, before it was too late. But then, asking some awkward questions might have spoiled the upwards surge in house prices in Camden, Haringey etc.

3. As far as Israel is concerned, the predisposition of the media to report 'facts' as they were said to be at the time of Jenin and Lebanon, with no 'visible' corrections published, means that they may as well leave reporting to Hamas as it can be no worse than the treatment they'd get from much of the media anyway.

4. There is an existential war being fought. If that means denying the BBC or any other medium the opportunity to 'inform' others, so be it. The experience of the Jews is not a happy one in this regard. Whereas the world is very 'informed' of the sorry plight of those in Gaza (witness the thousands marching in support of them around the world) there weren't too many 'reports' on what was happening in Europe in the 1940's until after 6 million Jews had been liquidated. Those who suspect the same would happen again are re-inforced by the lack of 'reporting' that attended Hamas's constant rocket attacks and annihilatory rhetoric which necessitated Israel's blockade of Gaza.

#19 - Menedemus

It is not often that we disagree vehemently but, on this occasion I must protest at your final paragraph. I am nether a whinger nor a hypocrite.

You use words like "decimate", "disproportionate" and ""nuking the north-west frontier"

Yes, I do because, intellectually, there is an exact equivalence. If an organisation or state uses force majeur to inflict severe hardship on their opponents, they must at least be able to demonstrate that it was an ultimate sanction when all other avenues had been exhausted and that it was proportional to the perceived threat. The Israeilis have done neither. What they have done is to seize an opportune moment - the demise of the Bush administration and the diversion of New Year - to inflict huge damage on a largely innocent group of civilians because of the conduct of a small minority of political extremists. If you do not see the equivalence between that and a disproportionate response in the hypothesis I suggested about Northern Ireland or the Basque region, I would refer you to actual examples - Yeltsin's first Chechen campaign and Iraq.

There is no question either about the right of Israel to exist or her right to defend herself. What is questionable is the degree of overreaction and distortion of fact. It is not the case that Hamas broke the cease fire by restarting its bombardment of Israel. Israel failed to honour it's side of the bargain by opening the border and was already in default. It is not reasonable to question the casualty figures given that even the IDF themselves do not dispute them.

Israel has boxed itself into a corner. By standing by and allowing settlements outside of the 1967 borders, it has made settlement of the disputed territories more or less impossible. This is going to happen all over again in Golan when they are finally forced to deal with Syria. They have attempted, too late, to address this by ejecting settlers from locations they should not have been allowed to settle in the first place and now, having created the rod for their own back, they respond to the understandable reaction by using excessive force in the hope that instilling blind terror into innocent bystanders will somehow bring them round.

Israeli human rights groups are openly suggesting that their government is guilty of war crimes in the current conflict, nobody - except apparently you - is questioning the voracity of the reported casualty figures and nothing constructive is being achieved. This should end - and end now.

threnodio @ 22

I did not have any intention of describing your comments as being that of a whinger or hypocrite. My comment was never intended as a personal attck upon you and I regret that you fell that my comments were of a personal nature.

Please re-read my final paragraph at 19 as targetted at the Palestinians who have provoked the Israeli response with 3000 (your number of rockets fired in 2008) rockets that are by their very nature an indiscriminate and only by good fortune or inaccuracy or both have only killed a few Israelis. They keep on firing rockets at Israel and then whinge when the Israeli's retaliate. The Palestinians are not inncents as they do support Hamas and are in denial if they say they do not hate the Israeli's and their backers.

To put it in context, I well remember the sight of Palestinian dancing in the streets of Gaza when it was being reported that 7500 people had been killed on 9/11 in New York and Washington. The fact that the numbers of casualties was revised down to near 2500 did little to lessen the joy of the Palestinians.

Similarly, I would be not surprised if the current toll of deaths and casualties within Gaza are not reduced post-conflict as this conflict will inevitably do. The IDF may not be disputing the figures as they probably don't care a jot and, perhaps, even know that they are inflated and will be found to be inflated as a propaganda ruse.

When that happens I will not be laughing at the sanctimonious tone of those who are quick to criticise the Israelis but merely be saddened that it took a conflict to teach Hamas that they cannot continue to lob indiscriminate rockets at Israel without reaping retaliation.

As to your comment about Israel being in breach of the Truce, I would disagree with you insofar that the border crossing closure was retaliation for the continuous rocket bombardment of Israel during the truce. 50 rockets were launched over the whole of the 6 month truce - not because of the border crossing closure but despite the truce.

We can perhaps agree on one thing. The conflict should end and end now but I do feel that this time there is the chance that, if the Isrealis can eliminate Hamas as a threat, then there is more chance of successful peace talks with Fatah and Mr Abbas.

I believe that ultimately the creation of a Palestinian State will be more likely with Hamas eliminated and that will be worthwhile Mark returning to Israel to report.

