The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV

There are too many extremists on both sides of this argument, the Israeli ones are more educated, more media savvy, and financially better off. If there is a bias, I am dam sure which side it is on.

How would you go about explaining the 'pinned' status of Israel/Gaza on the BBC's front page for the last 3 weeks?

We didn't have this with Ukraine and just as many people have died there, including many civilians.

Today the BBC story said "Palestinian officials say 1,115 Palestinians, most of them civilians, have been killed in the fighting since 8 July while Israel has lost 53 soldiers and three civilians - two Israelis and a Thai worker."

Frankly they can only go on the information they have been given. Even before you factor in the inevitable bias from the "Palestinian officials", they are unlikely to know an accurate number, and the exact civilian/fighter breakdown of the casualties anyway, whereas Israel will account for every single one of it's soldiers. I'm inclined to give the BBC the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

More excuses for terrorism, looking for any small reason to excuse rampant terrorism.

You make a decent point and of course Hamas have been known to strip fighters of their fighting gear and present them as civilians.

However, it's giving a very distorted view.

When reporting from Syria, the BBC always included the caveat "this could not be independently verified"

How come we don't hear that in this conflict with Gaza?

Hamas control the Health Ministry. They control the hospitals. They control the media.

They have all the tools needed to skew the figures.

Given their past history about lying over casualties, I would have assumed the BBC would be more careful - but it is more sinister I'm afraid.

Not only does it inflame the conflict (Hamas needs casualty headline) it's inflaming racism against Jews in Europe.

Why not say "Hamas official report 1,100 dead, but this could not be independently verified"

I'm confused. I thought the Iron Dome was a "defense" system...

Yes, but they're not going to stand by idly as rockets are being fired at their defense system. It's not impenetrable, it's not infallible, and they'd be stupid to rely on just that to defend them.

How would you go about explaining the 'pinned' status of Israel/Gaza on the BBC's front page for the last 3 weeks?

We didn't have this with Ukraine and just as many people have died there, including many civilians.

block of houses gets completely leveled By Israeli airstrikes in 1 hour

Civilians had been evacuated.

Tunnels came from under those homes.

Because Ukraine has been happening over the course of several months. Unlike Gaza there's less to report on a day-to-day basis. Reporting on conflicts can tend to fade a bit as they go on for longer.

Where are these tunnels going? Around Gaza or into Israel?

Ok, there's currently ethnic cleansing of a 2,000 year old Christian population in Mosul?

All I'm saying is that NO conflict or incident gets as much press as this.

Syria got a few days as the main headline at the beginning of the conflict, then drifted in and out of the headline.

The Israel/Gaza thing has literally been pinned, It moved down a slot after MH17 for a day, then back to the biggest headline.

There's more of a focus on Israel than any other nation. This is fact.

Both.

Tunnels cross Gaza so they can transport rockets/weapons from one side to the other.

Then there's tunnels from Gaza into Israel. I believe the ones in the video are such tunnels.

Then there's tunnels into Egypt which have actually existed since the 1980's.

Why? Because it doesn't work as advertised?



So by attacking Gaza, Israel is "destroying the root of the problem"?

And a ground invasion is the only way to get rid of the tunnels which go into Israel?

By attacking Hamas, which happens to be in Gaza.

May I ask what is the point of bombing an empty home? Or maybe you would like to explain why the Israeli's warn the Palestinians before launching missiles or bombs at them?

We discussed the definition of a military target in a previous exchange. I would imagine the empty home fell under the definition of a military target.

The Israelis warn the Palestinians because they have to warn civilians that bombings will occur near them. I believe that this is under International Law, at least according to a UN report that was posted on here recently.



How many Israeli deaths are acceptable before one can start an invasion?

In my opinion exactly 0. Agressors should be dealt with as soon as there is a risk to anyone's life. And that should hold true for any government that values its people's lives.



Carpet bomb the 1KM buffer zone?