Tin hat time!🙄


To be honest, I thought that John Simpson's argument made some sense. As he pointed out, if the BBC does not flinch from reporting the atrocities accurately (as they seem to have done with Gaza as well as in many previous conflicts) and present them as they happens then people are given the information to make up their own minds. He does not shy away from calling such heinous acts atrocities just as the BBC has not shied away from reporting accusations of war crimes whether in Ukraine or elsewhere.

What the BBC does not do is label organizations themselves as "terrorists" because they take the editorial stance that this then goes against their ethos of impartiality and objectivity. It certainly does not-as some claim-mean that they are "siding with terrorists".

Like it or not, one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter" and it should not be forgotten that however barbarous or heinous their actions -especially when made against innocent civilians including children- these extremist and militant wings often only flourish and result from injustices done to their people and when reasonable diplomacy has failed. That does not mean that the acts themselves committed by such organizations, whether Hamas or the IRA or whoever, are not labelled as acts of terrorism (because they clearly are) nor that the BBC condoned such acts. Simpson talks of the anger and rage he himself has experienced over the years of personally witnessing the results of such acts.

It is obviously understandable that everyone is outraged by such actions and that those responsible should be punished but the knee jerk reaction of " not negotiating with terrorists" is both short-term and futile. The view that refusing to talk to them because listening to them will only be seen as rewarding their actions or "giving in" to them and that this will only encourage them to continue such terrorist acts seems to me facile. If anything, refusing to negotiate is more likely to escalate the violence. The reality is that negotiations and compromises are more likely to resolve situations and bring some semblance of peace. The problem is that such negotiations stand a far better chance of working if done far earlier on, between more reasonable people, but leave it too late and you end up dealing with far more extremist and militant individuals who are less likely to want to compromise. Add religious extremism into the mix and it makes it even harder😞

The atrocities that Hamas has committed should clearly be condemned -but that does not then mean that its ok to forget how Israel has treated many of the Palestinian population or how it has illegally appropriated land for decades.

In the case of Ukraine, whilst some still argue that Russia had been provoked by the West, it seems to me pretty clear that Russia was the aggressor and that Ukraine hadn't done anything against them. The difference with Israel and Hamas is that whilst what Hamas has done is clearly an heinous act against innocent Israeli civilians, it certainly cannot be said that Israel have not also had a long history of mistreatment of Palestinians. The worry for many very visible organizations is that overtly showing support for Israel now may be construed as supporting that too.