People are replying to you because you are trying to downplay genocide. You also just called people getting mad at children dying as Hamas supporters. You are being obtuse.
I want an objective, non-obsessive-downvoter, explanation as to how anyone in the world knows what really happened? I understand this question feels smarmy, but there so much emotion in this. But how do we know these guys weren't Hamas?
Please just be chill, I'm not picking a fight or anything like that.
The problem is that according to due process, you need to prove somebody is guilty of something before they are jailed. These people weren't jailed, they were basically executed from a distance. The burden of proof is on the Israeli military to prove that they WERE Hamas, not on people horrified by the footage to prove the negative. And so far (and historically) the IDF seems to not care to do so, and in lots of cases have given "proof" as justification for one action or another that later turned out to be bullshit.
Not to mention the numerous cases of the IDF killing people in "Press" vests and helmets, or people literally actively waving a white flag. In my opinion, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt given their record.
Staying on the topic at hand, and only that, this is war. Killing an enemy on the field has no system of public review. Everything is internal. Neither IDF or Hammas has to provide proof of anything to anybody for any reason except when propagandantistic PR is at play (like you mentioned). At least not now. There will surely be tribunals after this war is "settled." The only direction proof goes is up the chain of command. I won't pretend to understand the complexity of target selection and acquisition (especially foreign nations and certainly not terrorists), but I know that that's how it works. There is no burden of proof, whatsoever.
Those are the cold facts.
Opinion, etc: I hope you don't read this as some kind of defence or exoneration of any malicious, evil, callous, or accidental killing commited of innocents. I unequivocally do not want or excuse killing civilians. Anyone who does is hideously evil. However, I think a reality check is necessary.
The "burden of proof" is a security blanket most of the world enjoys and vaguely understands. When they see some horrible violence of war, fed to them without context by compromised sources, it's easy to make assumptions and demand justice. And many of those times, you should, just ideally without the assumptions and propaganda. This isn't one of this times. I know that the IDF is commiting war crimes, but this video is just war.
Killing obvious civilians is a warcrime. While there are circumstances where this is ambiguous, this example isn't - Israel needs to overcome the very reasonable conclusion that these were civilians and prove that they were enemy combatants.
Understanding that 60-70% of the Palestinians Israel have killed are children, this will be a tall order.
The video shows 4 people in civilian clothes casually wandering along chatting while unarmed.
Putting aside the thousands upon thousands literal children Israel has slaughtered in the past few months while spewing genocidal rhetoric (because Hamas?), what evidence do you have that this isn't a warcrime and that they're combatants? The video contains absolutely nothing suggesting anything of the sort, and no evidence has been presented.
When people say they want to commit a genocide, then kill tens of thousands of civilians, I tend to believe them - why are you so incredulous?
Now you're just repeating the same words over and over again with no correlation. Holy shit. Did I get baited into a "discussion" with ChatGPT 1.0? There's no other explanation
Oh my god this is hilarious. I've sent 20 messages explaining that theres no evidence one way or the other, and you still parrot the same shit over and over again. Come on, rub your both braincells together, Karen, figure it out.
Your whole argument is that I'm a genocide denier, and I've stated many times saying theres an active genocide in Gaza, committed by Israeli forces. You literally have no argument.
Bad guys don't look the way you imagine. Real life is not a Holywood stage (I know some Americans struggle with this fact)
Let's try this one more time, all together now:
"An out of context clip on twitter, containing unidentified people in an unidentified area, during an unidentified time, is not evidence".
Based on the level of responses you gave me so far, I assume you're confused by that as well.
WE, the people watching, cannot know, whether the targets were "The bad guys" (you know, pew pew pew), or the good guys. Being unarmed could be an indication, BUT IT'S NOT EVIDENCE. Life is not a movie, nor a Battlefield game.
There we go. The fact that there's evidence of the murder of a group of apparent civilians and no evidence they were combatants or expectation of it is the problem. You don't get to go killing whoever you please, shrug your shoulders and say "eh - I dunno - Hamas I guess - who cares". This applies doubly in the context of the ongoing genocide - Israel have made it crystal clear they can't be trusted.
