The Glass Box for Thursday
The Glass Box is the place where you can comment on what you heard on PM, interact with other listeners and get responses from the people who make the programme.
Just click on the "comment" link.
The Glass Box is named after the booth outside the PM studio where we all discuss the programme at 18.00 every weeknight. We try to be honest and constructive. Sometimes there is criticism, and the criticised get a chance to explain themselves.
The people who make PM will read the comments posted, and will sometimes respond.
If you want to post a comment about something that is on your mind but was not on the programme - use the link on the right to The Furrowed Brow. Also on the right, you'll find FAQ: try it. And why not visit The Beach?
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
Have peple forgotten that a major contributor to Argentina's actions which precipitated the Falklands war was a penny pinching government who withdrew the Royal Navy Survey vessel, Endeavour, from the south Atlantic, thus signaling a lack of interest in the Falklands to Argentina? And within months that goverment's penny pinching actions would have made the depleted armed services incapable of mounting a task force.
Now then, Eddie, that trail for the Blog, which came between Neil and the News - Was that the fault of the printer too? ;o)
Such a pity that you didn't mention that since 2002 it is now possible to do the following in Hampstead Garden Suburb:
* carry house keys (but not car or office keys)
* carry a handkerchief
* carry food or drink for use during the Sabbath
* carry prayer shawls
* carry books - normally a Jew can't even carry a prayer book on the Sabbath
* carry essential medicines
* carry extra clothes such as a raincoat
* carry nappies
* carry reading glasses
* push a pram or wheelchair
* use a walking frame or crutches
Is there really a country called Pack-E-starn?
A very excited colleague has just shouted out, "Hey, do you know there's a new Gordon Brown book out next week?" Appropos of nothing.
Regarding Hamas in Gaza. In my opinion if the media and some misinformed politicians had not vilified Israel in it's actions against Hamas in Beirut Israel would have been prepared to help Fatah as Fatah had requested.
Why should Israel offer help in the face of such anti-semitic vilification. Yes, let's call a spade a spade. Look at some of the comments made on this site.
What do the Palestinians have to look forward to Islamic rule in Gaza. West Bank next, but, that's just my opinion.
Paul (6),
"Israel would have been prepared to help Fatah as Fatah had requested."
Against the democratically elected party? Of course.
Actually I don't think so because it's turning out just the way the Israeli government likes.
Just where and when have you heard or seen ANYTHING anti-Semitic? Pleas provide a reference.
For a good discussion on this, try this
(11 minutes and 25 seconds in)
Salaami (kosher)/Shalom
ed
Paul (6) I agree. Hamas has an Islamist agenda. Nothing, to do with America or Israel. It has shown that it is prepared to brutally murder other Muslims both in Beirut and Gaza in order to gain power. In an interview this morning on Radio 4 I heard a Palestinian admit that Iran are backing this carnage so I would also suggest that as the British and Americans have stated Iran is behind the carnage in Iraq. Quite simply Hamas are 'butchers'.
This is what Israel has had to cope with for years
Ed (7) Where's the evidence Hamas were democratically elected? It seems to me that they are showing their capacity for democracy.
I have read your thoughts on Israel when you refer to Mark Regev when he was interviewed regarding the proposed boycott by the UCU. Namely, "Mark Regev is an apologist for a repugnant regime" your comment remains on the ±«Óătv listing. How do you rate 'Hamas" ?Ed,
In Eddie Mair's response to Paul's blog that the question that Eddie Mair had posed that Israel had a hand in the current conflict between Hamas and Fatah. I don't understand why Eddie Mair had to say that this question was discussed with senior editors if it was innocuous
What Tony Blair said about the media acting like a feral beast in tearing reputations apart is more than evident and furthermore, there is little variety of opinion on this site because of bias.
Ed (6) The last thing Israel wants is these waring butchers on their doorstep (Hamas) that is why they attempted to destroy them in Lebanon. That is why the Lebanon government are now having ongoing problems with Hamas and why with Syrias assistance Hamas are trying to overthrow the government through assasination.
Israel is the only stable government in that region that have attempted to prevent the Islamist terrorist threat. In order to try to protect their civilian population in the face of critisism a hostile international press.
Ed (7) I noticed you mention kosher salami on your blog. Are they listed for sale in the oil lamp mini catalogue that you advertise on this site. Cheap advertising eh Ed?
Ed (7) If you think Hamas are democratically minded why don't you offer to do some door to door canvassing for them.
I do just wonder if you could open a thread especially for people who want to argue ad infinitum about the Israel/Palestine problem.
There is an awful lot of it cluttering up threads which start on totally other topics. I'm not suggesting it isn't discussed because obviously it's in the news a lot, but if it was all on one thread then those who wanted to talk about it could and those who didn't could avoid it.