STICKS AND STONES MAY BREAK MY BONES BUT HUMILIATION GIVES ME THE RED MIST.

I have played little part in committees and the like, but just enough to have encountered the way legitimate dissent is stifled. The aggrieved party is given dose after dose of procedural run-around, until they become exasperated, and injudicious. Instantly character assassination is applied and the underlying matter slips into oblivion.

Isn't this what has happened in The Holy Land? The Arabs have been invaded, defeated, displaced, corralled and humiliated but are still told to 'be reasonable'. If I am any example, men are never reasonable under such pressure - it is not natural. Surely a check-point is a PSYCHOLOGICAL WEAPON, injuring pride as painfully as missiles injure flesh? When rockets pass one way and humiliation the other, a trade-off is clearly possible. Should not a cease-fire include a 'cease-humiliation', if psychological explosive is to be defused?

When UN et al seem not to take this on board, we are in fool-or-knave territory - yet again. Ah well - Tony should feel right at home.

#23 - Menedemus

I appreciate that it was not personal:-)

I have said before that neither side comes out of this with any credit. Perhaps, more than anything else, I am bewildered by the stupidity of Hamas. If they can lob that many rockets into Israel in the space of twelve months, only achieve 8 casualties and still do not understand the futility of it, they must be utterly naive.

Having said that, does this not underline my point about proportionality? To instigate a ground war of such savagery on the basis of such relatively trivial aggression seems to me a bit like taking an AK47 to a conker match.

threnodio @ #25

I think my point is that the Israelis have been slow to retaliate.

Yes, they may have chosen an opportune moment, yes the numbers of air munitions used and ground assault troops deployed is alarming but is it not also true that (despite my mistrust of the figures reported for Palestinian casualties) that the Israeli have the power to exert far more damage and kill far more people than they have been reported to have done.

It is easy to suggest the Israeli assault is overkill but is it really? The Israelis could do so much more damage and eliminate Gaza altogether if it was their wish - they have the wherewithall to create bloodbath but actually their response has not been as bloody as it might have been thought it was going to be just 14 days ago.

To my mind any conflict is a horror but the horror could be so much worse if the Israelis were of a mind to utilise all their fire-power and eliminate Gaza as a palestinian enclave once and for all.

#26 - Menedemus

Like Grozny, you mean?

#27 - threnodio

Was Grozny Israeli overkill as well?

#28 - Menedemus

Hardly - just another example of the triumph mindless savagery over reason.

#29 - threnodio

I just wondered as I did not see the connection.

I think the Israelis are using limited force over Palestinians who use mindless and unreasonable weaponry which, but for the grace of the God of Abraham, has only caused a few Israeli deaths but not for the want of trying by the Palestinians who launch their rocketry with every intention of causing destruction, death and terror on as grand a scale as they possibly can inflict.

The fact that the Israelis are better trained and more efficient than their Palestinian foes is hardly the Israeli's fault!

#30 - Menedemus

Obviously we are not going to agree on this one but, as a parting shot, when you refer to ". . . the Palestinians who launch their rocketry with every intention of causing destruction", do you mean Hamas or do you mean the innocent Palestinians who are paying the price?

#31 - threnodio

Innocent Palestinians? Who might they be?

The mothers and fathers of Hamas militants who taught their sons and daughters to hate the Israelis enough to launch rockets with the intent of doing as much damage or, better still, killing as many Israelis as possible?

The Brothers and sisters of these miltants who hold the same views?

"Innocence" is an easy term to bandy about but I question whether any Palestinian or Israeli is innocent of the crimes being committed in their "interests" by their warriors.

#32 - Menedemus

By that logic, you would brand every Muslim an Islamic fundamentalist. It is dangerously close to the kind of massive generalisation that gave rise to the Final Solution. When you tar an entire people with the same brush, you stray into very dangerous territory.

GOD OF ABRAHAM? (#30) I SPY THE NUB!

You demean the One True God, Menedemus.
There IS just the one surely - 'The God of All'? He (!) has given 6+ billion of us free will and now has no choice but to wait until the majority wise up!
Meanwhile, even 'his own' (Jews, Muslims, and assorted Christians - and Tony Blair) continue to kick the proverbial out of one another, on a misguided whim

OR MIGHT IT BE that no Creator God worthy of respect (even awe) would stoop to the petty requirement of chanting, singing and bizarre practices, including mutilation of the body (away from its 'created' form) from a transient, disturbed twig on the ape-branch of the DNA tree?

Gods 'made' in the distorted image of man are the root of this crass impasse.

I'll get me Holy Book.

al jazeera has no problems. plenty of stuff on ytube.