To look at a genocidal regime killing a bunch of people that gave no indication they're combatants, shrugging your shoulders and saying there's no evidence they're not guilty doesn't cut it. It excuses the commission of the genocide (which is just thousands of instances of this kind of thing with an imposed famine and displacement), and represents a total disregard for the rule of law.
The one's doing the killing have to collect evidence. Not fucking random Karens on the internet who can only watch a twitter video and try to deduce information using their fucking salt lamp.
Do you imagine the bad guys to be "Hey Karen look at us! We have skulls on our shirts, and I'm wearing an eyepatch! Kill us, we're the bad guys It is important that twitter people recognise us!".
You have to be trolling. You just have to be. I refuse to believe people you're a real person writing all that unironically
I expect Israel to have a better justification for killing a group of people than "they looked Palestinian." - that's genocidal. This is a high-profile example largely because it appears so unambiguous. Israel are going to need to present the evidence that this was justified, or it gets thrown on the pile of killings amounting to that genocide.
We have video footage of a bunch of civilians being targeted in a drone strike - until they're shown to be enemy combatants (not happening) this is evidence of a warcrime. Your logic could be used to justify nuking Tel Aviv - we can't know the entire population aren't enemy combatants, and it's not for us to prove or ask for proof, so stop worrying about it, Karen.
If you believe the IDF need to prove the killing was justified, why are you defending them not doing so, and if you believe this is a genocide, why do you deny that the killings that make up that genocide are unjustified (remembering that they literally haven't been justified)?
I'm pretty happy to change my tune on this instance if credible evidence is presented, but I'm also comfortable saying that I know that won't happen at this point.
I don't think calling me a Karen for opposing warcrimes and genocide is having the desired effect, but you do you, champ.
I expect Israel to have a better justification for killing a group of people than "they looked Palestinian."
Maybe they do, maybe they don't. It's not clear from the video.
We have video footage of a bunch of civilians being targeted in a drone strike
We don't. No evidence they are civilians. No evidence they are combatants. If you have proof other than "they look civilian", give us proof.
this is evidence of a warcrime.
It is not. No proof this is Gaza. No proof it's an IDF drone strike. No proof that it happened last week, last month, last year or last decade. If you have proof "IDK it looks like it", give us proof. And not just one of these things, but ALL.
If you believe the IDF need to prove the killing was justified, why are you defending them not doing so,
Nobody said IDF don't have proof. They just don't have to share it with the public, no matter how hard you want it. I'm not defending them, I'm trying to show you that your logic is flawed, and you can easily be swayed by misinformation and propaganda.
and if you believe this is a genocide, why do you deny that the killings that make up that genocide are unjustified (remembering that they literally haven't been justified)?
What I believe is my deduction from actual, confirmed, reputable sources. Not a random twitter video. My opinion that is a genocide is just that - opinion. And unlike you, I don't claim I have proof. Because none of us have.
I don't think calling me a Karen for opposing warcrimes and genocide is having the desired effect, but you do you, champ.
You're not opposing genocide. You're literrally sitting in your warm home, half a world away, reacting to random videos on the internet with an angry emoji for internet clout. "Genocide bad" is as useful as "Bad things are bad".
You said I have bad reading comprehension and you deduced that I called you Karen because you "oppose warcrimes"? Holy shit, either read again, or read more.
Maybe they do, maybe they don't. It's not clear from the video.
We'd need the IDF to justify the killings. They haven't won't and can't.
Maybe they do, maybe they don't. It's not clear from the video.
You think you can go shoot up a school, then say it was in self-defence without evidence and get away with it? How's the principle different here?
We don't. No evidence they are civilians. No evidence they are combatants. If you have proof other than "they look civilian", give us proof.
The burden isn't on those killed to prove their innocence - the killers need to do that. Rule of law - really simple stuff you seem incapable of grasping but get all pissy when I point that out.
