Palestinian officials call latest assault ‘premeditated’ as people seeking humanitarian supplies increasingly targeted.
  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    331·
    10 months ago

    So was it Israeli helicopters, tanks and drones? Or armed Palestinian gunmen and trucks? Evidence recorded in the aftermath should make one or the other clear.

    To kill 21 people and injure over a hundred, it’s much easier to do that with the former than the latter.

    • Doods@infosec.pub
      12·
      9 months ago

      And just as a note for anyone reading, when an Arab says something bad about Jews, like curse the Jews, they are referring to real Jews, as in the ones who actually follow their book*, i.e. the Zionists, not your average self-proclaimed Jew, which is the reason the word ‘Jew’ is sometimes used as a swear word, even if mostly ironically. (kind of like redditors and the French)

      *: I am unqualified to talk about what’s in it, the only things I heard are horrible - mainly war rules - and I made this comment only to prevent misunderstandings by revealing different points of view.

      • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
        121·
        10 months ago

        Media bias says they’re good, lol. Read the headlines every day and you’ll see what I mean. I just started skipping them, they definitely have bias.

          • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
            113·
            10 months ago

            Just look at my history, you can easily see what I’m all about. I look for non-conjecture, fact-based headlines and content. Their headlines are biased. I used them as a serious source at first, but then it became where I don’t even look at them, same with Huffpost. Huffpost looks like the National Enquirer for the last few months I’ve been gathering content. I usually won’t go past the headline if I feel it doesn’t match the content or it’s shitty in some way. AP is barely in the running as well. I did post the “Florida Man with 91 indictments goes to trial” or something like that because I thought it was funny, but I’m usually pretty good.

              • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
                6·
                10 months ago

                I read new republic and nation

                I’ve learned to take every view

                You know, i’ve memorized lerner and golden

                I feel like i’m almost a jew

                But when it comes to times like korea

                There’s no one more red, white and blue

                So love me, love me, love me, i’m a liberal

                Almost word for word OP… Gotta love Phil Ochs… He knew what was up!

      • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
        120·
        10 months ago

        Doesn’t change the fact that Al Jazeera is biased in my opinion, I just couldn’t find anyone else that felt the same. I looked at their wiki and it says they’re under Time Warner for their TV stations, but I couldn’t tell who owns them now.

          • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
            110·
            10 months ago

            That’s kind of what I gathered from it, but it was hard to confirm. The closest was the Media Bias Check that no one here seems to like. Honestly, if people like them, believe everything they say and ignore/downvote as what seems to be happening, lol. I don’t really have skin in the game, but I could see why it looked that way.

            • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
              41·
              10 months ago

              If you believe everything the BBC says about the British government, CBC about the Canadian government… You’re a massive chud. Yet we can take some of what they publish and still believe it is the objective truth.

                • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
                  91·
                  9 months ago

                  Everyone is biased, that’s the freaking point. “Un biased” media does not exist, it’s retoric created to make you think whatever you watch is better than the rest.

                  If I headline an article “Man dies in police involved shooting” instead of “Unarmed black man murdered by racist pig” both of these are technically factual aren’t they? Yet they both have a clear bias.

                  Let me give you another example I saw recently in a lot of Canadian media: “One arrested at pro-palestinian demonstration” vs “Zionist arrested for assault at pro-palestian protest.”… Yet now the same media is headlining “At least two pro-palestinian protestors arrested”… Do you see how all of these are factual, and yet biased?

                • davel@lemmy.mlEnglish
                  61·
                  9 months ago

                  Since you obviously didn’t read the comment I linked to, I’ll copypasta the relevant bits:

                  The whole concept of the “left” or ”right“ “bias” being inversely correlated with factualness is garbage. These kinds of graphs, which try to convince us that centrism equals factualness, are garbage:

                  The core bias of corporate media is the bias of the capitalist class.

