Ryan Girdusky clashed with British-American journalist Mehdi Hasan on Monday night.
CNN has banned a conservative commentator from appearing on the network again after he told a Muslim journalist “I hope your beeper doesn’t go off,” an apparent reference to the spate of exploding pagers in Lebanon that killed members of the Hezbollah militant group last month.
Ryan Girdusky made the comment during a heated debate with Mehdi Hasan, a prominent British-American broadcaster and an outspoken critic of Israel’s war in Gaza, on “CNN Newsnight” with host Abby Phillip.
The guests were discussing the racist jokes made by comedian Tony Hinchcliffe, which overshadowed former President Donald Trump’s rally at New York’s Madison Square Garden on Sunday and continue to make headlines two days later.
As the debate turned fractious, Girdusky and Hasan sparred over whether the latter had been labeled an anti-Semite. “I’m a supporter of the Palestinians, I’m used to it,” Hasan said.
Girdusky replied: “Well I hope your beeper doesn’t go off.”
The settler colonial project of Israel is filled with rabid fascists, I agree whole heartedly. The current government of Israel is peak of that performance.
But trying to paint this as a boobytrap, and targeting civilians. I don’t think anyone buys that for a minute.
And this was hardly indiscriminate. It was pagers that where handed directly to Hezbollah and distributed by Hezbollah through their network. It’s not as if these where sold by shops in Lebanon to normal Lebanese.
And collateral sucks, but this still had less than the bomb that was dropped on the appartment complex with the command bunker under it filled with Hezbollah staff.
Well, human rights organizations and international law disagree, and I agree with them. Both those articles discuss that in detail, including how it was a booby trap and indiscriminate.
Nor is Hezbollah solely an armed resistance militant group. They are also a prominent political group and maintain a multitude of social services like hospitals, those people are civilians not militants. This did not solely target militants, in fact is mostly didn’t.
That’s fair!
I think International law does not disagree, it might be something that can be litigated. The pagers where specifically for hezbollah members, not civilians. I’ll expect “boobytraps and civilians” to be a losing argument, time will tell.
And, a terrorist organisation that takes over a region, intertwines itself with civil society to get legitimacy while at the same time sabotaging the countries government with threats of terror… is still a terrorist organisation. And anyone working for them a terrorist. I.e. Someone doing the bookkeeping for a terrorist group is still a terrorist.
Hezbollah started in direct resistance to Israeli occupation of Lebanon, I wonder what would have happened if they had not continued Post occupation or at least not shot at Israel and allowed for the Lebanese government to try and work with Israël on a peaceful border and other things that stood between the countries and their peoples.
I don’t really see the use of the labeling of terrorist here, it’s reductive to a detriment. I could just as easily call Israel a terrorist state, and by looking at cases of actual acts of terror, it’s clear that Israel does magnitudes more. But while acknowledging acts of terrorism is important, giving the label of terrorist to an entire group is not really useful.
It’s much more useful to look at the aims and actions, in which we see that Israel is a Settler Colonialist Ethnostate with actions of Ethnic Cleansing, Occupation, and Apartheid. We see that the aims of resistance groups are anti-colonialist, with actions of ending Occupation. We see that one is a reaction to the other, Israel’s perpetual violence towards native peoples is the underlying cause of these conflicts. Solutions to ending the violence of anti-colonialism can only come from ending the underlying violence of the colonialism.
Both the Occupier and the Occupied can and do use acts of terrorism to further their aims, but the aims are diametrically opposed. The aim of the occupier is to continue the occupation, that requires violence to maintain. The aim of the occupied is to end the occupation, by any means possible.
We see that permanent occupation develops into an Apartheid, as the settlers / occupiers have rights upheld by the State and Military, while the natives / occupied have no rights and subjected to violence from both the Settlers and Military. The State, who holds the monopoly on power, uses terrorism to suppress resistance to the occupation in order to maintain it. The occupied, having no power, uses terrorism as a means to resist the occupation.
Israel has no interest in peace, it has interest in land grabbing, which is in complete opposition to peace. This is fundamental to Zionism. Which is why an end to Zionism and a regime change, where a Secular Bi-National One-State that gives equal rights to Palestinians and Israelis is the only way for the conflict to really end. Not only with Palestinian resistance, but with all resistance groups that were created by Israeli occupation.
In the link to my comment about the history of the Israel - Palestine conflict, in the One or Two State Solution, I have links where historians Avi Schlaim and Ilan Pappe discuss the realities of the current state of Israel and the Occupied Territories, and why they have to come to see a One-State Solution as the only genuine permanent solution to the conflict. I highly recommend it and their works.