The reporting on the BBC of this has been appallingly accommodating to Pro-Israel contributors. From Lord Levy on This Week, Stephen Pollard on Questiontime to Regev everywhere making statements that should be challenged. Statements like
1) Hamas are not elected representatives of Gaza
2) Hamas broke the Ceasefire
3) Israel occupies Palestinian territory legitimately
4) Palestinians delibrately put their children in the line of fire
5) calling UN,Red Cross representatives and aid workers liars
6) That 1000's of Israelis have been killed by Rockets
7) That Arabs have full representation in the Israeli elections
8) Hamas/Iran seek the destruction of Israel

Never does anyone ask when Israel are going to obey UN Resolutions or when are Israel going to stop settlements or when Israel are going to confine themselves to territory mandated to them (i.e pre 1967 borders) or ask them about the Nuclear Arsenal or why they need $3 billion military aid they get annually from the U.S or why they bomb Soveriegn countries (like Syria) contrary to International law ...

#34 - barriesingleton

If you are an Israeli Jew being the target of a Quassam Rocket or other Hamas rocket and the rocket hits the ground and only destroys buildings then, because a Hamas rocket is such an indiscriminate weapon, I merely say that it is the Jews God that may be protecting them. If the Israeli Jew believes that then so be it.

On the other hand, do feel free to go get your holy book and believe whatever you want. I have no problem with that.

#33 - threnodio

It is a matter of scale.

If Israel was to seek to destroy the Palestinian enclave of the Gaza strip then I would undoubtedly agree with your suggestion that the Israelis are being bestial and employing genocidal techniques far beyond anything that could be right, sane or sensible.

However, your assertion of some kind of connection between the way the Israelis view the civilians of the Gaza Strip and the Final Solution is a monstrous distortion of scale.

To be fair to the Israelis, in now 15 days of fighting (and let us be frank the Hamas fighters will be fighting back at the Israelis) the Israelis report 13 dead whereas the Palestinian Medical Authority claim 1100 Palestinian dead and even these reports (not that I trust the numbers) do indicate that the majority of dead are Hamas Fighters.

I merely question whether the Palestinians within the Gaza Strip are "innocent". They are no more innocent thn the citizens of Coventry or Dreden in WWII - in warfare the other side are the opposing tribe or nation and that is how it has been since time immemorial.

The Israeli target may be to destroy Hamas but the Palestinians and Israelis people have been at war since the late 1940s and neither side is innocent of hatred, wanting revenge or taking retribution.

The fact that the Israelis are more efficient is not their fault.

Much complaining from the BBC about Israel not allowing the media into Gaza.

Have they tried entering from Egypt and why haven't they complained as bitterly that Egypt won't let them into Gaza either?

Surely as Egypt is not taking part in the conflict it should have less reason to prevent access through its border posts?

The same goes for the constant criticism of Israel's "siege, blockade, embargo" etc.

Why isn't Egypt's blockade not being reported and evaluated equally?

Yes, "During the 2006 Lebanon war, which lasted 33 days, access was much freer."

That's because correspondents were able to enter Lebanon directly, they didn't need permission from Israel to fly into Beirut. And by the way, it wasn't a war against Lebanon - it was a war against Hezbollah.

By the BBC's own admission journalists in Lebanon were led by the nose by Hezbollah handlers who decided who they could talk to, what they could and could not photograph, and censored their output under threat of violence if anything Hezbollah didn't like was published.

Israel clearly didn't want a repeat of that situation in Gaza, although they only seem to have had limited success as most of what comes out of Gaza is clearly managed and even staged by Hamas.

UK Palestinians in Johnston plea

Leading members of Britain's Palestinian community have called for the immediate release of kidnapped BBC Gaza correspondent Alan Johnston.

The main Palestinian representative in the UK, Manuel Hassassian, was among many taking part in a day of solidarity in London for the reporter.

[...]

'He works for us'

The solidarity event was held at a Palestinian restaurant in west London.

Organisers said they wanted to "send a clear message to his kidnappers that the Palestinian community... are appalled by this act".

Restaurant owner Mohammed Zomlot, who is from Gaza, said the Palestinian community in the UK wanted to support Mr Johnston.

"I feel that we are the people who really should care about Gaza, and who should care about Alan," he said.

"Because Alan, at the end of the day, he's one of the people who cares about us and he works for us, and that's why we have a responsibility to protect him, and we have to ask for his immediate release."

'He works for us'?

Funny, I thought he worked for the BBC.

Enough said?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I'd like an explanation from the moderators as to why they found this comment brakes the House Rules:

Here's another fine example of the BBC's reporting style on Gaza:


The unmeasurable price of war

By Paul Martin Compulsion to kill

Please note that sub-heading.

I have also met killers - people who have destroyed innocents like Israeli Ella or Palestinian Mahmoud. They have their explanations. Some months ago, I went with a Palestinian rocket-firing brigade keen to dispatch their weaponry into the heart of an Israeli town (Sderot itself actually).