Ken (8/9/10)),
"Where's the evidence Hamas were democratically elected?"
In the public domain. Where have you been the past year?
"How do you rate 'Hamas" ?Ed,"
As an inevitable outcome of the past sixty years of Zionism.
"Hamas are trying to overthrow the government through assasination"
And Israel? Targeted Assassinations?
"Cheap advertising eh Ed?"
All proceeds go to the search for your sense of humour.
Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peace
ed
"Quite simply Hamas are 'butchers'."
And ?
Annie (110,
"those who wanted to talk about it could and those who didn't could avoid it."
and "pass by on the other side."
xx
ed
Jan (11),
I'm sorry I failed to note that I found your post about the risks to women on Monday very well put.
You will, no doubt, have noted that I didn't say anything indicating support for Hamas, so your sense of humour isn't in doubt.
I'd be too frightened to canvass for anyone in the territories for fear of becoming a 'collateral' casualty:
xx
ed
admin annie (12) "I do just wonder if you could open a thread especially for people who want to argue ad infinitum about the Israel/Palestine question".
As a series of debates on whether to impose an academic boycott on Israel Universities is planned by some members of the UCU. I would suggest that a more balanced discussion of the issue mentioned above is appropriate because it affects people in this country not just the Middle East. It is not a minority issue and should not be treated as such.
Providing lists of facts taken out of context without explanation or discussion is not a substitute for balanced debate.
Jan (16),
Allright, can you provide some context so we can discuss my lists of facts. You're right there doesn't seem to be much 'balance' in the debate because nobody has even tried to counter any of the facts or arguments.
The lack of balance in the debate may be a reflection of the lack of balance in the situation.
Salaam/Shalom
ed
Admin Annie, yes, for goodness' sake: debate is fine but lists of facts and personal insults are not debate.
Jan @16 mentions 'a series of debates on whether to impose an academic boycott on Israel Universities is planned by some members of the UCU. I would suggest that a more balanced discussion of the issue mentioned above is appropriate because it affects people in this country not just the Middle East. It is not a minority issue and should not be treated as such'.
The chances that their debate will be either balanced or reported in a balanced way seem very slim to me: it's already been widely refered to as 'a call to boycott Israel' rather than a call for a debate.
Mention Israel or Palestine and reasoned debate flies screaming out the window along with any vestige of good manners, as a rule.
I do agree that balanced discussion among academics (as well as here) would be a good thing, if it were possible, but surely academics are a minority, and not a very large one at that, in this country and in Israel? So what they think and feel, whilst no doubt very important to *them*, really doesn't matter a hill of beans to anyone outside their immediate circle and is unlikely to have much effect.
I'd say that's a good thing: boycotting Palestine because the people of that country voted for Hamas to represent them seems to have had an effect exactly opposite from what was intended by the people who decided on it, and I fear the same would be true of a boycott of one small aspect of Israeli life. Treating people badly very rarely makes them behave well, in my observation.
A balanced 3rd-party view:
Salaam/Shalom
ed
Thanks, Ed! (@19)
There was an interesting response to the situation now in Gaza, broadcast by the ±«Óătv as I was driving home last night so I assume on the ten pm news-thingy, in which someone was talking about the negative consequences of international policy towards Palestine since Hamas were elected -- he seemed to be suggesting that by Islamist standards Hamas were moderate at the time of their election, but that this would not go on being the case for much longer if it was obvious that even when they *did* sign all the documents they were asked to it was ignored and they were vilified for not having signed them.
(I truly don't know how accurate or otherwise that might be, but I did notice that the terms in which Hamas spoke of Israel had altered to a degree in the first two or three weeks after the election.)
There was also an American from some organisation of an international kind deploring the boycott and its having been imposed before Hamas had a chance to show whether they could be grown-up politicians (my words not his!) as having been very counter-productive.
Because I was driving and paying attention to traffic I missed both names, unfortunately. And this machine has no listen-again possibilities even if that programme is available that way.
Ed (17) "The lack of balance in the debate may be a reflection of the lack of balance in the situation"
Ed I agree entirely. Just look at the size of Israel's landmass and compare it to the size of it's surrounding Arab neighbours.
The enormity and lack of balance in this argument in the mind of some people is soley to do with their depth of hatred.
Israel cannot be held repsonsible for the weak government(s) of the Palestinians.
Israel cannot be held responsible for those with an Islamist agenda.
I feel extremely sad for the Palestinians who find themselves in a situation where they are now governed by 'butchers'. Personally, I wish that their past representatives had acted more appropriately to ensure the security of the Palestinian people. I heard it mentioned on the radio this week that female newsreaders face death threats if they do not wear scarves. Is Israel responsible for that?
