You are reading a single comment by @samrensho and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
I agree with you and echo your comments. You word it far better than I can.
-
Well put
-
The Beeb are getting hammered by all sides. The right are criticising them for describing Hamas as militants rather than terrorists, even whilst the defence editor of the Telegraph is on GB News, also calling them militants rather than terrorists.
You say the issue is not complex. However, the way it is being described by commentators is that it is less complex than it really is. They are saying basically that you have to pick a side. You are not allowed to consider both sides cases. It's being used as yet another wedge issue.
-
BBC being told off by the government for being trying to be impartial and not using the word terrorist….
lynx
ltc
ELbowloh
Acliff
@samrensho
I was not trying to get involved in the conversations on the forum about this, but the one thing I do want to say is that the reporting - especially on the BBC is extremely bad.
In the quote above,
, we can see an extreme example of 'passive voice'.
People in Israel have been "killed" in a "massacre". In Palestine people have "died" in a "strike".
This seemingly minor inconsistency reveals a great deal of bias in the reporting.
Violence directed at Palestine in retaliation for the attacks is implicity considered to be justifiable, whereas Hamas' actions are considered evil; that is to say, for the sake of violence and terror itself.
We can go futher - the language used to describe Israel's counter-attacks are that of methodical, almost surgical precision whereas the initial attack is described in terms of barbarian-like slaughter.
You will be hard pressed to find any political analyst employed by large media outlets arguing that Israel does not have right to fight back against the attacks. But does Palestine not have a right to fight back against the decades of terror emposed upon it?
If you frame this recent violence as beginning yesterday it would seem commonsense to assume Hamas' began the fight. But when you frame it within the context of the occupations and settler-colonial project you can see a more truthful picture of who is 'at fault'.
And as I final note I want to say this: there is a lot of vague statements floating around, on this forum and elsewhere, gesturing towards an idea that 'this is a complex issue' and that 'both sides need to cease the violence' and this mythical 'peace process'.
This issue is not complex.
One nation involved (the nation of wealth, intergovernmental support and massive weapons capability) is commited to the complete erradication of the other. Borders agreed upon by international law have been continually encroached upon for decades and decades. Apartheid is policy.
War, and war crimes are commited everyday in the occupied territories. Gaza itself is well known as 'the largest open air prison in the world'. Palestine has a right to fight back.
To keep asking the oppressed to only resist in ways you consider to be moral, while never expecting the oppressor to be moral is a biased, inconsistant, and ultimately reactionary way of viewing the conflict.
To return to a state of generalised 'peace' is for peace to return to Israel, the violence (physical and economic) will continue in Palestine.