- Joined
- Aug 3, 2014
- Messages
- 28,178
- Reaction score
- 6,794
- Location
- UK
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
I looked through many many articles that described the Hamas attack on Israel circa 7th October 2023 and the articles followed a similar pattern.
The text basically state that......................... Israel was attacked by Hamas and there were 1300 people killed, most of them civilians.
That was the standard phrasing and it is accurate, no dispute
However
The crucial phrase is............" most of them civilians"...,,,,,,,,,, thus no reference to who the others were
Well, the truth is they were armed combatants in an ongoing ( yes it was ongoing prior to that particular event) military conflict and thus legitimate military targets.
Legitimate military targets?? Yep, legitimate military targets.
Why?
Because there is , and has been for 56 years now, a Israeli military occupation of the Palestinians/Palestine
So if you want to create a perspective that seeks to ignore that, and thus remove the context for the attack itself, you phrase it how I described above.
The attack itself cannot be condoned because to attack and kill civilians is a bona fide war crime but the removal of the context is there to protect Israel from being cast, correctly, as occupiers of the Palestinian people who have the right to resist in a conflict for national liberation.
As the UN Secretary General rightly pointed out, after he had rightly denounced the Hamas attack wrt the civilian killing/targeting of civilians , the attack " didn't happen in a vacuum".
He recognized the occupation and collective punishment of Gazans as a factor, which undoubtedly it was.
The text basically state that......................... Israel was attacked by Hamas and there were 1300 people killed, most of them civilians.
That was the standard phrasing and it is accurate, no dispute
However
The crucial phrase is............" most of them civilians"...,,,,,,,,,, thus no reference to who the others were
Well, the truth is they were armed combatants in an ongoing ( yes it was ongoing prior to that particular event) military conflict and thus legitimate military targets.
Legitimate military targets?? Yep, legitimate military targets.
Why?
Because there is , and has been for 56 years now, a Israeli military occupation of the Palestinians/Palestine
So if you want to create a perspective that seeks to ignore that, and thus remove the context for the attack itself, you phrase it how I described above.
The attack itself cannot be condoned because to attack and kill civilians is a bona fide war crime but the removal of the context is there to protect Israel from being cast, correctly, as occupiers of the Palestinian people who have the right to resist in a conflict for national liberation.
As the UN Secretary General rightly pointed out, after he had rightly denounced the Hamas attack wrt the civilian killing/targeting of civilians , the attack " didn't happen in a vacuum".
He recognized the occupation and collective punishment of Gazans as a factor, which undoubtedly it was.
