"It was a price I was willing to pay so that the British public will be able to see these atrocities and decide if this is a terrorist organization or not," Mozer said.

Hamas is literally an internationally recognized terrorist organization, proscribed by many countries including the UK and the Arab League.

CBC also refuses to call Hamas terrorists despite their government labeling them as such.

  • DdCno1@beehaw.org
    0·
    2 months ago

    Notice how this particular sentence is not sourced and how there is an entire section in the article further down explaining just how controversial it is to call the area occupied.

    Can you explain to me, in your own words, how not having any boots on the ground amounts to occupation under international law? If you’re trying to make the case that the border controls and wall were occupation, then I would like to preemptively remind you that 1) border controls are not occupation, but the right of any sovereign nation and 2) those were a direct reaction to a series of terrorist attacks, including stabbings, shootings and suicide bombings, as well as numerous rocket attacks. Nobody would deny a nation the right to enact measures that prohibit those from occurring on their soil against their citizens. If anything, October 7th showed that this often criticized wall wasn’t even remotely sufficient to counter the threat terrorists from the strip posed against Israel.

    • Sundial@lemm.ee
      0·
      2 months ago

      The United Nations, international human rights organizations and many legal scholars regard the Gaza Strip to still be under military occupation by Israel.[13] The International Court of Justice reaffirmed this position, stating that the occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza Strip are unlawful and its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid. The ICJ rejected the claim that Gaza was no longer occupied following the 2005 disengagement, on the basis of Israel’s continued control over the Gaza Strip.[106][107]

      In Jaber Al-Bassiouni Ahmed v. The Prime Minister, the Israeli Supreme Court assumed that occupation had ended with the disengagement but did not explain the theory or facts that led to this conclusion.[108][109] After the disengagement, Israel claimed that its occupation of Gaza had ended, but also acknowledged that Gaza was not a sovereign state. It labeled Gaza as a “hostile entity,” a status that neither grants Palestinians the right to self-governance and self-protection, nor obliges Israel to protect Gaza’s civilian population. Israel uses this argument to deny Palestinians of full self-governance as well as the use of military force to suppress any resistance to Israeli control.[110]

      I don’t need to explain it in my words since more qualified people did a much better job explaining it and I have yet to see any kind of fact, source, or piece of information which would lead me to believe the above is incorrect.