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.

        • @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?