It is not. No proof this is Gaza. No proof it's an IDF drone strike. No proof that it happened last week, last month, last year or last decade. If you have proof "IDK it looks like it", give us proof. And not just one of these things, but ALL.
...except the IDF admitting it was them. I know they have zero credibility, but when they admit to this kind of thing, I think it's reasonable to believe them.
Nobody said IDF don't have proof. They just don't have to share it with the public, no matter how hard you want it. I'm not defending them, I'm trying to show you that your logic is flawed, and you can easily be swayed by misinformation and propaganda.
Absent anything at all suggesting they were combatants in the context of a genocide Israel is committing? I've got a bridge to sell you.
What I believe is my deduction from actual, confirmed, reputable sources. Not a random twitter video. My opinion that is a genocide is just that - opinion. And unlike you, I don't claim I have proof. Because none of us have.
Again, the IDF admitted to the killings. You saw video of a bunch of people being killed for no discernible reason, and you're defending that.
And the rest? You can stop reaching - it's not doing you any favours.
We'd need the IDF to justify the killings. They haven't won't and can't.
You haven't received a detailed breakdown of war and casualties via mail? Weird...
You think you can go shoot up a school, then say it was in self-defence without evidence and get away with it? How's the principle different here?
What the fuck are you on about...
The burden isn't on those killed to prove their innocence - the killers need to do that. Rule of law - really simple stuff you seem incapable of grasping but get all pissy when I point that out.
You are literally insane. Nobody has to prove anything to you, you absolutely delusional person. You are a fucking civilian half a world away. I don't know how are you not getting this.
Absent anything at all suggesting they were combatants in the context of a genocide Israel is committing? I've got a bridge to sell you.
Karen "just knowing things" again
Again, the IDF admitted to the killings. You saw video of a bunch of people being killed for no discernible reason, and you're defending that.
Just because don't know the reason, doesn't mean that IDF didn't have one, and no, they don't have to mail you the reason while the there's an ongoing war.
Okay, now I'm really done. This went from a fun 'feed the troll' deal, to talking to a mentally problematic person who thinks the world revolves around them and they should get detailed war reports delivered to them, to justify every war casualty.
You don't understand how war works
You still don't know what evidence is
You still think the bad guys should look like the bad guys from Holywood movies, otherwise they're good guys
You still think you can watch a video and know things from "intuition".
All four show me that this is a completely meaningless conversation and a general waste of my time.
Now, tell me how I'm a genocide denier, even though I agreed that there's genocide in Gaza, and tell me how I'm defending IDF, even though I think IDF and Israeli government are terrorists. That'll make a good point! Lmao
Continue living in your cocoon of safety and self-righteousness sucking up all the propaganda and every conspiracy theory, thinking that your reactions on facebook/twitter videos help the people of Gaza.
Whe could continue this circle of me trying to explain things to a rock, but I'd rather use my time elsewhere.
You haven't received a detailed breakdown of war and casualties via mail? Weird...
Believe it or not, proof doesn't need to be mailed to me, but it does need to be provided. It hasn't been. Who do you think it needs to be provided to, and when should that happen? It hasn't and won't go to the ICJ. Similarly, the world hasn't recieved one via the same public channels Israel used to confirm they killed these civilians. I guess there's still Palestinian children that still draw breath, so I'm sure they're prioritising addressing that.
What the fuck are you on about...
Israel would be the school shooter claiming self-defence in this analogy. You don't get to kill a bunch of people, make excuses, and not prove them. Neither does Israel.
You are literally insane. Nobody has to prove anything to you, you absolutely delusional person. You are a fucking civilian half a world away. I don't know how are you not getting this.
Again, supplying the evidence for the high-profile killing of multiple civilians via the same channels they used to confirm it was them would be sensible. The irony of someone busy arguing against the rule of law calling me insane isn't lost on me.
Karen "just knowing things" again
Yeah, but mostly just asking for evidence to justify the killing of multiple civilians rather than defending those killings.
Just because don't know the reason, doesn't mean that IDF didn't have one,
Sure they shot up that school and admitted to it, but they probably had a good reason for it. Uh huh - I'm insane.
and no, they don't have to mail you the reason while the there's an ongoing war.
