SOCIAL VOX

My thoughts on the world around me

Protesters glued inside BBC HQ

If the media is to be objective, it should show the different sides of any argument. Here, the protesters contend that the BBC is offering a one-sided, pro-Israel angle.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

One thing I found interesting was how the woman called for the BBC to give equal coverage to Palestinian government officials. Isn’t Hamas the leading political party in Palestine (In January 2006, Hamas took 76 of 132 seats in the Palestinian parliamentary elections)? Hamas…the known terrorist organization? In essence, then, the woman is calling for BBC to share the limelight between Israel and Hamas.

Should the BBC air whatever Hamas has to say? There does seem to be something inherently wrong with handing the podium over to a terrorist organization whenever it feels like spouting off its religious/political agenda. As far as the western media is concerned, wouldn’t it be enabling or legitimizing the organization were it to chronicle every spoken word or action?

My feeling is that, even though the Palestinians have democratically given Hamas the right to speak on their behalf, Hamas should not be entitled to equal air time.

January 1, 2009 - Posted by | Law, Media, Politics, Protests | , , , , , ,

5 Comments »

  1. Today NPR had an interesting and fair interview of two families in both, the Gaza and Israel side, but I agree that there is no much coverage of the Palestinian side, perhaps because they are living under an anarchy –even though the Hamas ‘party’ was elected democratically– since the terrorist arm of the party is really in control. Once again, if we do not see this conflict as a proxy regional war the problem will never get resolved, especially, militarily. The Obama administration should immediately establish conversation with Iran and Syria to address their toxic influence in the region.

    Comment by GR | January 1, 2009 | Reply

  2. GR, you’re falling into the trap the rest of the world has. We know their intent is to destroy Israel as they state it daily and our giving them an ear will do nothing to change it. It will give them a larger audience to spew the same bile and vitriol. Will these chats cause them to postpone the promised annihilation of Israel for another couple years just to be nice? Will they only annihilate half of Israel? Perhaps they’ll only annihilate the men over 40. “Feel good” doesn’t work with hate-filled barbarians,
    only force greater than they are capable of inflicting.

    Comment by foundersfreedom | January 2, 2009 | Reply

  3. FoundersFreedom:

    I must admit it’s tough to negotiate with states who do not even believe the state of Israel should exist. With that said, though, there has to be a different answer other than force. At least for now. To wage war against the entire Arab world, unless absolutely necessary, would be imprudent and foolhardy.
    Aside from Hamas, it seems that the rest of the Palestinian people are willing to co-exist with the Israelis, and vice-versa. Why is that? Perhaps we need to explore that dynamic further, and try to understand what set of rules and terms would allow both sides to the conflict to live in peace.
    Remember, these recent acts are those of Hamas, an extremist group banned in a neighboring Arab country, Jordan. So, before Israel and the US start to position all the chess pieces in preparation for all-out war, it would serve us all much more to explore other options: greater economic sanctions, for example.
    War is always an option. It is, however, a sword which should not be wielded unless all other options have been exhausted.

    Comment by socialvox | January 2, 2009 | Reply

  4. I understand your contention, but, legally or through coercion, Hamas was voted into power with their expressed platform of said destruction. One needs to fault the common Palestinians in some way – be it for actually voting Hamas in in conscience or allowing them to intimidate the population into doing it. One way or the other they are complicit. Whether most of the world believes it or not this is a clash of civilizations (Islam vs the West/ Christianity / Judaism) that is inevitable. Iran, Syria, Jordan, et al, are not innocent bystanders / cheerleaders. I’m a believer of the Bible and there will be an armageddon in which one side will be nearly extinguished and the other WILL be extinguished. I know who the Bible says will survive and it ain’t the Palestinians. That does not make me happy, though I support Israel. Neither does that make Israelis happy. Our side is the side that tries to protect innocent victims as their side targets them. Soon? Perhaps, but it definitelywill happen. Hang on. it will be a bloody, bumpy ride.

    Comment by foundersfreedom | January 3, 2009 | Reply

  5. FoundersFreedom:

    Believing in Armageddon because the Bible says it puts you at the same irrational level that the ones that believe that Israel does not deserves to exist –it is a fanatic and irrational position. You are mentioning Iran, Syria and Jordan without any ethnic (Persian vs. Arabs for example) or religious (Sunni vs. Shia) distinction. A common cause (the extermination of the people of Israel) unifies them, but to find a solution to human suffering is imperative that someone drives a win-win solution. This win-win will not come without compromising, and that is where the global powers have an important role. Unfortunately, the UN and its 1947 Resolution 181 set the tone for the screw up we live today. Nevertheless, the UN has its role. Some of the major Arab countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia (both Sunni countries) should do more to assist the Palestinian people. Let’s not forget that the Palestinian are treated as third class people by the Arab world. The role of Iran supporting Hammas is without a question intended to maintain a proxy ally against Israel, and particularly US.
    Going back to main issue: how you arrive to your political/ideological position is not different to the fanatics against Israel; you are just on the other side of the mirror.

    Comment by GR | January 4, 2009 | Reply


Leave a reply to foundersfreedom Cancel reply

« Previous | Next »