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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      106
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 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@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

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

      • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 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

      • Nighed@sffa.communityOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        73
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 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.

        • wewbull@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 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.

          • audiomodder@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            44
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 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.

          • Pratai@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            36
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            You know, they BOTH do that shit, right? It’s important that you know this.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              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.

              • thoro@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 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@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  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@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                18
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

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

                • Pratai@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  But redirecting attention away from the topic being discussed just so you can whine about someone else doing the same makes it appear as if you’re justifying it so long as someone else does it.

                  Stop doing this. It’s juvenile and muddies the water. You want to discuss how shitty America is, do it in its own post where that can be discussed in full. Here, it doesn’t belong.

              • gregorum@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                16
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

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

      • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        51
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 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.

          • angrymouse@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 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.

          • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not sure I agree with their decision, but I’m just saying that their logic is at least somewhat valid. I wouldn’t write it off as just an excuse.

      • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 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.

          • hassanmckusick@lemmy.discothe.quest
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 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?

  • ALQ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    175
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    I miss when this was the standard for news. Now most (e: major) outlets don’t even try to pretend they have no bias and instead push a subjective point. Even when I agree with the point, I don’t like it when my “news” pushes it instead of just, you know, reporting.

    Give me the info and let me form my own opinions.

    • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The news in Australia literally adds dramatic music to their edits. They’re disgraceful, and manipulative.

      • StorminNorman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think your confusing a current affair/today tonight with actual news programs. I channel surf from 5-7:30pm and have never heard the main news programs of 7, 9, 10, SBS, nor the ABC editorialise like that in my 38yrs on this planet. At a stretch, they play clips of articles they’ve already covered at the end with the shows theme song over the top.

        • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Interesting. I see it every time I visit my parents nearly. Doom drama music plays. ‘Journalist’ creates drama. I recommend John Simpson’s book

          • StorminNorman@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I see it all the time on aca and TT. Never on the main news shows, like I said, never in my 38yrs of being alive - and for the last 15yrs I’ve been watching the news between 5-7:30 unless I’m out. I seriously think you’re conflating current affairs shows with the news. Current affairs shows are held to a different (read: lower) standards and ethics levels than that of the news. Not to say there isn’t any bias or manipulation of the viewer, but they aren’t doing it with music. That’s aca and TTs domain.

    • Nighed@sffa.communityOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      While us Brits love to complain about the BBC being biased (probably an actual issue for internal UK politics) its good to remember that it’s still a world leading media outlet, and one of very few that can be considered not to be push an agenda. (I imagine I can find a lot of people that can probably disagree with that too…)

      Even Routers has started editorialising, and I thought they were just meant to be raw facts!

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pretty much all news sources are good for something, so long as it’s outside of their bias’ sphere of influence. A fully state run national news outlet can potentially give very unbiased news about events in another country - maybe even better than local news sources - so long as there isn’t some conflict of interest.

      • drekly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Regardless of their wording, BBC news has a super Israel bias, and they even got called out on live TV during the news for it. They are not the place for unbiased reporting of this specific issue. The UK will always pretend Israel can do no wrong because they created them.

    • Kbin_space_program@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Absolutely.

      It’s also a testament to the terrifying numbing that the passage of time has on events.

      They describe WW2 where they called the Nazis, “the enemy”, then in the next sentence compare The IRA to the fucking Nazis.

      Not even remotely close.

      • enkers@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        then in the next sentence compare The IRA to the fucking Nazis.

        What? Did we read the same article? Maybe I’m suffering from a reading comprehension deficit, here, but that wasn’t my interpretation at all. Could you quote where you think they draw that comparison?

      • ALQ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I disagree; it’s a loaded, politicized word. Even if you say that the “entire western world” considers Hamas a terrorist organization, that’s a sweeping generalization which, even if it could be called 100% true, does not represent the whole world.

        Tell me the facts without giving me those loaded words. I’m smart enough to draw my own conclusions.

          • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You’re not objectively correct, “designated as terrorist by current and former national governments, and inter-governmental organizations” - they’ve expressed an opinion. You’re taking that opinion and presenting it as objective fact.

              • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                16
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Do you understand how the world works?

                Yes I do. I just explained it to you. Is there some part of what I said that you’re struggling with?

                • CookieJarObserver@ani.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  14
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So you say your opinion on the world is worth more than the collective opinion of like half a billion people whose democratically elected leaders see them as terrorists?

          • Zoolander@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            In addition to the word “adjective”, you should also look up the definition of “objective”. Because you keep digging and digging and it’s making you look silly.

