It's the model based on what was practiced by various Palestinian groups throughout decades, locating headquarters and warehouses in heavily populated areas such as school districts to deter retaliation after an action from them (or get the "right" kind of publicity for their cause if Israel decides to strike anyway... win-win scenarios seem to be more likely when you are morally bankrupt). But it's also common with Hezbollah, and practically everywhere where armed Islamist groups have some kind of control over or support of the neighborhoods. Even Yemen news sources recently reported of the difficulties in retaliating against groups (Al-Qaeda linked) in that country that are organizing the recent suicide bombings there, as they use these "human shields" in particular communities to deter retaliation... This is not even something that is denied or contested by these groups. Various (anti-war) human rights groups have countless times documented the use of "human shields" by these <<un-official mini-armies operating illegally within supposedly sovereign countries, and using that country to launch attacks on local and foreign targets indiscriminately>> (is that better Cym, I can't quite stomach to call these sadistic pigs anyone's "freedom fighters").
The BBC is particularly notorious for downplaying religious links in their stories of mass murders, terrorist acts etcetera. It's almost laughable at times, they are worse than even New York Times at that possibly (which has been hilarious with the Nidal Hassan coverage). Even if there is some merit to trying not to inflame the situation, the "voluntary censoring" of information to tone down the perception that a particular ideology inspires more violent acts than others, can be just as bad as mandated censoring from the state etc.
Nelson Mandela was called a terrorist by Thatcher, most of the tory party and Ronald Regan and his allies throughout the 1980's...now he is regarded as one of the greatest freedom fighters in history.
And I get where you are going with the "freedom fighters" bit, but many of the biggest organizations called terrorist groups today have international ambitions and not just local objectives. Whereas for some Palestinian factions the FF and T terms may not be mutually exclusive. They may only have limited goals of freeing the lands from foreign rule, but may still employ terrorist acts in achieving those goals, making them... terrorists. (i.e. bombing the cafe full of civilians to shock and "terrorize", instead of taking it to the Israeli Military) The nature of most present-day conflicts is very sectarian, which makes the term "freedom fighters" irrelevant.
The Israeli military certainly have no problem targeting innocent civilians as has been proved on numerous occasions
They must have some problem with it considering they invest more in research of precision weaponry that aims to reduce collateral damage than most of the rest of the world combined. Precisely because of the type of tactics employed by some of those "freedom fighters" there which have no regard for the lives of the civilians whose lives they risk by intentionally placing their bases in heavily populated areas. Using "dumb" conventional weapons that get their target without regard for the surroundings would certainly be cheaper. It is interesting though that I have yet to meet a single fan of Chomsky which doesn't have a completely black and white view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Chomsky would of course argue that media companies only exist within the context of their cultural surroundings and can only flourish and attain credibility by being complicit with the pervasive status quo. Let's not forget that media companies are private businesses operating in a corporate capitalist environment, which govt is entirely bound up and invested in - so their values and opinions will only reflect and support the authority that allows them to exist in the first place. And don't be fooled that the BBC only exist because of the licence fee and therefore are free from these conditions. They are not. They are as much a part of the Corporate / Govt equation as any other media company. Once you understand what is omitted from the News, you begin to understand the motives behind why only certain versions of 'fact' are presented.
What are these "headquarters" you're talking about? Why would Hezbollah and Hamas have headquarters that can be marked and destroyed by Israeli planes? They have to operate with stealth or they'd be wiped out by the American military hardware being used by Israel. It's called guerrilla warfare. As you're so up on American history and politics, how about reading about the American revolutionary war. If they'd followed your instructions on what is "moral" they'd all have died pretty quickly. What you don't seem to understand is Hezbollah and Hamas ARE the community. They meet in people's houses and other local community centers. They have to because if there ever was a "Hezbollah Headquarters" it would be turned to rubble in minutes. So anyway, stop being a hypocrite and see through what they're feeding you... ****ing hell.
When did this become the middle eastern politics debate thread. For the record, Palestine are a bunch of arseholes who deserve everything the Israeli's throw at them. But then i'm very pro-Israel.