In addition, I was not under the impression that this blog exists soley for the benefit of the 'elite few' like minded people at it's core.
Ed (17) "The lack of balance in the debate may be a reflection of the lack of balance in the situation"
Ed I agree entirely. Just look at the size of Israel's landmass and compare it to the size of it's surrounding Arab neighbours.
The enormity and lack of balance in this argument in the mind of some people is soley to do with their depth of hatred.
Israel cannot be held repsonsible for the weak government(s) of the Palestinians.
Israel cannot be held responsible for those with an Islamist agenda.
I feel extremely sad for the Palestinians who find themselves in a situation where they are now governed by 'butchers'. Personally, I wish that their past representatives had acted more appropriately to ensure the security of the Palestinian people. I heard it mentioned on the radio this week that female newsreaders face death threats if they do not wear scarves. Is Israel responsible for that?
In addition, I was not under the impression that this blog exists soley for the benefit of the 'elite few' like minded people at it's core.
I have noticed that some of the core users do not address you directly if you do not agree with their views. They ignore your posts. Also, they pull apart what you say in a dismissive manner and impose their views instead in a tit-for-tat way.
Very mature indeed I would say.
Jan @20
'I was not under the impression that this blog exists soley for the benefit of the 'elite few' like minded people at it's core.'
Well, nor was I, and I haven't seen any sign that it is...
After all, I am in no way prevented from posting here, and that certainly doesn't describe me! Since I have a computer too small to let me access longer threads, I'm hardly at the core of anything: as soon as it starts to get involved and lengthy I can no longer join in. When I *am* able to join in, I am quite often swimming against the flow of a discussion and posting opinions that may not be agreed with by a majority, and so far I have not been prevented from doing so.
Although I have noticed a few people who do occasionally post insulting remarks or personal attacks on other people who have posted, these insulting individuals don't ever seem to be the people who post regularly on a wide variety of topics without any particular agreement among themselves: the personal attackers and users of insult always seem to pop up talking about the same things, and attacking someone entirely for having posted something they don't agree with rather than for having posted something silly or inconsistant within its own argument. I assume that the insulters are trying to stifle debate, but I don't think they are succeeding.
Nor do I think that being a regular poster makes someone a member of an 'elite' in any exclusionist sense; I think that those who are polite, humourous and interesting, rather than rude, po-faced and boring, *are* an elite, but that would be my opinion of any two such groups anywhere, not just on the frog.
Jan (28),
I have no hatred, but I am implacably opposed to the behaviour of those who arrogantly imposed an immigrant-based state against the pronounced will of the vast majority of the native population. Chutzpah doesn't get halfway to expressing the overweening hubris in the very idea.
"Israel cannot be held repsonsible for the weak government(s) of the Palestinians."
The imposition of a colonial and ethno-religiously based regime on behalf of a minority of the population of 1947 Palestine is at the root of the problem. Since then Israel has openly done everything it could to sabotage the emergence of any cohesive leadership in the Palestinian community.
She has assassinated hundreds of Palestinian leaders and kidnapped numerous legitimately elected representatives. She has continued (and continues today) to build illegal settlements and establish an apartheid system in territories occupied by force and to ignore numerous UN resolutions demanding she withdraw.
I think Israel can be held responsible for the repeated failures of the 'peace process'.
"Israel cannot be held responsible for those with an Islamist agenda."
Her intransigence is directly responsible for the rising tide of extremist opposition. Israel remains an armed and stockaded 'plantation' originating in Europe, established and maintained by unconscionable violence, dispossession and oppression of the native people.
Who else is responsible? The expelled and dispossessed? Are they guilty for resisting their dispossession?
That's what I mean by the imbalance of the situation. As to this forum/blog, it is open to all, so far as I have been able to ascertain.
Salaam/Shalom
ed
Jan @20
oh, and by the way: you also wrote 'Israel cannot be held repsonsible for the weak government(s) of the Palestinians.'
Not entirely, of course, but I can't believe that kidnapping members of those governments and holding them in prison for an indefinite period without charging them with any particular crime is especially *helpful*!
Chris (20),
"I truly don't know how accurate or otherwise that might be, but I did notice that the terms in which Hamas spoke of Israel had altered to a degree in the first two or three weeks after the election."
I had the same impression, they gave broad hints that there might be an extended truce based upon the 'green line', but it seems they were expected to make concessions first, as has been the situation since the beginning. The victims are expected to give in to the bully before the bully may (or may not) make a 'generous' offer....
On a rather more trivial note, it reminds me of Blair's behaviour in not even acknowledging Alex Salmond's victory.
