BBC ‘Impartiality’ on Hamas

Hamas thought were and in fact still are the defacto rulers of Gaza and the occupied Palestinian authority. It’s not as clear cut as so wards who were never recognised as such.
 
Colin Warnek said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Why BBC doesn't call Hamas militants 'terrorists' - John Simpson

It's simply not the BBC's job to tell people who to support and who to condemn, writes the BBC's World Affairs editor.
www.bbc.co.uk

I am willing to bet that during the Iraq War they referred to Al Qaeda etc as terrorists. If anyone can confirm - or have those articles fallen down the memory hole.
Click to expand...

Ive no idea if they did or didn’t.
In this instance - does it matter?

They are reporting what goes on - we make our minds up.

That was old school journalism.
Now we want to be told the story and conclusion - no thanks
 
Jedi boro said:
Hamas thought were and in fact still are the defacto rulers of Gaza and the occupied Palestinian authority. It’s not as clear cut as so wards who were never recognised as such.
Click to expand...
My point is their ‘impartiality’ is haughty rubbish and a decent cover when it suits.

ISIL and the Taliban have been de facto rulers in their time - again did the BBC take the same stance?
 
Colin Warnek said:
My point is their ‘impartiality’ is haughty rubbish and a decent cover when it suits.

ISIL and the Taliban have been de facto rulers in their time - again did the BBC take the same stance?
Click to expand...
They were never defacto anything though that’s the point.

“On 22 November 1974, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3236 recognised the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, national independence and sovereignty in Palestine.”

It’s not the same at all
 
What is it that legitimises Netanyahu's Israel but condemns Hamas as terrorists?
Were ISIL and the Taliban resistance fighters against those who persecuted their people?
 
Do the BBC ever talk about Israeli terrorists? Or do they do the sort of the stuff the Guardian were doing a few months back, saying stuff like ‘Palestinian journalist hit in head by bullet during Israeli raid’? Essentially concocting more and more ways to avoid saying lots of things that everyone can see are happening.

Presumably the BBC will use the word ‘terrorist’ when they feel it’s the most politically expedient for them.
 
To be fair to them, I've just had a quick look through dozens of articles, across a number of years, and they never refer to the likes of Al'Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, etc as terrorists.

Even when it's immediately after a bombing.

They do mention terrorist acts on occasion, but don't describe the people committing it as terrorists.

I don't think this is a unique stance on this particular conflict.
 
Last edited:
TeaCider said:
Apparently they do when it's for children to read though, hahah.

Odd.
Click to expand...
Can only think that as that won't be written by journalists it's slipped through the net.

I do believe they won't have done it in news reporting. Not that I would have realised before now.
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
What is it that legitimises Netanyahu's Israel but condemns Hamas as terrorists?
Were ISIL and the Taliban resistance fighters against those who persecuted their people?
Click to expand...
Netanyahu is legitimised by election results, you may disagree with his actions, but anyone thinking or supporting ISIL or the Taliban who are ruling by fear, repression and the bullet needs to give their head an almighty shake. What gives you he the right to remotely suggest they were representing their peoples wishes? Who are their people? Are you happy they may have supporters in your country, town, street. The minute anyone legitimises the actions of HAMAS or their like and suggest they are freedom fighters shows pure ignorance.
 
coluka said:
Netanyahu is legitimised by election results, you may disagree with his actions, but anyone thinking or supporting ISIL or the Taliban who are ruling by fear, repression and the bullet needs to give their head an almighty shake. What gives you he the right to remotely suggest they were representing their peoples wishes? Who are their people? Are you happy they may have supporters in your country, town, street. The minute anyone legitimises the actions of HAMAS or their like and suggest they are freedom fighters shows pure ignorance.
Click to expand...
There appears to be general consensus that Hamas are out and out terrorists.
I have palestinian friends who also agree.
The frustration comes from how Israeli terrorism is portrayed (if at all).
Their record is disgraceful and makes Hamas look like a pub fighter in comparison.
 
1finny said:
There appears to be general consensus that Hamas are out and out terrorists.
I have palestinian friends who also agree.
The frustration comes from how Israeli terrorism is portrayed (if at all).
Their record is disgraceful and makes Hamas look like a pub fighter in comparison.
Click to expand...
I agree their actions are abhorrent I have a jewish friend who accepts it and his thoughts on Netanyahu are not printable, he is legitimised by election from his people through the ballot box, that was my point to the poster. However his actions and those of the politicians should be judged through the relevant World court where actions are outside of international law.
 
I saw this discussion yesterday on Reddit. BBC doesn't use the label terrorist very often. They will talk about acts of terror, terror offences and will use terms like "so-called terrorist organisation" but they won't say "x is a terrorist".

coluka said:
Netanyahu is legitimised by election results
Click to expand...
Hamas are also legitimised by election results and support for them is high within Gaza (polls are close to 60% support). The elections were 17 years ago but they did win them. That isn't the same as saying their actions are legitimate of course.

It seems to me that there isn't a right side to be on in this situation. Both sides have a point in that they want their country to be their country but both sides are committing atrocities and going about it the wrong way. I don't think we should be showing support for either side but we should be showing support for the innocent people within the country that get in harms way and are used as pawns.
 
coluka said:
Netanyahu is legitimised by election results, you may disagree with his actions, but anyone thinking or supporting ISIL or the Taliban who are ruling by fear, repression and the bullet needs to give their head an almighty shake. What gives you he the right to remotely suggest they were representing their peoples wishes? Who are their people? Are you happy they may have supporters in your country, town, street. The minute anyone legitimises the actions of HAMAS or their like and suggest they are freedom fighters shows pure ignorance.
Click to expand...
If you think my post was supporting ISIL or the Taliban you need to read it again.
Are you saying that elected people can commit atrocities with impunity simply because they were elected by the people?
 
BBC. UK National Broadcaster. It has, and will take sides and indulge in propaganda when the situation demands. Obviously this isn’t one of those occasions.
 
Nano said:
I saw this discussion yesterday on Reddit. BBC doesn't use the label terrorist very often. They will talk about acts of terror, terror offences and will use terms like "so-called terrorist organisation" but they won't say "x is a terrorist".


Hamas are also legitimised by election results and support for them is high within Gaza (polls are close to 60% support). The elections were 17 years ago but they did win them. That isn't the same as saying their actions are legitimate of course.

It seems to me that there isn't a right side to be on in this situation. Both sides have a point in that they want their country to be their country but both sides are committing atrocities and going about it the wrong way. I don't think we should be showing support for either side but we should be showing support for the innocent people within the country that get in harms way and are used as pawns.
Click to expand...
Elections almost a generation ago legitimise nobody today in my book. Every country uses its citizens as pawns to varying degrees, whether elected or not but at least those in power can at some point be voted out. HAMAS, Taliban, ISIL all rule by terror. Israel have the right to react to the events the other day, their methods and what may be about to happen, in my view may well be outside of international law and if it is, they need to be held to account. They wont be of course, which impacts on governments such as ours around the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top