I guess not strictly news - but with all of the vitriol I have seen in discussions on the Israel situation, that have boiled down to arguments over wording, I feel that this take from the BBC is worthy of some discussion.
Mods, feel free to remove if this is not newsy enough.
It’s a very one-sided genocide. It’s just plain ridiculous to equate the two sides when it was Zionists who stormed the Arab mandate in 1947, Zionists (and later, Israel) who created hundreds of thousands of refugees with millions still stuck in miserable camps on the borders, Israel who has kept Palestinians under brutal occupation and blockade since 1967, and Israel who bombs densely populated cities with fighter jets while the brand new Hamas air force is using hang-gliders powered by fans.
It’s such a difficult thing to explain to people whose primary exposure to the conflict is through the Western media but these accounts, by two Palestinian and Israeli non-violent activists, are well worth a read. Unfortunately I can’t find the original transcripts so it’s a google books extract and is missing some of George’s testimony.
My man colonialism created India and Pakistan but if Pakistan started slaughtering Indian civilians that would still be Pakistan’s responsibility.
You seem to have replied to the wrong comment. Or Lemmy is fucking up the indexing.
It’s not a suffering Olympics. Yes, the history is tumultuous, and yes, the State of Israel has more than likely caused way more suffering to Palestinians than Hamas has to Israelis. But that’s besides the point. The point is, civilians on both sides are now paying the price. No one wants to get shot at or bombed, and support for either side’s civilian population is NOT tacit support of the militants of the opposite side.
Manchester was a terror attack.
Under international law the Palestinians have a right to resist the occupation. That their tactics are not always in accordance with international law is a point you can make only if you recognise that Israel violates these laws far more frequently, and far more brutally, causing far more deaths and an indescribable amount of misery for millions, every day.
The BBC will never describe Israel as a terrorist state and so they are quite correct not to label Palestinian resistance as terrorism.
I think one key difference is that Israel has compulsory service for everyone. Like if in the 1770s the Torrey soldiers on leave held a music festival and they all got gunned down, I’m fairly certain the history books would not change substantially. It’s abhorrent, but if you were in the same situation - occupation by some analogous group to wherever you live who have overwhelming military superiority - would you give up your Identity and assimilate, or try to make them hurt? I’m absolutely NOT saying Palestinians are the good guys, I’m just saying I understand where they’re coming from.
Based
No its not, they are legally considered terrorists and are on the same list as ISIS or the Taliban.
The well known phrase is “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. I Imagine from their point of view, Israel is the ‘terrorist’ group, routinely bombing apartment buildings etc and that their actions are a proportionate counter (recent events nonwithstanding!)
Both sides of the current conflict have/are committing atrocities, but the reporting of those atrocities should be as factual and unbiased as possible.
The freedom fighters that behead babies, rape woman and abduct people… Oh and also rocketstrike civilians in general…
If you believe in their “freedom” feel free to go there.
The best way I’ve heard it described is that they both view the other group of people as existential evil. Far beyond enemies, something which is evil just for existing. Not just the militaries, but the nation, race, state, religion, whatever classification. With that viewpoint, any action you take can be justified. Just as nobody would think twice about killing a million mosquito larvae in a country that has thousands die from malaria, killing a few thousand of the other side is morally neutral at worst.
This is going to continue to be horrific for a while.
It’s pretty ballsy to start using an alt with the same name as the last account you got banned under…
How long you think this one will last?
The U.S., U.K., E.U., and others designate them as a terrorist group but the U.N. does not. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups
The reality is that they’re the militant faction of the de facto government of a quasi-state under Israeli occupation. It is complicated so the BBC just says who thinks they’re a terrorist group. That seems reasonable for journalists striving to be neutral.
“Everybody wants to occupy ‘the holy land’ and everyone who is taking part of that sucks”
While Israel has been basically a terrorist state, attacking Palestinians nonchalant, bombing civilian districts, and Hamas has grown in number, also basically being a terrorist state (the iron dome exists for a reason), it feels like we are forgetting that this whole argument comes down to religious rights. The argument will never end. The conflict will never end. Both groups are thumping their book claiming it’s their land. The war will go on for centuries until there’s nothing left to claim. That’s how religious war works, unless some other great motivator stops it.
