Terrorists and both-sidesism
I will not present the “perspectives” – other than refer to their own statements – of murderous thugs.
It is a matter of concern how many people are unable to distinguish between a news story and an opinion piece (opinion/editorial). If this were only due to the death of newspapers, where news stories were physically separated from Op-Ed pages, there wouldn’t be cause for too much worry. Unfortunately however, the reason seems to be that people increasingly cannot tell the difference between an opinion: “The infant is beautiful” and a fact: “The infant is male.”
What made me think of this was a comment on my last post that criticized me for not presenting “all perspectives” of the Israel Palestine conflict. I don't know the commenter’s age, of course, but the events (facts) I listed – the 1967 Six-day War, the 2000 "Arafat's War of Terror," the suicide bombing campaign following the 1993 Oslo Accords, the 2005 razing of Israeli settlements in Gaza – are all well documented historical events that I frankly (apparently in error) assumed were known to anyone bothering to read my post.
Researching this is easy enough by entering the year and a key phrase. My post isn’t an academic paper or a news story but an opinion piece, so I’m not obliged to provide "all perspectives" on the issue. Op-ed writing is the writer's perspective of the facts as he or she sees them.
I have a bias against Hamas. I will not go out of my way to present the “perspective” – other than refer to their own statements – of a mob of murderous thugs. Kuwaiti journalist Fouad Al-Hashem makes my point better than I could: “What about respecting dissenting views, [you ask]? Ask Americans why…they don't allow a Nazi party to operate, along with the Democratic and Republican parties? … If the Germans, the Americans, the French don’t allow a Nazi party, why should we allow the Nazi party of the Muslims?”
I don’t understand how a sane person, regarding a conflict involving the Arab world’s only democracy and a terrorist organization, can not be biased against the latter. This isn’t name calling. Hamas is not only a “designated terrorist organization” in the West; all the neighboring Arab countries despise Hamas; some have banned the group. The reason that not one of the 22 Arab nations will accept Gaza refugees, not even temporarily, is because they don’t want a terrorist organization operating inside their borders.
“We are ready to sacrifice millions of lives to protect our territory…” Egyptian PM Mostafa Madbouly.
“No refugees in Jordan, no refugees in Egypt.” Jordan’s King Abdullah
Hamas “poses a threat to Jordan’s security, stability, and sovereignty.” Former Jordan PM A. al-Rawabdeh on Hamas’ 2016 ban from Jordan
“We have no intention of providing safe areas for the Palestinians…” Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry
Arab nations are also fed up with Palestinian Arabs’ continuing refusals to negotiate with Israel.
The “consensus [of Arab nations regarding Palestine]… recognizes Israel and wants…negotiations with it, but [Hamas] is not ready to give up its support for violence…” Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry
Western citizens have seldom heard these views. If we’ve heard from Arab media at all, it’s from pro-Hamas Al Jeezera, certainly not from commentators like UAE Chairman of Defense Affairs Ali al Nuaimi: Western media “speak about Gaza as if it's occupied by the Israelis. It's not: It's occupied by Hamas… Palestinian people in Gaza are suffering because of Hamas, not the Israelis.” Or Egyptian news talk show host Mazher Shahin: We will not “sacrifice a single… Egyptian soldier or civilian for…Hamas [who] goad people into fighting, terrorism, and violence, under the pretext of "Jihad," while indulging themselves … [on] a nudist beach, marrying four wives, and driving the latest model luxury cars… What kind of men are you?… People are revolted by you. Get lost. You make us nauseous. The whole world goes to hell because of you.”
As much as I dislike referring to the Israel-Palestine “conflict,” uncritically referring to it as a “war” is even worse. (International law has not escaped the pathocratic language police who have moronized all western institutions, so instead of “war” we now have the euphemism “armed conflict.” However, I refuse to have that shoved down my throat.) As per international law and the Geneva Convention, there is no war between Hamas and Israel. War is preceded by the "formal act of a state's legitimate government declaring hostile military activity against that of another state."
Hamas is not a state. There doesn't even exist a "Palestine state." Hamas is a terrorist organization, whose stated aim, in their own Charter is to destroy Israel and murder the Jewish people, and to this end it has engaged in continuous terrorist attacks against Israel. Therefore, talk of "ceasefire” is nonsensical. To have a ceasefire, there has to be a war. A deranged mob of terrorists "gliding" into a country, murdering 1,200 citizens of said country and kidnapping another 253 is not a war declaration under international law. It's a terrorist attack and should be viewed and dealt with as such.
That citizens and leaders of western countries support terrorists perpetrating atrocities against a democratic nation, as well as their own people, is a perversion that should worry people of all political persuasions.
This is more excellent stuff. Is there a way to get a room full of 19 year old college children and force them to memorize the facts? Probably not, darn.
Exactly what you said.