Why are they called militant group? They have been and are terrorists.
I have to use the same title as the original article else it gets deleted
Hm okay-ish. Can you add some text below? How is that rule implemented? Do moderators check?
It’s the first rule in the community info section. Mods will check it if it’s reported for not following the guidelines.
This is AP, it’s not their job to have an opinion or adopt a particular nation’s stance on the news they report.
That doesn’t stop you or I from referring to them as a terrorist organisation if that’s what we believe.
We all wish “militants” described them better. Israel can wipe out an organized military that attacks them, with minimal impact on civilians. However these terrorists hide among the civilians, forcing the civilian population into the war, whether they want toor not
True, but while a terrorist is also someone who eats, one of the two is describing them better.
Because militaries, or groups that act like militaries, can use terrorist activities to further their goals. They can be both.
When an organization is large, fixed in location, has ranks, news sources tend to call them militaries. Especially if it’s associated with an government.
When organizations are smaller, cell-based, less identifiable, they tend to be referred to as terrorists
The term has become pretty loose with climate activists being called terrorists and whatnot. Anyways, for me the defining characteristic of terror is:
The goal to strike fear in the civilian population. The goal is not to achieve military advantages like securing areas or destroying strategic assets.
As such, small units can be non terrorists (guerilla warfare), while nations can engage in terror (Russia prioritizing civilian targets over military).
Always bad when a definition depends on intent though, especially in controversial topics.
Because they are fighting a country doing oppression and apartheid and not “terrorizing citizens”.
Emm… Attacking civilians is, by definition, terrorizing citizens. On the other hand, apartheid is something you should read about, study its definition, and what exactly happens in Israel, and then think whether it’s the correct use of the word.
In December 2019, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination[5] announced commencing a review of the Palestinian complaint that Israel’s policies in the West Bank amount to apartheid.[6] Soon after this, two Israeli human rights NGOs, Yesh Din (July 2020), and B’Tselem (January 2021) issued separate reports that concluded, in the latter’s words, that “the bar for labeling the Israeli regime as apartheid has been met.”[7][8][9][10] In April 2021, Human Rights Watch became the first major international human rights body to say Israel had crossed the threshold
Yes, Apartheid is very much the correct word.
Adam and Moodley wrote in 2006 that Israeli Palestinians are “restricted to second-class citizen status when another ethnic group monopolizes state power” because of legal prohibitions on access to land, as well as the unequal allocation of civil service positions and per capita expenditure on educations between “dominant and minority citizens”.
While the argument is weaker (but still strong) for Israel proper, Israeli policies in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are Apartheid no questions asked.