ł§±ôÄ‚ŇŐľ±˛ÔłŮ±đ
ed
Moderators,
I await the appearance of my reply to Jan's post.
i.o.w.: PUSH!
xx
ed
Chris (18) To suggest that the issues I have raised are of interest only to a small number of academics misses the fundamental point that people in this country are prepared to plan and carry out terrorist attacks (7/7) in this country on the basis of their irrational hatred which is fed in parts by media organisations such as the ±«Óătv. That is well documented. That is my concern and the only reason I have raised the valid points I have raised.
In view of the way this thread has gone, I have decided to post a comment I made to my wife last night:
Palestinians would appear to have been better off when they were inside land governed by Israel rather than outside.
HE LAY RIVEN
Vyle,
"Palestinians would appear to have been better off when they were inside land governed by Israel rather than outside."
Or before the cuckoo's egg was laid in Palestine.
W
Jan (@29)
I think I must have been ambiguous, or conflated two points somehow. I’m sorry about that.
I certainly agree with you that the things that might be discussed by acadamics may be anything under the sun. What I meant to suggest was that the boycotting of one lot of academics by another lot leaves the majority of the populations of the countries from which those academics come utterly unmoved unless they are whipped up into a frenzy about it by the media -- whose reporting may not be in the least balanced. (As an academic I may hope that the academics might be balanced in their debate, but my experience is that academics are as likely as any other group of people to be biased, silly or incapable of reasoned thought on subjects they feel strongly about. Sometimes more so.)
I don’t know of any documentation that indicates that the ±«Óătv has encouraged anyone to blow up themselves and parts of London, or even said that doing so isn’t a very bad idea indeed: can you tell me where that is to be found? I’d have thought there would have been a fairly major row about it if the ±«Óătv advocated terrorism even slightly and by accident, and I don’t remember one.
Is it worth considering as a possibility that actually, if the ±«Óătv were constantly and exclusively pro-Israel, that would be more likely to madden the unbalanced into taking such loathesome and unproductive action than the ±«Óătv offering both sides of the question for consideration would be, and that presenting both sides of the question may in fact be far safer for all of us? Feeling that their point is being noticed even if not agreed with doesn’t generally drive people to extreme, self-destructive actions in an attempt to draw attention to a point they think is being ignored, I wouldn’t have thought.
Ed (28) AKA Prof Woland. You know all the tricks of the trade.
Of many , in fact.
xx
W
Once again, zealots are jumping up and down over the rights and wrongs of worshipping a non-existent being. How very primitive. And what a dreadful thing indoctrination is.
Herr Thinblot (35),
It has little (if anything) to do with religion, as you well know. All wars are resource wars and territory is the primary resource; water and cultivable land are well up there. Family, tribe etc. are also dear to the heart.
W
VT Thinblot @35
I really don’t think that 'the rights and wrongs of worshipping a non-existent being' have a whole lot to do with the way people carry on, once they have been launched in some direction by a charismatic human leader. In fact it seems to me to be a cop-out to blame God or Gods for one's own bad behaviour. When I look for what any of these deities are reported as having required of their worshippers, not killing people in a haphazard way is usually high on the list of recommendations attributed to them.
—Responding to recent events on Earth, God, the omniscient creator-deity worshipped by billions of followers of various faiths for more than 6,000 years, angrily clarified His longtime stance against humans killing each other Monday.
VT (35) Succinct and straight to the point.
Ed @38
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Tusdi is usually worse.
Chris Ghoti @ 37.
I wasn't blaming God, Chris. That would be like blaming Santa because you didn't get any presents.
People with misconceived convictions and a maniacal determination to ensure that we all kow-tow to them are the problem.
Regards,
VT
Prof @ 36
Chris @ 37
I was actually referring to the woman getting very exercised about the singing of some piece of music that apparently mentions Allah 99 times. Did you, perchance, think I was talking about Gaza? That, of course, is about territory and resource and deep perceptions of injustice on both sides, though religious zealotry is, I think, not insignicant (again, on both sides).
Regards,
VT
VT Thinblot (41, 42)
hurrah! we were agreeing: I wasn't blaming God or saying you were, I was blaming people who use him as a pretext for being beastly to each other.
I missed the god-singing. Drat.
(and of course, double-drat, if I say I agree with you I am immediately open to accusations of being part of a mutually-admiring elite or something. What a bore. Fie upon it.)
VTT, was that about the John Taverner music? Bit confused. And insomniac.
EdI (38), most amusing and probably not too far off from what might happen. Stupid apes.
Ed Woland (31)
Not if Mark Twain is to be believed.
(This is so old and probably supplanted by Friday's GB, but I've posted anyway.)
Vyle (45),
Sam Clemens wasn't the only commentator of the time, nor were all the accounts so negative.
A brief search yields .
xx
ed