David Cameron urges BBC to describe Hamas as terrorist organisation
Foreign secretary’s call comes after group releases video of British-Israeli hostage it says died after being wounded in Israeli airstrike
David Cameron has urged the BBC to describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation, reviving an accusation that the corporation shies away from a valid description of the Islamist group that is holding Israeli hostages.
The UK foreign secretary told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg that the organisation should reconsider its guidelines in light of a video released by Hamas showing the British-Israeli hostage Nadav Popplewell, who the group said had died in Gaza.
Hamas released a statement on Saturday saying the 51-year-old had died after being wounded in an Israeli airstrike a month ago. The video showed him with a black eye.
Making an exception for one organisation, pressured by politicians, would be harmful. BBC has the following policy about neutral reporting:
this is very relevant. thanks.
Hamas is a terrorist organization
Wikipedia first lines summarizes the 7th of October quite well:
Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.
Hamas still haven't released the civilian hostages. Hamas hides among civilians. The list goes on and on.
The only sad part is that the Palestinian people once voted for a terrorist organisation to represent them.
People can call Hamas for "Freedom Fighters" all they want but it doesn't erase the fact:
Hamas is a terrorist organisation.
And there's the problem. Why should Hamas be called a terrorist and not the Israel government?
This is why news organisations avoid the word. It clearly picks a side.
Why Hamas should be called a terrorist organisation?
Because they have been committing acts of terrorism.
Whether other organisations has committed or has not commited terrorist acts is irrelevant in this context and does in no way cancel out the horrible things Hamas has been doing.
Yeah but in that case:
US government and Canadian are terrorists (look at their list of war crimes against civilians, genocide of native Americans, kidnapping and "re-educating" native children for ethnic cleansing). The US independence war literally got kicked off by torturing civilian tax collectors by ripping their skin off after dragging them through the streets
Israel is a terrorist state (genocide against a specific ethnic group definitely fits this definition even if they just did it for expansionism, that is a political goal and there are 36000 that Israel has killed directly on the low end, including over 224 civilian humanitarian aid workers and 179 civilian unwra workers)
Hamas is a terrorist organization
Dole is a terrorist organization (banana republics, Hawaii)
Many police organizations nowadays are terrorists (constant violence against innocent civilians), especially in the US
Belgium is a terrorist state (Congo anyone?)
France is a terrorist state (they have a special police battalion hand picked for violence against civilians lol)
Russian army is a terrorist org (talk about violence against civilians, they have wiped out so many villages and just killed and dumped the population)
Hell, Britain is a terrorist org (Kenya atrocities like the chuka massacre, the Irish???, Iraq & Afganistan?? BBC themselves reported how the British government was covering up their forces killing and torture of civilians and children in the middle east)
The point is that a news org can't (or shouldn't) just cherry pick who they want to label terrorists because that, no matter which way you slice it, will be political bias. Their own government has committed many, MANY acts of terror very recently.
No. Not "in that case".
Fact: Hamas commits and have committed acts of terrorism and therefore Hamas is a terrorist organisation. It doesn't matter what other countries have committed terrorist acts now or 100 years ago. There is no connection or dependencies.
Hamas is a terrorist organisation because of them committing acts of terrorism. End of story.
When BBC is asked to call Belgium a terrorist start you're free to discuss that there. In that thread I will happily claim that Hamas is innocent to whatever Leo did in Africa.
You spelled Israel wrong.
Both can be true. But that doesn't mean the BBC should give up its neutral stance.
Neutral would be calling Likud a terrorist organization as well.
If Great Britain labels Hamas a terrorist organization, why shouldn't the BBC then to the same?
Because the BBC is not the PR arm of the British government. It is supposed to be an independent and impartial entity.
brit living in America. It is astonishing the difference between news feeds
the BBC waivers and has its faults and biases, but even biases I loosely agree with are so partisan in the US it makes me feel a bit unwell.
It's the official stance of the country from their own government, by extension the british people. Are you saying that's not what the BBC represents?
No. The BBC does not represent the official stance of the country and never has. It is an independent journalistic body.
Of course they do. The aren't allowed to print anything they want. Public service is governed by state. Well at least in Sweden but the principle is the same.
They are, in fact, allowed to print anything they want. They are not beholden to the government. That's a simple fact.
No dude, they are regulated by the Ofcon, a government approved state department and their prints are regulated by Ofcon statures:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/regulation
And if you know your history, you also know that the BBC was heavily censored during the war. And that's about it.
I'm not sure how you think that changes anything that I said and makes them beholden to the government, but okay.
I'd think the fact that they aren't doing what David Cameron wants them to do proves you wrong, but you seem to think your "research" trumps reality, so...
Well, the BBC is clearly regulated by the government, while you claim that is not the case due to 'simple facts'...
No. They’re saying the BBC is not the government’s mouthpiece. It is an impartial public broadcaster. The same BBC that has reported on both IRA bombings and Sinn Féin elections. If you understand that last sentence you may realise why the BBC speaks as it does.
