Foreign secretary’s call comes after group releases video of British-Israeli hostage it says died after being wounded in Israeli airstrike

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.

  • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    213·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
      10·
      2 months ago

      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.

        • qevlarr@lemmy.worldEnglish
          5·
          2 months ago

          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

            • ShepherdPie@midwest.socialEnglish
              6·
              2 months ago

              So what? What makes them any different? Does going through some bureaucratic process first legitimize the murder of civilians for political reasons?

              • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
                12·
                2 months ago

                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.

                • ShepherdPie@midwest.socialEnglish
                  3·
                  2 months ago

                  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.