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.

    • @givesomefucks
      link
      English
      991 year ago

      There’s a reason every country that bitches about the BBC also gets accused of being far right authoritarians…

      BBC calls them out, but pulls just short of saying it. And there’s nothing far right authoritarians hate more than someone calmly telling the world exactly what they want. If we flat out called them nazis, they’d argue they’re not technically nazis they’re sparkling fascists.

      • Echo Dot
        link
        fedilink
        English
        141 year ago

        The only people the BBC have ever called Nazis are the actual Nazis, because they called themselves Nazis. So fair enough.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        I’m really sorry, but in case of Armenia, Artsakh and Azerbaijan BBC has been extremely pro-Azeri for many years, all the way to using Azeri place names which literally were invented 30 years ago when they were attempting (then unsuccessfully, now successfully) to depopulate those places.

        Now they seem to have made a 180 degree turn (still using Azeri place names, though), but that can be explained by there no longer being Armenians in Artsakh, so lying is no longer that necessary.

        Now, about nazis and Azerbaijan … you comment seems asinine in that context.

    • @Evia
      link
      English
      -61 year ago

      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

          • @TropicalDingdong
            link
            English
            281 year ago

            Wikipedia is a lawmaking body?

            I think you are missing the point.

              • @TropicalDingdong
                link
                English
                171 year ago

                Law is not some immutable force. Many countries have laws.

                In some of those countries, Hamas is a designated terrorist organization. In others, it is not, and even considered and ally (or has been previously, such as Afghanistan, Algeria, Iran, Qatar, Syria).

                Hamas its self is a government. They have their own laws. So whose laws should we defer to?

                The point is that who is or isn’t a terrorist depends on the context and point of view you are speaking from.

                There is no universality in that kind of word, and so its appropriate that the BBC isn’t using it.

                  • @TropicalDingdong
                    link
                    English
                    101 year ago

                    I get the emotionalism behind this moment. But words matter. This was a state sponsored effort.

                    If there is any delineation between a terrorist act and state violence, it should be the existence of a state.

                    A state exists, Palestine. This was a state action, not a terrorist action. It was an act of open war, but not an act of terrorism. That’s a different thing.

                    Definitions and words matter. It can’t be “Everything I hate is terrorism”. Look at how the American right has done this with the word ‘fascism’ (largely to obscure their clearly fascistic approaches).

                    What Hamas did was not an act of terrorism. They have done that previously. This was an act of war.

          • @Veltoss
            link
            English
            211 year ago

            So how far did you get in this article? Did you see the title and go into rage posting or did you actually read it?

            • eratic
              link
              fedilink
              English
              8
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              This dude writes 50 comments a day on multiple accounts. From what I’ve seen they are completely filled with hatred and spitefulness and their personal conviction is more important than deliberation or compassion. It must be exhausting.

          • @ShittyBeatlesFCPres
            link
            English
            81 year ago

            Critically, though, not the U.N. I linked to the same thing above before I saw your comment but came to a different conclusion. I personally call them terrorists but I’m not a journalist trying to be impartial on a global network. I think it’s fine for the BBC to just say which countries do label them terrorists without taking a side.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            Kinda weird that New Zealand takes the time to differentiate calling the political arm of Hamas not terrorists and the militant arm of Hamas (Qassam Brigades) terrorists. Maybe someone should look into why.

      • @[email protected]OP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        681 year ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            411 year ago

            So do you call the Israeli army terrorists? Because they’ve done all of those things to an even greater extent than Hamas has.

            • @SCB
              link
              English
              -7
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The military prosecuted and convicted the leader who ordered the killings, so implying the US military condones these actions is really stupid

              Regardless of the wrist-slap the criminal President gave him, he was convicted. There is no legal recourse after a Presidential commutation.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                91 year ago

                My Lai was not an isolated incident.

                Only one involved was convicted as stated, but then completely let off so who cares? The higher ups that enabled it were completely let off. Others who were involved in the cover up completely let off. The whistleblowers, etc were shunned and ostracized by the military for decades.

                • @SCB
                  link
                  English
                  -8
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  so who cares

                  Being that is invalidates the point you were making, you should care.

                  But then, your only interest in contrarianism, so no one really gives a fuck about your opinion either, you sick fucking terrorist apologist.

              • @angrymouse
                link
                English
                141 year ago

                But complaining about whataboutism while you ignore the problem everytime somoeone powerfull or ally does sucks the same. A war of suckers.

                  • @angrymouse
                    link
                    English
                    1
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I’m not trying to do that, I’m trying to understand how to international interests interact with the war, if you really want to understand international conflicts you should do this all the time.

                    Saying “Hammas bad” is much more juvenile, and is equivalent of saying “fart” for the discussion

              • gregorum
                link
                fedilink
                English
                15
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                And while you have every right to your opinion, your opinion isn’t a newsworthy or relevant fact.

      • @YoBuckStopsHere
        link
        English
        501 year ago

        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.

              • gregorum
                link
                fedilink
                English
                61 year ago

                Lmao, you’re seriously linking to a deleted comment to try to make your case?

                Laws are, by definition, a legal opinion— which can be overturned, by the way, by another legal opinion. The only fact here is that it is, is some jurisdiction, a law.

          • @angrymouse
            link
            English
            111 year ago

            That just is not the point. I mean, if you are involved in the conflict you can totally believe in anything, but the point is in the moment you call them terrorist and call it a day you lost any possibility to analyze the situation and understand WTF is happening and why.

            BBC is not saying they are NOT terrorists, but it does not matter in this context.

      • @ShittyBeatlesFCPres
        link
        English
        251 year ago

        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.

        • @kautau
          link
          English
          -11 year ago

          “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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            51 year ago

            The war will go on for centuries until there’s nothing left to claim

            The US is older than Israel. My grandfather is older than Israel and he’s still alive. There was no state of Israel in 1920 and the Jewish population in the region was ~11%. This hasn’t been going on for centuries. It’s been going on for century.

            • @kautau
              link
              English
              4
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              The history of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of Israel has its origins in the 2nd millennium BCE, when Israelites emerged as an outgrowth of southern Canaanites, During biblical times, a postulated United Kingdom of Israel existed before splitting into two Israelite kingdoms occupying the highland zone

              The Crusades, the Ottoman Empire, thankfully those only lasted a century and that’s when we determined who got what.

              Yes I’m sure that since they didn’t have it before, they wouldn’t try to have it again. My point is not about nations that rise and fall. It’s that they will continue to rise and fall for this holy war on what they consider to be “their land”

              Are you really sure that without US intervention, and the nation of Israel starting, there wouldn’t be orthodox Jewish terrorists on the other side of the border claiming it was “their land?”

              Those claiming it’s “their land” will continue to fight, until everyone is dead. That’s my point.

      • @givesomefucks
        link
        English
        181 year ago

        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?