Twenty-four-year-old Mohammed (on his first rocket-firing mission) said Israeli men, women and children would one day end up fighters. "So let's kill them first," he said.

Sounds like a determined killer to me, but wait...

Months later I met him in a Gaza street. He had decided to retire from rocket-firing and return to computer programming.

Oh, that's OK then, he's reformed and got a decent job!

So, Paul Martin sets out from the beginning to draw equivalence between a terrorist who admits his aim is to kill women and children, because by his reasoning even though right now they're innocent civilians one day they may be fighters, and an IAF pilot who, as we will see, often aborts missions, so as not to harm civilians.

Martin continues with the other half of his comparison:

I also met two Israeli pilots from the Cobra brigade, their twisted snakes emblazoned on the sides of their one-man helicopters, each bristling with rocket launchers and a machine gun.

One pilot, Uri, pulled down his dark-glasses visor, then whipped out a Hebrew newspaper clipping with photos of a boy and his grandfather.

They died, he said, when this man was picking up this kid from the nursery school. Uri was taking off, aiming to kill what he defined as terrorists. "I always carry these photos with me on a mission," he explained, "to remind me that when I hunt down a terrorist I am protecting people like these."

Did he sleep easy at night? I asked him.

There was a long pause. "No," he said, "I sometimes lie awake and wonder, when I saw our target was close to civilians, whether I was right not to fire. Maybe I let him live and tomorrow he will kill more of our civilians."

Note also Martin's phrase, "what he defined as terrorists". I know the BBC has editorial guidlines, but I think most people, other than terrorist supporters, would describe people that deliberately fire missiles at civilians as terrorists.

Further more Martin provides no proof whatsoever that the IAF pilot has ever killed innocent civilians, or that he has ever tried to, quite the opposite.

But here's Paul Martin's bottom line:

From neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian fighting men could I detect much empathy for the innocent.

All I can say is that he must have his empathy detector switched off!

The BBC may well attempt to defend this example of morally bankrupt false equivalence as "balanced" because they show "both sides" but there is no equivalence between one who hopes to kill civilians and the other who tries not to.

Under any legal system anywhere in the civilized world a clear distinction is made between someone who deliberately sets out to commit murder, and someone who accidentally kills a civilian while attempting to kill a murderer. A distinction that escapes Paul Martin and his BBC editors.

Here's a video showing IAF pilots wasting high precision, and very expensive guided munitions, so as to avoid harming civilians.

Up to 80% of air strikes on Gaza have been aborted for these reasons:

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

Here's another fine example of the BBC's reporting style on Gaza:


The unmeasurable price of war

By Paul Martin

Compulsion to kill

Please note that sub-heading.

I have also met killers - people who have destroyed innocents like Israeli Ella or Palestinian Mahmoud. They have their explanations. Some months ago, I went with a Palestinian rocket-firing brigade keen to dispatch their weaponry into the heart of an Israeli town (Sderot itself actually).

Twenty-four-year-old Mohammed (on his first rocket-firing mission) said Israeli men, women and children would one day end up fighters. "So let's kill them first," he said.

Sounds like a determined killer to me, but wait...

Months later I met him in a Gaza street. He had decided to retire from rocket-firing and return to computer programming.

Oh, that's OK then, he's reformed and got a decent job!

So, Paul Martin sets out from the beginning to draw equivalence between a terrorist who admits his aim is to kill women and children, because by his reasoning even though right now they're innocent civilians one day they may be fighters, and an IAF pilot who, as we will see, often aborts missions, so as not to harm civilians.

Martin continues with the other half of his comparison:

I also met two Israeli pilots from the Cobra brigade, their twisted snakes emblazoned on the sides of their one-man helicopters, each bristling with rocket launchers and a machine gun.

One pilot, Uri, pulled down his dark-glasses visor, then whipped out a Hebrew newspaper clipping with photos of a boy and his grandfather.

They died, he said, when this man was picking up this kid from the nursery school. Uri was taking off, aiming to kill what he defined as terrorists. "I always carry these photos with me on a mission," he explained, "to remind me that when I hunt down a terrorist I am protecting people like these."

Did he sleep easy at night? I asked him.

There was a long pause. "No," he said, "I sometimes lie awake and wonder, when I saw our target was close to civilians, whether I was right not to fire. Maybe I let him live and tomorrow he will kill more of our civilians."

Note also Martin's phrase, "what he defined as terrorists". I know the BBC has editorial guidlines, but I think most people, other than terrorist supporters, would describe people that deliberately fire missiles at civilians as terrorists.

Further more Martin provides no proof whatsoever that the IAF pilot has ever killed innocent civilians, or that he has ever tried to, quite the opposite.

But here's Paul Martin's bottom line:

From neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian fighting men could I detect much empathy for the innocent.

All I can say is that he must have his empathy detector switched off!