They have the right to call them whatever they want, that doesn’t make it correct.
UK Parliament added Hamas on the list of proscribed terrorist organizations in 2021. Press release here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/islamist-terrorist-group-hamas-banned-in-the-uk
The EU have them listed as well (didn’t bother checking since when).
The US has listed them since 1997 (US Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Asset Control is the agency in charge of sanctions enforcement).
So yeah.
Legally.
Journalists should never label a group of people with an adjective. It’s Journalism 101. Your writing should be free of personal bias and report the facts and quoted statements. No assumptions are allowed.
Lmao what? Terrorists isn’t a adjective. And its not a personal bias its a fact https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups
Bullshit. They’ve used the word ‘terrorist’ for every other attack in the past two decades (9/11, London Bridge, Manchester Arena, 7/7, etc.). Was that not ‘choosing sides’ then?
They just can’t admit that the UK fucked up and condemn Israel because the lawyers told them not to
Here is an article that doesn’t refer to it as “terrorism”:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-40008389
The articles I have seen that refer to it as terrorism, tend to be from local BBC services, rather than the national one.
Terrorism is a loaded word, which people use about an outfit they disapprove of morally. It’s simply not the BBC’s job to tell people who to support and who to condemn - who are the good guys and who are the bad guys.
Wasn’t the BBC publishing articles that had a fairly strong anti-trans slant to them recently? It seems funny that the BBC would draw the line at a group that’s murdered nearly 2,000 civilians, including infants, toddlers and children, all within just a few days, but is perfectly okay with suggesting that trans people are deviants who are going to ruin the moral fabric of society.
I’m almost certain I remember there being more “”“both sides are valid/we’re just being informative”“” articles about trans people more recently, but here’s an example of one from a couple years ago that was so controversial it got its own Wikipedia article: “We’re being pressured into sex by some trans women”
I’ve asked for examples of these articles, and nobody has ever been able to produce them.
Part of the problem is that when you have a significant number of news sites fueling anti-trans hate, either directly or indirectly, it all starts to blend together. Nevertheless, here’s an example from a couple years ago, though I’m almost certain I’ve seen similar articles more recently.
It was an article that implied that trans women were coercing sex from lesbians.
Now the article was based on a poor premise to start with, “Do some \ do ?” is almost always going to be “yes” because there are bad people in basically every demographic. That doesn’t mean we go around writing fearmongering articles about those groups. But it gets far, far worse.
The article was based on a survey of 88 women from a group called “Get the L out”, whose entire purpose is trans exclusion. So heavily sampling bias to start, to say the least. The group, and the survey, also considered things like saying that trans women are women or can be lesbians to count as “being coerced into having sex with trans women”, because implying that trans women are women means that they can be lesbians means that they are within the broader dating pool of lesbians, and to them that amounts to coercing lesbians to date men. Which is obviously absurd and not what a normal person would think of when hearing “coerce into sex”. So the survey was deeply misleading and not at all what the headline implied.
The second main contributor to the article was adult actress Lily Cade. Who has admitted to sexually assaulting multiple women. Which makes her an odd choice for an article about sexual assault, don’t you think? These assaults were known long before the article was written, and came up with a Google search. Odd that it slipped through the BBC’s rigorous editorial process. Cade also went on a rant a few days after the article was published, where she called for all trans women to be executed, and called for several named trans women to be lynched. The BBC cut her contribution with a vague message not explaining why.
The BBC also claimed to have reached out to prominent trans women who speak about sex, and claimed that nobody agreed to speak with them. Which was proven to be a lie when Chelsea Poe, a high-profile trans woman who speaks about sex and relationships, revealed that she had in fact been interviewed.
Genuinely one of the most disgustingly biased pieces of “journalism” I’ve ever seen.