            You are wrong. Whether it’s because you don’t understand what is being said or you are intentionally ignoring it, what you are saying is inaccurate and factually incorrect.

      • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        A man’s called a terrorist or liberator

        A rich man’s a thief or philanthropist

        Is one a crusader or ruthless invader?

        It’s all in which label is able to persist

        There are precious few at ease

        With moral ambiguities

        So we act as though they don’t exist

      • Hyperreality@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You misunderstand.

        Proper old-school journalists, like John Simpson, won’t be quick to call someone a terrorist. They will however report on someone who called them a terrorist.

        It is their job to report the facts. That means that they report what they see and what they hear. Nothing more. That is journalism.

        Coming to the conclusion that someone is a terrorist, isn’t news or journalism. It’s analysis or opinion. Often the journalist is in no position to form an opinion either way, and it’s not really his job anyway.

        The reason this sounds weird to many, is because journalism has gone down the shitter. This used to be standard. Reuters for example, is still quite rigorous in this. But most news organisations now mix factual reporting with analysis. Some ‘news’ organisations remove the news/facts entirely. Basically, reading an article written by a good journalist, you should not be able to tell what side of the argument they are.

        Eg.

        Good: According to Mr. X, the apple was red and tasty. -> the journalist is simply reporting on what Mr. X said. The reader can decide if Mr. X was telling the truth.

        Bad: According to Mr. X, the red apple was tasty. -> the journalist wasn’t there to see if the apple was red, Mr. X could be mistaken. The reader doesn’t realise that the colour of the apple was described as being red by Mr. X and can’t form their own opinion on whether to believe Mr. X.

        The journalist doesn’t avoid mentioning the apple is allegedly red. They just make it clear that they themselves aren’t saying what colour it is, as they weren’t there to witness what colour it was and because their opinion doesn’t matter

        And I know this may sound stupid, but it helps avoid (inadvertent) bias or accusations thereof.

  • 📛Maven@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The same thing’s happening in Canada with the CBC; bunch of people calling them out for not saying “terrorist” implying it means they’re in favour of the attacks, when CBC simply has a policy of not saying that about anyone, because it’s not their job.

    • can@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is why we need CBC and can’t let the Conservative Party of Canada destroy them.

    • Wilibus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I generally don’t like the CBC, but I personally find their international political reporting top tier due to this kind of approach.

      • Shadow@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        Opinion and interview pieces are obviously different. I didn’t realize Trudeau worked for the cbc.

        • Nighed@sffa.communityOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          As long as they are balanced, if you only ever have opinion pieces from one opinion, your just being biased by proxy.

          This can lead to being over balanced though and inviting climate deniers etc.

          • Enkrod@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I have to disagree.

            Best example comes to us via the BBC above, during WW2 they never called the Nazis wicked or evil, but they did not and did not need to have Nazi-apologists on air to present a “fair and balanced” view Fox-News style.

            As long as you present opinion as opinion and reporting as reporting and refrain from loaded language in your reporting you’re perfectly fine. Could it be better? Yes. But while you might not have arrived at “morally good”, you have clearly left “morally bad”.

  • plz1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s so refreshing to see real journalistic integrity once in a while. Thanks for sharing.

    • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean the guy has integrity so that’s good. But the BBC and integrity are not two words that go together

      • plz1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, this was for the journalist, not the outlet. I agree with you on that front.

    • Evia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, it’s announcing their cowardice. They use ‘terrorist’ for any other non-Israel/Palestine attack (9/11, London Bridge, 7/7, etc) so the entire argument is invalid.

      The lawyers told them not to because everyone’s scared of being called anti-semitic, that’s all

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I approve of it. Terrorist is a loaded term designed to draw an emotional response from the reader. Every nation could be called a terrorist organization. Any rebellion could be called terrorists. It’s not a useful term. It’s especially not useful in this case because the number killed by Israel is so much higher than Hamas.

        Terrorist is generally just a term used to describe those without power using the tools of their oppressor against them. Fear and violence are only “allowed” to be used if you’re the one with power, for whatever reason. It’s stupid.

        Domestic attacks and attacks against allies will be called terrorist attacks obviously, because they see value in supporting the status quo.

      • Spzi@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The lawyers told them not to because everyone’s scared of being called anti-semitic, that’s all

        Honest question, how would labelling the Hamas as terrorists get them to be called anti-semitic?

        Anti-semitic, as far as I know, means “against Jews” both in academics and colloquially. Hamas aren’t Jews.