BBC is regulated by the government in the form of Ofcom according to:
https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/regulation
Ofcom is a “government approved regulator” as opposed to the “government regulating approval.“ There is a difference. It’s a .org not .gov domain.
They regulate the BBC that's all you need to focus on.
Ofcom regulates EVERY television broadcaster, every radio broadcaster, all the phone providers, all the broadband providers, the postal providers and the wireless providers in the UK. That’s a lot more companies than just the BBC. That is what I’ll be focusing on; rather than your suggestion. Thanks all the same.
Yeah, so the BBC is government regulated....
Isreal isn't labeled a terrorist organization by any institutional body that I know of.
Which is ironic considering at this point Israel has most likely killed more innocent civilians than Hamas ever did
So has the US, Russia, China etc. by that metric. The killing of civilians is not what determines a terrorist organization.
Oh well that's convenient
Well you brought it up, but it contradicts your point.
Did I?
Uh, yes, following the comment above.
The zionist paramilitaries that were consolidated (read: Likud) into the first iteration of the IDF were proud, avowed terrorists because they knew they couldn't win a territorial conflict using conventional methods while outnumbered on hostile turf. Labeled, ha.
Sounds like the BBC's explanation on their use of language regarding Hamas is relevant here:
Hamas is a terrorist organization because they use violence against civilians with the goal of imposing their political will, this is, they commit acts of terrorism. Now, if you use this standard, the Israeli government also uses violence against civilians with the goal of imposing their political will, this is, they commit acts of terrorism, therefore the Israeli government is also a terrorist organization. Would David Cameron be okay with the BBC maintaining their neutrality and describing both sides as terrorists?
I'd even go so far as to dispute this much. The Alaqsa Flood targeted armed border guards and other military personal. Rockets were defensive measures focused on Israeli snipers and drones patrolling the Gaza interior. The last two months of fighting have been entirely in Gaza, with Hamas rebels resisting the occupation and demolition of homes, schools, and hospitals.
Hamas rank slightly above the Vietcong on the terrorist spectrum.
I don't want to defend Israel but it feels a bit like you intentionally used a loose definition of terrorism to make your point.
Israel & Netanyahu (?) are all sorts of wrong but IDK if "terrorist" is the best adjective.
Edit: my apologies all, I seem to have made a comment which is not completely 100% derisive of Israel and it's behavior. I promise I'll do better.
Ben Gvir has been convicted eight times of incitement and terrorism charges. He also got exempted from the draft by the IDF for being too much of a right-wing radical.
Now, in his role as minister for national security, he's overseeing settler violence in the west bank, pretty much doing a Maurice Papon. Yes, the man is a terrorist.
Netanyahu though he's right-wing but not to that degree, he's simply corrupt and wants to keep in office to keep out of prison. If that had been more possible with a centre-left coalition than the current far-right one he would've moved left.
Why not?
Why?
Because of what they're saying. Actions aimed at innocent civilians for a political goal, that's terrorism. If you'd apply that definition to one, then also apply it to the other
My point is, that definition is so vague it includes every country in the world.
So what? What makes them any different? Does going through some bureaucratic process first legitimize the murder of civilians for political reasons?
It makes the use of the term terrorism an "appeal to emotion".
This type of logical fallacy is how people prop up weak arguments.
There's plenty of more appropriate words to describe Israel's behaviour, but the comment I replied to is using "terrorism" given the emotional significance.
Ironically, his comment cites the BBC editorial guidelines explaining my point. Terrorism is an emotionally charged term.
Nobody stated that "terrorism" isn't an emotionally charged term.
It's kinda funny you're talking about weak arguments when you completely avoided the question in my comment. It seems your only justification for why Israel's (or many other government's) actions can't be labeled terrorism is "everyone else is doing it too" but that doesn't really make a difference nor does it make the label incorrect.
Ok mate. Everyone is a terrorist. How alarming.
Still avoiding the question?
No a bureaucratic process does not legitimise murder it just means that "terrorism" is not the best term for this form of murder.
Why does the BBC not use this term?
Why is Cameron so keen to label Hamas as a terrorist organisation?
It's because there are emotional connotations.
If the best argument you can make requires words like "terrorist" then you don't have much of an argument.
Can we label him as a pig-fucking PM? Oh wait, we already do.
Isn't that a Black Mirror episode?
The very first, if I recall.
To be clear, there's no evidence he did.
I honestly could not care less whether or not it's true. He's told so many lies that if a lie is told about him that makes it sound like he stuck his dick in a pig, good. He deserves it.
Personally, I don't think that two wrongs cancel out, and I'm not particularly keen on hypocrisy. Just wanted to point out for people who might not know that story has no evidence.
Continuing the tradition of British conservative prime ministers labelling things "terrorism" when the poor get uppity.
How's Thatcher looking these days for insisting that Mandela was a terrorist?
If Hamas isn't a terrorist organization then what would you call them?
I'll put this back to you this way: is Likud also a terrorist organization? Is the IDF? Because they do a lot of the same stuff.
