Israel under attack

[Notch7]

As it does prove that Israel as terrorists.

What is the point of describing warring opponents as both sides are terrorists?
Both sides are committing war crimes, that's easily understood and there are international tools for dealing with that.

Than, you for agreeing that the UN defines Hamas as terrorists

we got there eventually eh.

 

[gant]

Stupid boy!

Another attempt at forum etiquette by bloomers not to mention all those rolling eyes he has dotted about his thought provoking comments such, as sweeping statements about the west.

 

[Odds]

The BBC tries to be impartial, in so doing it ends getting complaints from both sides of impartiality.

In this case it's succeeded, no?

 

[Deleted member 294929]

The BBC is understood to have received more than 1,500 complaints relating to its coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict with complaints split almost evenly between those claiming its reporting has been biased against Israel and those saying it is biased against Palestinians.

That must please them... tea & cake all round

 

[gant]

People still watch the news on the BBC is more the revealing thing. Nowt so queer as folk.

 

[motorbiking]

pathetic attempt at twisting things

Palestinians are not Hamas….that’s the important thing..

He uses the term Palestine because he worries he would get banned if he referred to them as Hamas. I've warned Roy that he is breaking UK law if he continues to make posts in support of Hamas. He doesn't like me telling him how to behave. He likes to post Boll@x and argue it's true.

 

[Odds]

The BBC has defended its decision not to describe Hamas militants as "terrorists" in coverage of the recent attacks in Israel.

A BBC spokesperson noted it was a long-standing position for its reporters not to use the term themselves unless attributing it to someone else.

Veteran BBC foreign correspondent John Simpson said "calling someone a terrorist means you're taking sides".

Supporting Palestinian claims to a free nation does not necessarily mean you support Hamas.


“From the river to the sea” is a rejoinder to the fragmentation of Palestinian land and people by Israeli occupation and discrimination. Palestinians have been divided in a myriad of ways by Israeli policy. There are Palestinian refugees denied repatriation because of discriminatory Israeli laws. There are Palestinians denied equal rights living within Israel’s internationally recognized territory as second-class citizens. There are Palestinians living with no citizenship rights under Israeli military occupation in the West Bank. There are Palestinians in legal limbo in occupied Jerusalem and facing expulsion. There are Palestinians in Gaza living under an Israeli siege. All of them suffer from a range of policies in a singular system of discrimination and apartheid—a system that can only be challenged by their unified opposition. All of them have a right to live freely in the land from the river to the sea.

Since Zionists struggle to make a persuasive argument against freedom, justice, and equality for all people throughout the land, they seek instead to attack the message and messenger. When Palestinians proclaim “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” many Zionists argue that this is a Palestinian call for genocide. But as historian Maha Nassar has noted, there has never been an “official Palestinian position calling for the forced removal of Jews from Palestine.” The links between this phrase and eliminationism might be the product of “an Israeli media campaign following the 1967 war that claimed Palestinians wished to ‘throw Jews into the sea.’ ” Jewish groups such as the American Jewish Committee also claim that the slogan is antisemitic because it has been taken up by militant groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and Hamas. But as Nassar writes, the phrase predates these uses, and has its origins as “part of a larger call to see a secular democratic state established in all of historic Palestine.”

jewishcurrents.org

 

[transam]

I am with the BBC over this terrorist caper

They have to put reporters etc in harms way some thing people and politicians should take on board

 

[gant]

I thought Hamas claimed they carried out the atrocities and not the Palastinians.?

 

[Odds]

He uses the term Palestine because he worries he would get banned if he referred to them as Hamas. I've warned Roy that he is breaking UK law if he continues to make posts in support of Hamas. He doesn't like me telling him how to behave. He likes to post Boll@x and argue it's true.

Legal experts have questioned whether this is the case. “I can’t see how anything but explicit support for Hamas and its actions could be a [terror] offence. Waving a Palestinian flag or chanting ‘from the river to the sea’ isn’t that,” said Wagner.

In an open letter to the Jewish community in London last week, the Metropolitan police deputy commissioner, Dame Lynne Owens, said officers must be careful about misinterpreting support for Palestine as support for Hamas, a proscribed terrorist group.

 

[Deleted member 294929]

A BBC spokesperson noted it was a long-standing position for its reporters not to use the term themselves unless attributing it to someone else.

Then I suppose its their consistency that counts

 

[Deleted member 294929]

To be a terrorist is no more or less a cùņt that targets murders and tortures women and children.

 

[Roy Bloom]

pathetic attempt at twisting things

Palestinians are not Hamas….that’s the important thing..

We've already covered this Notch7.
Going over it all again won't change reality.
Hamas are Palestinians. Of course, not all Palestinians voted for Hamas in the last election.
We have a Conservative government, but not all UK citizens voted for the Tories.
You really are resorting to some very stupid arguments.

Hamas was the largest party in the last Legislative elections (I've added Parliementary elections after previous explanations, but I'm assuming you're so familiar with tht now, it would be superfluous even though you're repeating the same old argument. )
Therefore Hamas is the recognised representative of the Palestinians in Gaza. Whether they do or don't have the full support of Palestinians is pure guessswork. It's like guessing the results of next years UK elections.
I could try your silly tactics and ask for proof of lack of Palestinian support. Go on prove the negative, like you asked me to do.

But there's the complexity, Israel is the military occupier of Gaza, so Israel is the de facto government in Gaza, as the military occupier.
As such israel is responsible for the dire conditions suffered by the Palestiniians in Gaza.
Israel allowed Hamas to do the local government work such as distributing aid, food, etc, organising schools, etc.
As they allow Fatah to do the local governmentr work in the West Bank.
But Israel, as the military occupier (according to UN) and therefore are the overall national government of Gaza and the West Bank.

 

[gant]

Legal experts have questioned whether this is the case. “I can’t see how anything but explicit support for Hamas and its actions could be a [terror] offence. Waving a Palestinian flag or chanting ‘from the river to the sea’ isn’t that,” said Wagner.

In an open letter to the Jewish community in London last week, the Metropolitan police deputy commissioner, Dame Lynne Owens, said officers must be careful about misinterpreting support for Palestine as support for Hamas, a proscribed terrorist group.

To be expected from the police, more weasel words.
Off to climb up the Eros statue today, I'll report back how I get on. Second thoughts I think I know the outcome already.

 

[motorbiking]

Legal experts have questioned whether this is the case. “I can’t see how anything but explicit support for Hamas and its actions could be a [terror] offence. Waving a Palestinian flag or chanting ‘from the river to the sea’ isn’t that,” said Wagner.

I would agree that these acts are not evidence of support for Hamas. Support for Palestinians is not support of Hamas.

However, posting on a public forum that people should be sympathetic to Hamas' fight and encourage support for them to fight their oppressors etc. Is explicit support for Hamas and it is very clearly prohibited.

Roy thinks he is protected by some sort of academic privilege and can openly discuss supporting Hamas, he is being careful now and walks the right side of the line, barely. I don't think he will openly post support for Hamas again, but will think he's clever by posting more boll@x.