                  The inner workings of corporate media were explained about forty years ago in Inventing Reality and Manufacturing Consent.
                  A five minute introduction: Noam Chomsky - The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine

    • caveman@lemmy.ml
      7·
      10 months ago

      All press is biased. See the press as lawyers. Western press=lawyers of Israel. Arabic press =lawyers of Palestinians.

      You as a judge has to read the contradicting sides and decide for yourself what is the reality.

      • InputZero@lemmy.ml
        18·
        10 months ago

        You are correct, every source of media has a bias. To expand upon your comment. Whenever we are consuming media and in particular news that sould always be in our minds. Who’s is sponsoring this, what is trying to be accomplished by this piece?

        Al Jazeera has a stronger bias than most but considering that it’s essentially state media they are a lot more objective than I expect they would be. It’s not a trash news source but it definitely takes more scrutiny than say DW news.

          • InputZero@lemmy.ml
            12·
            9 months ago

            Completely subjectively! It’s inpart because of how they acquire most of their funding but my own personal bias is the most impactful.

        • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
          7·
          10 months ago

          it definitely takes more scrutiny than say DW news

          DW has been absolutely awful on the Palestinian genocide, now and before Oct 7th.

            • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
              3·
              10 months ago

              Yup. They do have an AMAZING documentary on Iraq though called “Iraq: Destruction of a Nation”. If you can find it it’s absolutely worth the FOUR HOURS watch. One of the most objective geopolitics documentary I’ve seen in a long time.

      • Mir@programming.dev
        61·
        10 months ago

        Putting both in the same category is strange as one is an armed resistance and the other is an occupation force.

    • Pennomi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      411·
      10 months ago

      I’d take anything published by Jerusalem Post as inherently incapable of being unbiased about Israel/Palestine. Let’s wait for a third party confirmation before making this claim.

      • goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org
        161·
        10 months ago

        At least they’re using a newspaper and not a random and super obviously idf propaganda Twitter account like some I’ve seen

        • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
          241·
          10 months ago

          Using an Israeli newspaper is basically writing IDF propaganda, considering they have to submit every article to the IDF for review…

          Refworld gives Israel a press freedom score of 33/100.

          media outlets are subject to military censorship and gag orders, and journalists often face travel restrictions.

          https://www.refworld.org/reference/annualreport/freehou/2017/en/118918

          Censorship in Israel is officially carried out by the Israeli Military Censor, a unit in the Israeli government officially tasked with carrying out preventive censorship regarding the publication of information that might affect the security of Israel. The body is headed by the Israeli Chief Censor

          On average, 2240 press articles in Israel are censored by the Israeli Military Censor each year, approximately 240 of which in full, and around 2000 partially.

          Articles concerning potentially controversial topics must be submitted to the Israeli Military Censor in advance; failing to do so may cause the reporter to lose his right to work as a journalist in Israe

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Israel

          See also: https://theintercept.com/2023/12/23/israel-military-idf-media-censor/

          OnLy DeMocRaCy In ThE mIdDlE EaSt!

          • cqthca@reddthat.com
            2·
            9 months ago

            lose his right to work as a journalist in Israe[al]

            in US everyone is a journalist by claim and the authorities must respect that.

    • mlg@lemmy.worldEnglish
      251·
      10 months ago

      Yeah just like how it was Hamas driving the trucks running people over

      Starting to wonder if it’s genocidal laziness or a new standard of mental gymnastics every time the IDF opens their mouth

      • cogman@lemmy.world
        151·
        10 months ago

        Israel got in hot water internationally the last time for doing exactly the same thing. So blaming Hamas is an easy trick to pull to try and detract from the ongoing mass starvation they are directly responsible for.

        It’s really gross.

        They did the exact same thing when they first blew up a hospital. Then they proceeded to blow up all the hospitals after the major news outlets stopped covering it.

        Ditto with murdering literally over 100 journalists to try and suppress independent coverage of their ongoing genocide.

        You can’t trust fascists propaganda to accurately report fascist genocide.