I don't fully agree with this as I've found that The Guardian highlights the plights of the Palestinian more than any other English newspapers. But yeah, in general, most English newspapers have been Israeli apologists (with the BBC being the absolute worst during this genocide), towing their government's line that many Palestinian organisation (like Hamas) and freedom fighters as terrorists. (It's ironic that American political history says that citizens have a right to guns as they may need to stand up to a tyrant government one day, but when the Palestinians pick up guns to fight for their freedom, they are suddenly "terrorists" for the same Americans).
back
1 comments
Targeting civilians for hostage taking and otherwise is terrorism. Hamas is a terrorist organisation. Sure, they are freedom fighters, but they are terrorists.
One man's "freedom fighter" is indeed another man's "terrorist". My point was that by accepting Israel's position that the Palestinian freedom fighters are "terrorists" western media shows their bias. (Note that only a few countries in the west actually consider PLO or now Hamas a terrorist organisation - the majority of the world doesn't). For someone who has chosen violet politics to fight for his freedom, what makes one a "good" freedom fighter or a "bad" freedom fighter? Isn't taking Israelis hostage better than killing them? When Israel is a military state (as it requires nearly every citizen to compulsorily serve in the military) are Palestinians who use violence, actually using it against civilians or soldiers? (In such a scenario, the only true "civilians" are the children).
How many civilians were taken hostage and how many civilians were killed in retaliation? That ratio may offer clues to shifting global sentiments.