You understand that this makes you look dumber than most of the things you're saying right? Also, I know genocide is a big word and war isn't, but this isn't a war.
they should get detailed war reports delivered to them, to justify every war casualty
You're doing the stupid again.
You don't understand how war works
Not a war - a genocide.
You still don't know what evidence is
If you're to be believed it can't exist, and isn't needed in any case - Israel are probably fine, and can be trusted, right?
You still think the bad guys should look like the bad guys from Holywood movies, otherwise they're good guys
I think you need a reason to kill a bunch of people - there isn't one here.
You still think you can watch a video and know things from "intuition".
We know a regime that's currently committing a genocide and a laundry list of warcrimes killed 4 people with no apparent reason to do so. On the one hand, I'm saying we'd need to see evidence justifying these killings to know they're not a warcrime. On the other, you're saying nothing is evidence, and because Israel doesn't need to provide the fictional evidence to me personally, it's all fine.
All four show me that this is a completely meaningless conversation and a general waste of my time.
Noone can waste your time but you.
Now, tell me how I'm a genocide denier, even though I agreed that there's genocide in Gaza,
You're defending the warcrimes that make up that genocide.
and tell me how I'm defending IDF, even though I think IDF and Israeli government are terrorists.
You're defending the warcrimes the IDF is committing.
Continue living in your cocoon of safety and self-righteousness sucking up all the propaganda and every conspiracy theory, thinking that your reactions on facebook/twitter videos help the people of Gaza.
Is that the cocoon where we observe a bunch of warcrimes committed in commission if a genocide and assume it's probably fine? If a bridge isn't too your taste, how about some lunar real estate?
Whe could continue this circle of me trying to explain things to a rock, but I'd rather use my time elsewhere.
Me challenging you on your total desregard for the rule of law, warcrimes, or the ongoing commission of a genocide isn't a me problem.
I'll be sorry to see you go - it was quaint hearing about this genocide that's happening without Israel indiscriminately targeting civilians and your care for the rule of law as you defend the killing of those civilians while throwing around weak insults.
Yeah - fuck me for needing a reason to belive a genocidal regime drone striking civilians isn't committing yet another warcrime, I guess.
Never mind that your logic could be used to defend the Nazis gassing millions of Jews because they don't need to mail me justification for every person they killed - we don't need to call for evidence - we need to give them the benefit of the doubt, right?
Is this some kind of humiliation fetish deal? I'm flattered but not interested - if nothing else, given the dumb, inconsistent nonsense you're spouting, I've got concerns about your capacity for consent.
What did I say about trotting on, again? Get to it.
Yes - being flattered and disinterested in someone that just keeps coming back for more embarrassment is the creepy bit. It's long past time you fucked off - this block is for your own good.
Try to work on your credulity - assuming civilians (and UN aid workers yesterday) being executed in drone strikes by a genocidal regime is all above board is evidence of a severe cognitive deficiency.
Edit: I guess we can throw the Iranian consulate on to the pile too.
Mountain of evidence from Al Jazeera, but JerusalemPost and YNet are not to be trusted. I sense double-standards. Also, would love to see that mountain of evidence.
Afaik he's always been independent. I think he ran with the democratic party for the presidency, but I less I missed something he's always been independent with his senate position
Because he did not have the best campaign staff and the Democratic party establishment preferred other candidates. His base was mostly young white people or college students who don't turn out to vote enough.
I worked for Bernie's campaign in '16, and I agree with this about some of his top staff... There were times where it legitimately seemed like they were deliberately screwing things up... And since a lot of them were establishment Dems who had previously worked for the likes of Hillary it wouldn't surprise me at all to find out they were.
I think the biggest reason he lost the primary was the Party shenanigans though. All the tricks we see the Republicans using now-a-days like voter purges and closing polling locations last minute are tricks they learned from Hillary's campaign and the DNC schills that control the state parties. And of course there was just straight up fraud in some places like Iowa.