There are definitely terrorists associated with Hamas, and Hamas definitely carries water for them, but they're also the duly elected government in Gaza and if I were Israel I'd be asking why Gazans feel like they were so wronged that the only option seems to be a political movement that's sympathetic to terrorist tactics.
Saying "they're terrorists" without acknowledging how we got here is a lot like calling the ANC in South Africa "terrorist" in the 1980s. It's stupidly reductionist and ignores complexity for the sake of jingoism.
It's also why Cameron is a disingenuous jackass.
I agree with everything you've said. Hamas can be a terrorist organization, and still be the elected government. Both can be true, and acknowledging the how and why of that being the case is necessary reach a resolution to the conflict.
What's your definition of terror tactics?
My definition of terrorist tactics is irrelevant to how the OP would classify Hamas.
Regardless, here's how terrorism is defined on Wikipedia: it seems pretty reasonable to me.
So would you agree that Israel as an ethno colonialist state uses these tactics?
The fact that you're trying move this conversation towards the actions of Israel while avoiding the actions of Hamas leads me to believe you're not interested in having a genuine discussion. I think you're trying to play gotcha.
Have Israel and Hamas used terrorist tactics? I think so. Do both sides not care about the well-being of civilians? I think so. Are both sides of this conflict bad? I think so.
so is there any real reason to worry about wether Hamas is a terror organisation?
Was the ANC a terror organisation?
Was the IRA a terror organisation?
Was the American revolution a terror organisation?
perhaps the label has no meaning.
Let's condemn killings if civilians. let's also be realistic about the situation. the people of Gaza have no choice about who is occupying them.
Yes both sides commit terrorism. And one side gets billions of dollars in government aid and weapons despite murderifn journalists and openly causing famine.
I’m so tired of this political game. Abbas condemned terrorism and Israel refused to work with him for decades because the existence of terrorism gave them license to steal more land. He went to the UN to ask for statehood and Israeli leaders threatened to press charges of war crimes against him. His response was “we’ll share a cell at The Hague.”
Paramilitary?
Seriously I'm old enough to remember when words other than "terrorist" were used.
Hamas doesn't just want to cause terror, and isn't a random group. It's an organized group with an objective goal to destroy the nation of Israel that's part of a governing body.
Nowadays anyone that's "the bad guy" is just called "terrorist". That's not by accident either - makes it hard to talk nuance when you make things black and white, and gives oligarchs and autocrats a nice loaded word to use against "revolutionaries".
Maybe, but a better question might be was George Washington a terrorist? What about Nat Turner?
Maybe, but I'm kinda on their sides
if you describe hamas as a terrorist organisation (they are) then you also have to point out israel's role in creating and funding them.
One man's terrorist group is another man's freedom fighter. This is why many new organizations that are big on neutrality normally shy away from calling anyone terrorist groups. You could just as easily frame Israel as a terrorist group with the same justifications listed above.
It's terrorists/freedom fighters all the way down.
Hamas are every bit as much a terrorist organisation as Isis, the IRA, FARC, Red Army faction, Al Qaeda or UDF have been.
None of which are called terrorists by the BBC.
The BBC has a long standing policy against calling people/organizations terrorists.
Their position in this case says nothing about how they view Hamas. The position of those complaining about it says a lot about how they view the role news organizations.
Meh, if you commit acts of terrorism, you are a terrorist. We have nouns for a reason.
"Terrorist" always seems to rely more on your political affiliation than it does your actions. I have always hated the word.
Its only purpose is to make people angry
Terrorists
Not Terrorists
Was George Washington a terrorist?
Yes.
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/george-washington-slaves-complicated-history-fact-check-mount-vernon-slavery-tie/65-80249298-e0cb-4c31-b8b4-7f18105607fa
I was about to say that slave 'ownership' doesn't make him a terrorist, but yeah it does because i don't think it's possible to enslave a person without terrorizing them.
based
If he terrorized then yes.
What do you mean if. We've had 200 years to mull it over.
I don't know anything about George Washington.
Hamas is comparable to the IRA but not the rest.
The big difference is that organisations like ISIS try to take over other countries whereas Hamas is resisting colonists of their own country.
Sorry Dave, I trust John Simpson. You're just a pink-faced ham botherer.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67083432
Hamas is a terrorist organization. So is the IDF. Protect the people, not the barbarian leaders they admittedly did choose. I choose to defend the people because no sane minded person would elect a leader that uses their own citizens as bait and hostages and i believe most people can be at least called sane minded.
Glad to see he's still not letting reality infringe on his fantasies. Who wants a competent foreign minister anyway?
Palestinian military defending their country
How this dickwipe managed to get in the spotlights again after what he did I'll never understand. He's right though, they should be called terrorists because they are. And bbc while you're at it also call the genocide of remaining Palestinians a genocide.
He's not right. He's asking the BBC to forego it's neutral stance. That's not okay.
They say in almost every story on the BBC News TV channel that talks about Hamas that they are designated a terrorist organisation by the UK government.