The BBC may well attempt to defend this example of morally bankrupt false equivalence as "balanced" because they show "both sides" but there is no equivalence between one who hopes to kill civilians and the other who tries not to.

Under any legal system anywhere in the civilized world a clear distinction is made between someone who deliberately sets out to commit murder, and someone who accidentally kills a civilian while attempting to kill a murderer. A distinction that escapes Paul Martin and his BBC editors.

Up to 80% of air strikes on Gaza have been aborted for fear of harming civilians.

#38 - Menedemus

I am genuinely surprised and quite shocked at your reaction to my last post.

"However, your assertion of some kind of connection between the way the Israelis view the civilians of the Gaza Strip and the Final Solution is a monstrous distortion of scale."

What I wrote was

"It is dangerously close to the kind of massive generalisation that gave rise to the Final Solution".

What I meant, for the sake of clarity, is that if you take an entire chunk of humanity, whether by race, creed, ethnicity or any other measure and simply say they are all the same - and that in effect is what you are doing when you suggest that parents are deliberately indoctrinating their children in the ways of terrorism, that ordinary civilians are actively sponsoring those values in their everyday lives and that it is the ambition of those communities collectively and without exception - then what you do is create the environment in which racial hatred becomes endemic and the consequences get out of control. That is exactly what happened in Germany in the thirties.

Moreover, to suggest that civilians in Coventry and Dresden were in some way culpable in the events of that war was is not only a distortion but it amounts to a justification of something which I find personally abhorrent - the concept that civilians are ever a legitimate target in times of war. One of the great evils of modern times with access to weapons of mass destruction has been the effective abandonment of one of the first principles of the Geneva Convention. The avoidance of unnecessary suffering to civilians and the adoption of reasonable measures to avoid collateral damage.

Now you can certainly make the case that, by abandoning uniforms and relying on anonymity to conduct guerrilla warfare, the combatants have themselves abandonned the rules of warfare. This I will readily accept. But it does not justify classifying civilians en masse as the enemy and treating them accordingly.

I am not accusing Israel of genocide or comparing them with the Nazis. I am suggesting that what they are doing is a demonstration of force majeur which is wholly disproportionate to the threat and is therefore negative, inhumane and will ultimately prove counter-productive.

I will not withdraw the comment.

I am not accusing Israel of genocide or comparing them with the Nazis.

Oh yes you are!

I will not withdraw the comment.

Then you should be ashamed of yourself!

You said:

It is dangerously close to the kind of massive generalisation that gave rise to the Final Solution. When you tar an entire people with the same brush, you stray into very dangerous territory.

This is a disgusting inversion of the current reality and of history itself. It is a version of the present "Muslims are the new Jews" calumny.

Read some of these BBC blogs and see the number of comments referring to Israelis and Jews indiscriminately as "Zionists". A variation on the "I'm not an antisemite, I'm only criticising Israel" meme.

Hiding their hatred of the Jew behind a false and shallow intellectualism and distortion of history and reality. I for one am not taken in by it, I would prefer those haters to be as "honest" as the leaders of Hamas, who at least declare publicly and in their charter their hatred and their determination to kill Jews everywhere and destroy the State of Israel.

It is the Jews who being "tarred with the same brush", just like the 1930s, not the Muslims. The only similarity I can see between the current world situation is the demonization of Jews that is almost identical to that sad and tragic era in history.

It is, in fact, dangerously close to the kind of massive generalisation that gave rise to the Final Solution, except that the victims of that "Final Solution" are once again the Jews.

the recent demonstrations in London and elsewhere were not for peace. They were antisemitic and anti-Israel.

Did you not hear the calls of "Death to the Jews", "Death to Israel"?

Calls for boycotts reminiscent of Kristalnacht and the destruction of Jewish shops and businesses?

Do you not see the same old blood-libels being dragged out yet again- Jews eating babies, Jews ruling the world, Jews to blame for everything that's wrong in the world?

Not for nothing is it called "The Oldest Hatred".

Wake up my friend. Yes, there is a gross generalisation and demonization in progress, but the victims, as ever, are the Jews.

In the 1930s the writing on the wall said "Jews to Palestine". Now it reads "Jews out of Palestine".

Plus ça change...

#44 - threnodio

I do not ask you to withdraw your comment. This is your opine and you are perfectly free to make the case for what you believe.

I simply disagree that Israel is using excessive force and I do not believe that it is targetting civilians deliberately. I believe Israel is fighting a legitimate war with Hamas and that, as is the nature of warfare, collateral damage is inevitable and civilians are at risk.

It is my opinion that given the nature of modern warfare occurring with the confines of a heavily populated enclave that contains the City of Gaza, even if the casualty figures announced by the Palestinian Medical Authority is propaganda, that the 1100 dead - most of them undoubtedly Hamas fighters - make the civilian casualties appear to be remarkably low.