As for his supporters, he actually got millions of young people to show up and vote in the primary who otherwise wouldn't have. Millions of whom almost certainly didn't show up to vote for Clinton, and likely wouldn't have thought twice about voting at all had it not been for Bernie. Had he been on the ballot millions of young people who didn't show up for Clinton would have shown up. I doubt anyone who voted for Clinton would have voted for Trump over Bernie, and I doubt they would have stayed home. The DNC flushed millions of new voters' votes down the toilet by forcing Clinton through.
So an independent who could actually represent the masses kissed the 2 party ring and America went to hell, do not pass go, noone got their full 200 dollars.
I wouldn't say he kissed the ring. He's always caucuses with dems, and he knew a major part ticket is the only way to get in, so he shot his shot for the dem nomination. Didn't work out and he backed off because he likes dem presidents a lot more than the alternative
It’s not just Netanyahu, it’s most of the government. Even the majority of Israeli citizens support the “war”, and are only protesting because they haven’t returned the hostages yet.
Please don't call Israel "the Jews." I am a Jew and I do not stand with Israel. Israel wants you to think all Jews are Israelis and all Israelis are Jews.
Yep, I've never even been to Israel. I don't particularly want to go other than seeing the archaeology. I was born in Indiana. I have far more in common with Christians from Indiana than I do a Jew from Haifa.
If you can't tell the difference between a limited number of well known examples and a statistical percentage, then perhaps you shouldn't lecture others on thinking.
Really? Fighting just to fight? Be better, you knew that that was only supposed to be an example of well known Jewish people standing up against Israel, not a comprehensive breakdown of the whole population.
I’ll be your fucking huckleberry though, I can fight about stupid shit just to piss people off all day.
I find it funny and it keeps you from bothering others.
I’d argue they’re notable because they’re Jewish, and are afforded an odd ‘extra legitimacy’ to criticize Israel because of that - until the ‘self hating Jew’ trope is brought out…
I am constantly disappointed that society as a whole cannot see through the obvious ploys by the hyper-partisans to hijack and disrupt honest discussion by treating all criticism as anti-Semitic
The fun thing with the people downvoting my above comment is that it's hard to know if they're pissed off because I don't support Israel or don't like that I'm a Jew.
Me too. I'm seriously considering buying a kippah to visually make this point.
For the sake of completeness, Israel does happen to be Jewish, just like Hamas happens to be Muslim. And yeah, in light of recent history that's ironic. Hopefully nobody here has forgotten we don't all agree with our (distant, in my case) relatives.
Don't worry, I usually don't (and I didn't say "the Jews", just "Jews" - big difference, since a "the" in front of it would imply that it's all while without "the" it's just a part of them).
It just was needed in this context for the sake of my comment (the irony would be harder to understand otherwise).
Israel would "move people out of Rafah, the main humanitarian hub in the enclave, to al-Mawasi
Yeah, that's not their plan. There's 1.42 million people in Rafah right now, which is 25 square miles. That gives it a population density of 56,800 per square mile, making it the 25th most densely populated city in the world - and with intact infrastructure enough for only a tiny fraction of that number.
So, Israel supposedly wants to move all these people to al-Mawasi. Now, al-Mawasi is barren, with; the last official count I could find said there were about 1500 people living there in a small Bedouin town. It's also only about six square miles total.
Let's say that Hamas is 10% of the population - I don't think it is, but let's use that number. That means there's 1,278,000 innocent civilians they want to move to al-Mawasi. That would mean a population density of 213,000 per square mile. That would be twice the population density of Manila. And there is no infrastructure. They're just taking a million people and throwing them into a barren desert next to the sea and saying, "Not our problem." There's no food, no water, no toilets, no shelter, no medical facilities, no electricity, no shelter from the heat - and no way to quickly make any of these things appear in enough quantity to matter.
The Palestinians are already on the verge of famine. This will make things worse, and disease is absolutely going to decimate the population. And then they'll decide that al-Mawasi is hiding Hamas, and they'll go after that as well.