        Maybe you meant something like islamophobe instead?

  • 30mag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can appreciate that they are making an effort to use neutral language.

    • JoBo@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        My man colonialism created India and Pakistan but if Pakistan started slaughtering Indian civilians that would still be Pakistan’s responsibility.

      • dangblingus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think you need to call hamas what they are, a far right fundamentalist extremist terrorist organisation. Their actions speak for themselves.

    • LemmyRefugee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      What they mean as that they could also say Israel is a terrorist state. That’s what some people think. And some people, specially those who have friends or family who have been killed in Palestina, might say that Hamas are defending their people and are not terrorists.
      But you and me, citizens without voice, can call them terrorists (that’s what they are) but doing so we are somehow chosing a band in a conflict.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not sure I’d call Israel a terrorist state, but absolutely an apartheid state.

        If you live in Gaza, you really don’t have a lot to lose by attacking Israeli non-combatants, because you have no hope, and the Israeli gov’t keeps going farther and farther to the right. Gaza looks a lot like the Warsaw ghettos prior to rounding all the Jews up and murdering them. The uprisings in the Warsaw ghetto were punished with the same kind of wildly disproportionate force as we’re already seeing Israel use against Gaza.

        Hamas and Palestinian militants were, and are, wrong to target and murder non-combatants. And, at the same time, Israel has been doing exactly the same fucking thing for 20-odd years now; from 2008 through 2020, more than 120,000 Palestinians–mostly non-combatants–were wounded or killed by the Israeli military. In that same time period, 6,000 Israelis were wounded or killed by Palestinian militants.

        Israel can not claim to be a democracy, because they refuse to give Palestinians a voice in government at all.

        As an aside, the parallels between how Israel has treated Palestinians, and how the US has treated Native Americans is uncomfortable.

        • Celediel@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          As an aside, the parallels between how Israel has treated Palestinians, and how the US has treated Native Americans is uncomfortable.

          Which is even more ironic when you realise that that’s exactly where a certain mustachioed German dictator got his ideas from.

          • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            IIRC, Hitler originally wanted to ship all the Jews out. Except that no one else wanted them either. Extermination became the “logical” conclusion.

      • TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        While I get what you mean, I don’t think it should automatically mean (even a lot of people think it does) that you can either say Hamas is a terrorist group or Israel is a terrorist state.

        In my own view both are terrorist, both commit atrocities and the result of that are innocent lives lost from both sides.

        I despise centrism so saying that hurts a little bit on the inside, but this is one of the rare cases where fighting at all is meaningless and both sides that are fighting (and commiting atrocities) are in the fault.

  • redhydride@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Commendable to resist such pressure and remain as objective as possible

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Government ministers, newspaper columnists, ordinary people - they’re all asking why the BBC doesn’t say the Hamas gunmen who carried out appalling atrocities in southern Israel are terrorists.

    We regularly point out that the British and other governments have condemned Hamas as a terrorist organisation, but that’s their business.

    As it happens, of course, many of the people who’ve attacked us for not using the word terrorist have seen our pictures, heard our audio or read our stories, and made up their minds on the basis of our reporting, so it’s not as though we’re hiding the truth in any way - far from it.

    No-one can possibly defend the murder of civilians, especially children and even babies - nor attacks on innocent, peace-loving people who are attending a music festival.

    There was huge pressure from the government of Margaret Thatcher on the BBC, and on individual reporters like me about this - especially after the Brighton bombing, where she just escaped death and so many other innocent people were killed and injured.

    That’s why people in Britain and right round the world, in huge numbers, watch, read and listen to what we say, every single day.


    The original article contains 595 words, the summary contains 197 words. Saved 67%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Spzi@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    No-one can possibly defend the murder of civilians, especially children and even babies - nor attacks on innocent, peace-loving people who are attending a music festival.

    No-one, except for racists who work for the genocide of that population.

    But this doesn’t mean that we should start saying that the organisation whose supporters have carried them out is a terrorist organisation, because that would mean we were abandoning our duty to stay objective.

    That makes it sound as if the Hamas was a regular, military organization with legitimate goals, which eventually settles their dispute at the negotiating table. And I think that’s giving a false picture of that organization. But let’s hear what they have to say about themselves:

    Quoted from article 7:

    “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

    Quoted from article 13:

    There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

    These people (Hamas, not Palestinians) see it as their religious duty to kill all Jews.

    I think the BBC’s position makes sense in most conflicts, but not in this one. They probably just try to appease both sides, with an explanation that sounds reasonable, if you don’t look too much behind the curtains.