I put this down to the Israelis being more careful in using deadly force in a controlled way. It is also not beyond the realms of probablity that some of the civilains have been killed in what would be termed "friendly fire" given the Hamas fighters are not the world's foremost soldiers.

If the Isreali intent was truly to use disproportionate force then I believe the Palestinian death toll would be reported by the Palestinians with higher numbers and with much more propagandist delight!

Conversely, I consider the indiscriminate use of any rocketry targetted at civilians population areas as a grave crime against humanity and find it remarkable that the world is so slow to criticise the Palestinians for this atrocity given the vast number of rockets that are discharged year-on-year by Hamas.

The two wrongs do not make a right and neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians come out of this conflict with glory but it is a war and, in war, it is Nation versus Nation not soldier versus terrorist as the liberal minded people might wish how this war was fought.

My reference to Coventry and Dresden was to amplify this point. The Germans were no more "wrong" and no more "right" to bomb Coventry to destruction in 1940 than the British were "wrong" or "right" to bomb Dresden to destruction in 1944.

War is war and civilians are merely at less risk if they run away from the fighting. If they stay they could be a terrorist - how is a soldier in enemy territory to know if they are not terrorists? Let themselves be shot first?

Will the BBC confirm or deny this, please?

https://www.theaugeanstables.com/2009/01/16/bbc-silent-about-being-terrorized-in-gaza-discretion-or-cowardice/

Israeli media reports that Hamas took over the first floor of the building that houses the BBC offices in Gaza last night and fired rockets from there, trapping the journalists above. Despite the fact that their reporters have now escaped the building, the BBC has so far not said anything about this.

#45 - FirstBiodegradable

"I am not accusing Israel of genocide or comparing them with the Nazis.

Oh yes you are!"

You will be so kind as to either read what I write or disregard it but have the courtesy not to tell me what I am or am not saying. This dialogue is ended.

#46 - Menedemus

"My reference to Coventry and Dresden was to amplify this point. The Germans were no more "wrong" and no more "right" to bomb Coventry to destruction in 1940 than the British were "wrong" or "right" to bomb Dresden to destruction in 1944."

I did not say they were. What I said is that both events and indeed all saturation bombing of urban areas is fundamentally wrong because it has as its primary motive the purpose of destroying morale by remorselessly pounding civilians contrary to the rules of law. I have not accused the Israelis of indiscriminate warfare. What I have said is that when a force engages in combat in an urban area where civilians are present in numbers, the consequences for those civilians can be grave. In this case they certainly are. You may disagree with my assessment that the response was disproportionate but the probable impact on civilians was totally foreseeable.

At 48 above . .

for "rules of law", please read "rules of war".

Apologies for the typo.

48. At 00:09am on 17 Jan 2009, threnodio wrote:

#45 - FirstBiodegradable

You will be so kind as to either read what I write or disregard it but have the courtesy not to tell me what I am or am not saying.

You will also, perhaps, be so kind as to read the rest of my comment in which I elaborate on your comparisons.

This dialogue is ended.

Goodbye!

"I notice that the image for the video on this page is a small child. Watching TV or internet one would think that the only people hurt in this fighting are children."

"Maybe the Israelis have longer memories than the BBC.

I recall the 2002 "Jenin Massacre" as widely reported by BBC (and others). The IDF forces were accused of butchery of a massacre on the scale of the Sabra and Chatilia massacres."

Blunted sensitivity
"WHEN THE killing and destruction in Gaza were at their height, something happened in faraway America that was not connected with the war, but was very much connected with it. The Israeli film ?Waltz with Bashir? was awarded a prestigious prize. The media reported it with much joy and pride, but somehow carefully managed not to mention the subject of the film. That by itself was an interesting phenomenon: saluting the success of a film while ignoring its contents.

The subject of this outstanding film is one of the darkest chapters in our history: the Sabra and Shatila massacre. In the course of Lebanon War I, a Christian Lebanese militia carried out, under the auspices of the Israeli army, a heinous massacre of hundreds of helpless Palestinian refugees who were trapped in their camp, men, women, children and old people. The film describes this atrocity with meticulous accuracy, including our part in it.

All this was not even mentioned in the news about the award..... "

"Firstly, the figure of 1000 deaths and up to 4500 casualties is not yet proven by independent news reporters. Which was the main thrust of my argument and a matter to which Mark alludes in his item."

Ed,

You are wasting your time my friend. Peace and goodwill to all men is over until next Christmas:-)

Managing the news?

Sad, very sad

When news management breaks down...

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
ed

Reuters' take

Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
ed

Now that the unilateral ceasefires have been in place for more than 24 hours and the media are reporting from Gaza, we are being bombarded with images of what appears to be indiscriminate destruction. The Israelis constantly repeat the mantra that they were attacking positions used by Hamas for offensive purposes. Had journalists been allowed into Gaza during the campaign, there may have been some evidence to back those claims. As it is, there is none. One wonders whether the news blockade has not ultimately backfired on Israel and that they have shot themselves in the foot by implementing it.