Let’s say that Hamas is 10% of the population - I don’t think it is, but let’s use that number.
The Palestinians are already on the verge of famine. This will make things worse, and disease is absolutely going to decimate the population.
Decimation was the Roman practice of killing 1 out of every 10 mutinous/deserter (i.e., guilty of something) soldiers to punish an entire legion while still keeping it operational as a combat unit. Here we have the opposite. It is killing 9 innocents to get to also kill 1 additional (very hypothetically) guilty person.
This is the saddest "um ackchyually" I have ever written.
More aid enters Gaza every day. The situation has been improving for months and there is zero reason to think it will not continue to improve. Daily death totals have been dropping since what, the second or third week of the war?
Tell Hamas to surrender and come out. Watch the daily deaths drop to zero.
I Just wanted to add that Northern Gaza, where the IDF physically controls all entrances, is officially in famine. Southern Gaza is fed by the entrance in Rafah.
The motive for taking Rafah could not be more clear. They intend to destroy the international aid supply line for southern Gaza. Moving so many people to a purposefully mismanaged IDP camp is just the cherry on top.
I don't doubt for one second that Israel is likely planning something like this. But let's be careful about using sources that are just as biased as the ones that the other side uses.
If you're reporting on news from some far-left website while at the same time decrying right-wing bias like Fox News and it's ilk, then you lose the moral high ground.
There's plenty of regular journalism that documents Israel's bullshit without having to resort to non-credible sources. Stick to that or there's no point in fighting because we've already lost.
You could if the title does not match the article.
Israel may forcibly displace 1.2 million prior to ground invasion. Gives Hamas deadline for cease fire.
oxfam warns a ground invasion could be catastrophic for those in the city.
experts believe it may pave the way for eventually ethnic cleansing by Israel.
Make no mistake, a shit load of worrying information here. No where in this article does it say "here is the plan for ethnic cleansing" like stated in the title.
They’re not quoting the IDF’s plans for what they called an “ethnic cleansing.” They’re quoting someone who characterized the plans as an ethnic cleansing. I think it’s foolish to assume they meant to imply the IDF was waving around plans for something titled “the ethnic cleansing of Arabs in Rafah.”
Commondreams is a good outlet. Yes, they may editorialize and are not shy about their left-leaning positions, but that doesn’t inherently make an outlet untrustworthy. Fox calling themselves “fair and balanced” and using charged language in their chyrons—for example, I was at the gym and I saw them referring to the Campus sit-ins as “riots” and the participants as “antisemites.” (If I’m remembering those correctly, but it was insanely loaded language of their own creation)—is what leads them to be a problematic outlet. They skew facts, obscure the truth, and heavily edit out anything that doesn’t rile up their viewership.
Commondreams has a mission to give good information that may cater to the left, but they’re a non-profit outlet. And there is an inherent difference between left-bias and right-bias. Right bias has to alter reality to fit their narrative. The established left-leaning outlets like Commondreams aren’t altering and obscuring. They’re highlighting what they see as important information that, yes, adheres to a more left-leaning worldview, but what does that mean in this context? They’re willfully calling out Israel when “center” and right-leaning outlets are beholden to them. They’ll investigate issues that are important to civil rights, privacy, etc. But that doesn’t mean their worldview warps the reality of the topics they cover. They’re just more relevant to progressives/leftists.
Now, there are definitely a lot of terrible, probably non-journalist run outlets that really cropped up around 2016 like those “blue news” Wordpress sites or whatever that used to fly around Reddit. There is a way to be untrustworthy and left/liberal-biased. Definitely not saying it’s impossible. But it’s a different beast when discussing long-established, trustworthy left-leaning sources.
You know how it’s been said “reality has a left-leaning bias?” Well, that’s pretty relevant here. To be left-biased, you still report on facts that speak to leftist people. To be right-biased, it means you’re singling out minority groups, catering to big business in disingenuous ways (because that’s how they operate. They can basically run propaganda as private institutions, and the right-biased outlets unquestioningly run with it.) Left-biased outlets are critical, right-leaning uncritical. That’s a huge difference.