When the government was campaigning for military action against Syria, BBC Radio 5 dedicated an entire programme to Syrians who wanted intervention. The "debate" had no-one from the other side. This was typical of them. They are government stooges as well as royal ones. Their coverage of Zimbabwe was equally one-sided. Too many British aristocrats had an interest in this former British colony for the coverage to be anything but. The conflict in South Ossetia was the same. The coverage painted the Russians as some kind of oppressive invading force. In fact, they were UN peacekeepers responding to aggression from the Ossetian leader. In Egypt recently, BBC coverage was filled with well-spoken "Egyptians" trying to justify why the Muslim Brotherhood should be overthrown and massacred. In Libya, their speakers on the Gaddafi issue all declared that the dictator should be killed. There was no "other side of the debate" and this was right after British Defense Secretary Liam Fox (since thrown out of office) had said that killing Gaddafi was an option. Government propaganda. The BBC are worthless as a news outlet. I can't remember the last time they didn't side with the government in some shape or form.
Israeli propagandists always bring up the other side using human shields, when it's been proven that Israel uses human shields, even caught on camera: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRQcTPIaETE There's a lot more footage-video showing how Israeli soldiers do use human shields, as well as official reports by human rights organisations, including Israeli ones that document them.
Btw, Syria is a great example that refutes all the propaganda Israel and it's apologists leak from their asses, that Israel is holding the Islamic world at bay bla bla bla, Israel, as well as AIPAC, are lobbying for a strike in Syria, which will in turn, aid the likes of Al-Qaeda, but wasn't Israel the ones holding these type of people back from Europe (supposedly, that itself is bull**** propaganda Israeli apologists have made up), yet they're going to be helping these guys get into power, or at least set up strongholds in that country. So on one hand, Israeli apologists will say we need to support Israel as their on the front lines fighting the Islamic fanatics, yet on the other hand Israel is supporting a strike on Syria which will put these type of people into major power. Oh, and btw, I suggest everyone google the man named George Habash, this guy single handily debunks the Israeli propaganda machine that the Palestine-Israel conflict is just Israel on the front lines defending themselves, and Europe, from Islamic fanatics. Habash, sometimes called the godfather of 'terrorism' and one of the major Palestinian figures in militancy was not Muslim, he was a Christian. :-D, just like the many Christians in Lebanon who also happen to support Hezbollah.
An often overlooked element of what come across as extremist or unsavoury political and religious forces is that they provide a level of care, education and infrastructure that the governments can't/won't. Hamas have a strong community presence and provide succour for people who are surviving under the yoke of blockades and regular shelling and as a result gained much popularity in the Gaza Strip. Similarly, in Syria right now militant groups are filling the vacuum that the Assad regime has left behind. The popularity of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt post-Mubarak was boosted by the public services they provided in the face of adversity also. This isn't to say that I necessarily support these groups or their actions as a given - I don't think many people do, and I know that Chomsky is critical of Hamas. However, if we are to understand why they flourish in certain areas we'd be wise to understand why they are appealing and try to understand our own role in it all (which exists, and Chomsky knows it - hence his severe criticism of American foreign policy).
OK, serious question, why do so many people back the Islamic nutjob countries? I don't really follow middle eastern politics (if it's not UK related, i'm not normally interested), but why does Palestine and Syria have a lot of sympathy, when from where i'm sat they seem to be the bad guys. Could someone more intelligent explain it to me please?
I don't think any Israeli claims they are fighting also for the sake of others (keeping fanatics at bay?) they are fighting for themselves foremost, plain and simple, as any nation faced with a similar threat would. And wanting a weaker Syria makes sense for them as it has always made sense for them, even before Al Qaeda linked rebels were a thing there. If there is a chance that there will be a real confrontation with Iran, of course the wouldn't want a Shia friendly block leading the country, which would strongly support Iran. The west should in this point be at odds with Israel as, as most people are (if not the current leaders), as increasing Al-Qaeda influence has international implications which may affect them down the line. I don't know why people post these "duh" comments as if they are posting some revelation.
Who backs them? I doubt you'd find many who back the Syrian government (who are amongst the more secular in the Middle East). Very few people who sympathise with the Palestinians sympathise with Hamas, and you'd be hard pressed to find those who support the Iranian theocracy (but look disdainfully at the role the US played in it's formation). The US provides an awful lot of backing for Saudi Arabia though, and they are as reactionary and oppressive a government that you could hope for.
You're right to highlight the smokescreen of religion, it's a red herring. All too easy to objectify the 'enemy' if you already have an agenda to do so, but the real motives are about resources, and strategic control.