@14: Menedemus wrote:

threnodio @13

Firstly, the figure of 1000 deaths and up to 4500 casualties is not yet proven by independent news reporters.
--
And, when it is, Menedemus, will you apologise?
Regev admitted that Hamas kept its cease fire until 4th Nov. Also, a Hams truce offer in December because Israel refused to ease the blockade.

To imply here that local reporters and UN workers are in cahoots with Hamas is deeply offensive.
I believe the BBC has people in Gaza.

We know about the department specifically set up to flood message boards and blogs.
Email and SMS alerts are also employed.
Everyone was so "on-message" that they all used the same false analogy of "if you were being bombed from nearby X, wouldn't you act?" without first asking if you were imposing a blockade on X.
The Daily Show skewered this one on its first day back.

Irish_Mark @57

I have nothing to apologise for. I simply stated that I mistrusted the figures for deaths and casualties on the Palestinan side as they were issued by the Palestinian Authority without independent news media reporters being on site.

I have always been careful to suggest that, if the figures were to be believed then the number of women and children killed was a smaler proportin than adult males who must be assumed to be Hamas Fighter - that was and remains my opinion.

I do not have to apologise for my opinion. It may be wrong but then your opinion could be as equally wrong.

Now, as to "Hamas kept its cease fire until 4th Nov": the Israeli figures for Hamas rockets launched from the Gaza Strip during the truce between Hamas and Israel between June and October 2008 are as follows:

19-30 June: 9
July: 20
August: 17
September: 2
October: 2

If that is some kind of Palestinian Truce then it is very different for what is perceived to be a truce in any other part of the world.

The fact is that any rocket launched at civilian areas is an indiscriminate weapon as it is unguided and uncontrolled. The fact that Israeli deaths was low was more by luck than judgement and it was, to my mind, not the intention of the Hamas Militants (who launch these indiscriminate rocket attacks) who undoubtedly launch these rockets so as to cause as much terror and harm to Israelis as they, Hamas, could wish for.

It is my belief that, in general terms, the Palestinians are sympathetic to and supporters of Hamas and the Palestinian Conflict with Israel. If Israel gives it back to the Palestinians and Hamas now and then - sooner or later, the world will wake up to the fact that it is Hamas and the Palestinians who are the primary aggressors and it is the Israelis who respond.

The fact that the Israelis cause more damage, destruction and deaths is because they are more efficient and resourceful. The Israeli problem is that Hams hide behind the citiznes of the Gaza Strip like the cowards they are and any military reponse into Gaza must necessarily entail collateral damage, destruction and civilian casualties.

Not to respond would be stupid as the Hamas Militants simply continue to lob rockets at Israel without anyone ever criticising them.

Perhaps the Israeli response was overkill. Perhaps it was wanton damage, death and destruction. But the truth is that it is Israel responding to provocative indiscriminate rocket attacks that persist even during a so-called truce; so, as far as I am concerned, the Palestinians get what they deserve - a comeuppance.

The other thing to bear in mind is that, yes, Israel blocked it's borders with the Gaza Strip but no one ever seems to question why Egypt keeps a very tight rein on the Rafah Crossing from Gaza to Egypt. Perhaps it is because the Egytians know something about the nature of the Palestinians (equally as well understood by the Israelis!) that no-one cannot trust a Palestenian to keep his word and behave with honour.

I bet that it will be Hamas who break the current ceasefire that exists today. Please mark my words before you ask me to apologise again.

As to the nature of bias and misleading "news" reporting I would like to introduce the anecdotal evidence that the BBC is not immune to bias in that the BBC reported Chris Gunness, who is the spokesman for Unrwa, the UN agency that looks after Palestinian refugees in Gaza, as stating that the attack on the UN School in Gaza during this conflict was a war crime.

What the BBC failed to say was that Chris Gunness used to work for the BBC. If they had done so, then such a inflammatory statement by an ex-BBC employee, might have added context to the statement being reported by the BBC and added some authenticity to the way the BBC reports matters within the Middle East. The absence of reporting this fact lends me to believe that the BBC chose to conceal this connection with Chris Gunness.

The only BBC Reporter who was prepared to admit that there was this connection between the BBC and the Gaza Strip based UN Mission was Jeremy Bowen whose reports, often highlighting that the intransigence of both Israelis AND Palestinians is the real cause of the factional wars in the Middle East are the only reports I would, personally, trust.

Your trust in The Daily Show is very touching. Not a liberal-minded comedy show is it?

Believe what you like and hold your opinion as long as you wish. That is your right.

I am equally entitled to hold my opinion, be it different to yours, and, for my opinion, I do not apologise.

I for one would like to thank Mark Urban for his comments here.