DN! Is a great example. They’ll report on the pipeline protests, the genocide in Gaza…they’ll cover things an outlet that’s trying to gain more viewership by catering to “fairness” like NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc. wouldn’t dare touch—or would go out of their way to not take a position on. You’d never catch Amy Goodman bringing on a fossil fue exec to hear their opinions on the pipeline protesters and how they should all go back to work or whatever.
Catering to “fairness,” (the best way I’ve ever heard this problem described) is, assuming the republicans adopted flat eartherism, NYT would run an article saying “democrats and republicans can’t agree on shape of earth.”
That’s ignoring basic facts to cater to a larger audience and not “appear biased.” But one of those positions is inherently wrong. The factionalism of the US political system doesn’t change that fact. Although it does immediately cut your audience in half if you can’t appear to treat the absurd point s somehow equal.
Treating climate change scientists and the spokespeople for Exxon as having two differing points on a debatable topic is catering to fairness. To the point that it turns your reporting into complete fucking trash.
What you are saying is its ok for a news organization to push one side of a story, report only stories that support their views, use language that makes it seem more urgent and serious than it actually is, and this is a reputable organization that should be listed to?
And what the other poster is saying is that this is especially acceptable as its the side they agree with?
What you are saying is its ok for a news organization to push one side of a story, report only stories that support their views, use language that makes it seem more urgent and serious than it actually is, and this is a reputable organization that should be listed to?
To a greater or lesser degree, all news orgs do this.
The issue I've got is that this discussion seems to be saying that it should be celebrated as the be all and end all of this conflict, that you should only be looking at organizations that support your view, and that you shouldn't look into what bias your organizations is pushing without further analysis and understanding.
Effectively, that it's more important your views are confirmed than you are informed and accurate.
You're right. It's still to early to call if israel is planning to kill all Palestinians and commit Ethnic Cleansing. Who knows, can you even call Genocide a Genocide? Let's ask the israeli government about this
“No half jobs. Rafah, Deir al-Balah, Nuseirat, total and utter destruction,” Smotrich said, referring to the two cities in Gaza and the Nuseirat refugee camp.
This description given by CommonDreams is by far the most accurate one.
To call this unbalanced is to pretend that israel is not committing Genocide or Ethnic cleansing.
When every shitty propaganda outlet shills for israel killing "dying" people we're supposed to look the other way. But when a NEWSpaper goes "israel is doing Genocide" everyone loses their jimmies. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Reporting should not include commentary. I don’t disagree that this is genocide and ethnic cleansing. But editorializing belongs in editorials and opinion pieces. I want facts. The headline here suggests that Israel is calling it ethnic cleansing themselves, which is not the case.
This is why I’m often critical of CommonDreams as a publication. Their headlines are misleading and they mix opinion with reporting.
To be clear, this is not a problem unique to CommonDreams. I’ve lost a lot of respect for the NYT and CNN over Israel and Palestine coverage. The NYT has also put out some polls with terrible methodology lately, and it's been independent, left wing publications pointing that out. And I've liked their coverage, it was just focused on the facts.
All editorializing in reporting is wrong. CommonDreams is just more blatant about it.
I don't disagree at all. I think my actual annoyance with this is the quotation marks. That makes it sound like it's a quote from Israel. If they're using it as a term, then there shouldn't be quotations around it.
Right, being crass on Twitter is why people don't like him. Has nothing to do with being a fascist who wants to dismantle the democracy of the US and become a dictator
Yes, correct, that is why you don't like him. Like if you actually step back and look at him from a perspective that isn't obsessed with decorum and norms, he is a standard, moderate Republican. Which, yeah, is still evil; but he's legitimately the least evil Republican president since Eisenhower, and you all talk about him like he's a cross between Tywin Lannister and Voldemort.
Trump literally floated using the US military as a mercenary force, among a giant swathe of other fundamentally terrible policies he furthered, not to mention the broad and very obvious corruption under his administration just a few years ago. What in the fuck are you even talking about?
commondreams.org
Oldest