Without warning on Saturday, Gaza’s militant Hamas rulers attacked Israel by air, land and sea. Millions of Israelis in the country’s south awoke to the searing sound of incoming rockets.
Of course. But just because some news outlet is calling it a special operation does not mean that we should accept that. Such things need to be pointed out. Preferably in the TO.
AP isn’t “some news outlet” though, they are the news outlet that other news outlets get their news from
You’re implying a political slant that isn’t there. Their job is to report the literal and factual news. Other news outlets then use their articles to create or add political insight to their own articles should they wish to do so.
For example, AP didn’t report that Ukraine was a “special operation”. They did report that Putin was calling it that.
That’s the difference between impartiality and political alignment.
They are a militant terrorist organisation. Putting the terms terrorist and militant at odds with each other is fruitless wordplay in the context of the news outlet reporting this and the rules of the sub.
We both agree that they are a terrorist organisation and we are free to talk about it here. That seems reasonable enough to me.
We all wish “militants” described them better. Israel can wipe out an organized military that attacks them, with minimal impact on civilians. However these terrorists hide among the civilians, forcing the civilian population into the war, whether they want toor not
Because militaries, or groups that act like militaries, can use terrorist activities to further their goals. They can be both.
When an organization is large, fixed in location, has ranks, news sources tend to call them militaries. Especially if it’s associated with an government.
When organizations are smaller, cell-based, less identifiable, they tend to be referred to as terrorists
The term has become pretty loose with climate activists being called terrorists and whatnot. Anyways, for me the defining characteristic of terror is:
The goal to strike fear in the civilian population. The goal is not to achieve military advantages like securing areas or destroying strategic assets.
As such, small units can be non terrorists (guerilla warfare), while nations can engage in terror (Russia prioritizing civilian targets over military).
Always bad when a definition depends on intent though, especially in controversial topics.
Emm… Attacking civilians is, by definition, terrorizing citizens. On the other hand, apartheid is something you should read about, study its definition, and what exactly happens in Israel, and then think whether it’s the correct use of the word.
In December 2019, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination[5] announced commencing a review of the Palestinian complaint that Israel’s policies in the West Bank amount to apartheid.[6] Soon after this, two Israeli human rights NGOs, Yesh Din (July 2020), and B’Tselem (January 2021) issued separate reports that concluded, in the latter’s words, that “the bar for labeling the Israeli regime as apartheid has been met.”[7][8][9][10] In April 2021, Human Rights Watch became the first major international human rights body to say Israel had crossed the threshold
Yes, Apartheid is very much the correct word.
Adam and Moodley wrote in 2006 that Israeli Palestinians are “restricted to second-class citizen status when another ethnic group monopolizes state power” because of legal prohibitions on access to land, as well as the unequal allocation of civil service positions and per capita expenditure on educations between “dominant and minority citizens”.
While the argument is weaker (but still strong) for Israel proper, Israeli policies in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are Apartheid no questions asked.
Why are they called militant group? They have been and are terrorists.
I have to use the same title as the original article else it gets deleted
Hm okay-ish. Can you add some text below? How is that rule implemented? Do moderators check?
It’s the first rule in the community info section. Mods will check it if it’s reported for not following the guidelines.
This is AP, it’s not their job to have an opinion or adopt a particular nation’s stance on the news they report.
That doesn’t stop you or I from referring to them as a terrorist organisation if that’s what we believe.
Of course. But just because some news outlet is calling it a special operation does not mean that we should accept that. Such things need to be pointed out. Preferably in the TO.
(The other stuff were just genuine questions)
AP isn’t “some news outlet” though, they are the news outlet that other news outlets get their news from You’re implying a political slant that isn’t there. Their job is to report the literal and factual news. Other news outlets then use their articles to create or add political insight to their own articles should they wish to do so.
For example, AP didn’t report that Ukraine was a “special operation”. They did report that Putin was calling it that.
That’s the difference between impartiality and political alignment.
The headline says they are a militant group. Not that they call themselves that it what not.
I generally get your point and that is correct. But I don’t see that here, as per above.
They are a militant terrorist organisation. Putting the terms terrorist and militant at odds with each other is fruitless wordplay in the context of the news outlet reporting this and the rules of the sub.
We both agree that they are a terrorist organisation and we are free to talk about it here. That seems reasonable enough to me.
“Militant terrorist organization” would be perfectly fine
Some text below. Ok. Zionist nation gets attacked by terrorist group, people on both sides suffer.
They are not mutually exclusive.
We all wish “militants” described them better. Israel can wipe out an organized military that attacks them, with minimal impact on civilians. However these terrorists hide among the civilians, forcing the civilian population into the war, whether they want toor not
Except when civilians are their target.
True, but while a terrorist is also someone who eats, one of the two is describing them better.
Peaceful terrorists struck several major city centers yesterday, according to their social media. Impact, if any, was not noticed.
Because militaries, or groups that act like militaries, can use terrorist activities to further their goals. They can be both.
When an organization is large, fixed in location, has ranks, news sources tend to call them militaries. Especially if it’s associated with an government.
When organizations are smaller, cell-based, less identifiable, they tend to be referred to as terrorists
The term has become pretty loose with climate activists being called terrorists and whatnot. Anyways, for me the defining characteristic of terror is:
The goal to strike fear in the civilian population. The goal is not to achieve military advantages like securing areas or destroying strategic assets.
As such, small units can be non terrorists (guerilla warfare), while nations can engage in terror (Russia prioritizing civilian targets over military).
Always bad when a definition depends on intent though, especially in controversial topics.
freedom fighters.
They fight freedom, yes.
Because they are fighting a country doing oppression and apartheid and not “terrorizing citizens”.
they actually do terrorizing citizens right now
Oh man I didn’t realize all those kids at the desert rave which were kidnapped and killed by Hamas terrorists were actually soldiers in disguise.
Emm… Attacking civilians is, by definition, terrorizing citizens. On the other hand, apartheid is something you should read about, study its definition, and what exactly happens in Israel, and then think whether it’s the correct use of the word.
Yes, Apartheid is very much the correct word.
While the argument is weaker (but still strong) for Israel proper, Israeli policies in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are Apartheid no questions asked.
Some mental gymnastics spotted.