I would like to add some comments I've already posted on other BBC blogs, I hope the mods will be generous and not consider them to be spam :-)

My congratulations to the BBC's Paul Wood. More fact finding like this please:

Broken town shows Gaza destruction

Everyone here denied there were military targets in the homes fired on by the Israeli forces.

But Hamas officials stopped us from filming at one site where bodies were still being removed.

This was a sign, perhaps, that there had indeed been some kind of military target if not in the houses then nearby.

Which goes to show that had Israel allowed free access to Gaza for the media during the fighting Hamas would without a doubt have controlled their output even more.

The question still remains as to how much of what was allowed out via the BBC's Palestinian producers, coached by Alan Johnston, was censored or approved by Hamas.

..............

This comment refers to Gaza voices: Hamas and the truce

If we want to discuss the reliability of sources, or otherwise, here's a comment from another blog which reveals some interesting facts:

We have 3 guys here, the first is only named 'Ahmed', and we do not have a photo of him. He claims that his family do not dare to speak openly about Hamas.

Then we have MUHAMMAD ABUSHABAN, with a nice studio-portrait. He is pro-Hamas. So far so good. But who is he? Well we have him on Mere Rhetoric reporting on a BBC story:
https://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/11275327.html
Here we have him again:
https://www.thenational.ae/article/20090115/FOREIGN/125325314/1080

But you can check on Google.

And we have Amjad Shawa. He is a trained "average Joe" at BBC, but he also has other duties:
He happened to be a friend of this guy reporting in 2002 from Gaza:
https://www.counterpunch.org/schurr0501.html

Summer 2008 he appeared in Haarec claiming insider infos about an activist boat from Quatar!
https://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1044043.html

Here is the same 'he' about the Free Gaza show and other things:
https://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=16780

You can google him for more unique experiences.

Reliable, impartial sources?

Israel knows what it is doing to the Palestinians is wrong. It knows that if it keeps up the unbelievable over-reaction to Palestinians who are using whatever they can to break out of the ghetto that Israel has forced them into, the world will eventually react. But only if everyone knows that is going on. Unless you are a newshound, you don't really know how vicious the Israelis are. It is only the BBC that gives US residents even a hint of how horribly the Palestinians are treated by the Israeli people. Even the relatively quite West Bank people are treated as less than human by the Palestinians. I was over there and was appalled at the difference between Israeli communities and West Bank communities. Nices roads and buildings and plenty of food and water in Israel -- crummy roads, walls dividing communites, food must be fought for and water is an on and off again affair.

How can the civilized world let this go on? We rebelled against South Africa why don't we rebel against Israel? Is it because so much of the Western world's media is controlled by Jews? Is it because the western world also have begun to think of the Palestinians as sub-human because they are Arabs? I don't know but I do know that I am ashamed of living in a world that let's so-called civilized people (the Israeli) do such horrible things to other human beings.

61. At 4:44pm on 22 Jan 2009, texgal wrote:

I was over there and was appalled at the difference between Israeli communities and West Bank communities.

Does the phrase "Palestinian Authority" mean anything to you?

The PA has received billions of dollars in aid - they have their own parliament, police force and much more in the way of infrastructure.

If the "Palestinian administered territory" of the West Bank isn't as nice and civilized as Israel please don't blame Israel. The Palestinians have had and continue to have every opportunity to provide for themselves - that's what "autonomy" means, and having an independent state means taking responsibility for yourself.

Israel evacuated Gaza down to the last Jew and left the Palestinians a thriving agricultural industry complete with hi-tech greenhouses to give them a head start. The Palestinians instead destroyed all of that and began hurling rockets at Israel - then demanded Israel send aid across the borders!

Can you name one other country in the world that's expected to feed the very people that attack them every day?

Ask yourself why, now the fighting has stopped in Gaza, the first thing the Palestinians are doing is to repair the arms smuggling tunnels Israel just destroyed. Don't you think their efforts, and our money, would be better employed improving life for themselves instead of thinking of how to resume attacking Israel again?

Al Jezeera (Eng) and Press TV were telling the story and showing the pictures, including pictures of fit young men lying gravely injured or dead. (yes, some even had beards, jon112uk)

The aftermath of the war is still a leading story on Al Jezeera and both sides of the story are being argued. As I write Yossi Mekelberg, an Israeli Analyst is giving his unchallenged view.

i think Mr Urban is trying too hard to give an excuse for the BBC's failure to report objectively from the region, repeatedly refusing to look at the story from both sides. The Israeli's stated aim was to reduce rocket fire from Hamas. to achieve this they did kill many innocents and destroyed the infrastructure of the Gaza. The children that died, more than 400 of them, are not collateral damage. They are young children, the future of this planet. This is a tragedy that should be reported regardless of censorship and shame on Mr urban and the BBC for failing to investigate even one of these lost lives.