NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On March 27 2024 00:19 JimmiC wrote: People might start to pay attention to how many of those civilians are directly killed by Hamas as well as partial blame for all the citizens they put in harms way as they continue to use hospitals, refugee camps, schools and so on as staging areas, bases and places to fight.
Hard to say, hatred for Israel runs deep and has bene promoted on the socials for a long time. This could be the straw that breaks the Camals back but I doubt it.
Aside from racism and religious fanatism, is there any reason from the continuous support of Israel ? I guess I could add the case "western supremacism" but in the end that's still a racist component.
Mainstream media reliance is probably still the main one, but that is related to both racism and western supremacy.
And for those who keep poo pooing me pointing out how far left and far right are becoming twins we know have the "it's Main Stream Media's" fault.
Are you not a journalist? Do you not see value in the rules that MSM needs to follow compared to all the rest of the garbage out there?
edit: also explains all the presumptions as fact with no sourcing. Source is either social media, to embarrassing for those not down the rabbit hole or simply made up, I mean "presumed".
"Have more Palestinians or Israelis died in war? Half of Americans don’t know, poll says"
That’s a shit post. Explain what you mean so I don’t connect the dots incorrectly then you accuse me of whatever. Again are you not some sort of journalist can you not just say what you mean?
I’m going to assume that you are trying to show that “main stream media” is doing a bad job of educating them. How many Americans get their news from main stream media? How many even read the news at all? What percentage even know there is a war? If I happened to guess what you were trying to get at try again.
Edit: if your really are serious that you think the “msm” is not accurately reporting the casualties I can you show you tons from all over, cnn updates it daily even breaks it down by week. The accurate info is out there, it’s the opinion part that is being sold as fact on social media that is the problem.
It is an observable fact about reality that the MSM does a shit job of reporting Gaza. In this quantitative study by the Intercept, "Major U.S. newspapers disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict; used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians
Neb, don't you think the difference in language and reporting between the Israeli and the Palestinian deaths has anything to do with the nature of these deaths? There are many Palestinians who have died which all of us think is a tragedy; there is a discussion to be had about how much their deaths were caused by disproportionate use of force from the IDF and how much it is because Hamas is actively hiding among civilians (hospitals, schools etc.).
But on the other side you have the purposeful killing of as many civilians as possible in the most gruesome way possible. The difference in reporting is not because of some bias against the Palestinians; for example, if something like this happened in Tel Aviv (dead civilians paraded through the streets of Gaza cheered on by crowds of people), don't you think it would be all over the news all the time for years to come: https://nypost.com/2023/10/07/horrifying-videos-show-hamas-terrorist-invasion-of-israel/
I would contend that what you're doing here is agreeing with the bias, describing why the bias makes sense to you, as opposed to arguing against the bias' existence. If Hamas had access to the IDF artillery and was using it to bomb military targets in Tel-Aviv, I am absolutely certain that neither the mainstream media nor you would shy away from calling it horrific, or a slaughter. Nor should they, by the way, it is fucking horrific.
And then there's a chicken and egg question that arises from it, was it always your view that this difference in coverage makes sense, or did the way the media reports them shape your perception of this difference? It's difficult to answer.
Another factor that is definitely worth mentioning in the creation of this bias is that a lot of people have trouble empathizing with others, and it's much easier for Europeans to see themselves as victims of terrorism than it is to see themselves as victims of a colonizing force. This may or may not apply to you, I wouldn't know.
I am not sure what your argument is other than doubling down on the claim that the media are biased against Palestinians and the usual postcolonial hermeneutics of suspicion.
My claim was that if the media are reporting on the Israeli deaths on Oct 7 differently than the Palestinian deaths it's not necessarily because of media bias. If civilians die in a strike against Hamas fighters it's qualitatively different from if they are targeted on purpose. If Israeli soldiers behaved like the Hamas soldiers (ie, targeting civilians on purpose) the reporting would also be completely different.
And I asked you a counterfactual question: if Israeli soldiers raped and killed young Palestinian women, on orders by their commanders, took the bodies and paraded them through the streets where the civilian population cheered them on - do you think the media would treat that differently from the Oct 7 attack? I don't think so.
The problem with this is that what you describe is a biased coverage, and you're expressing your approval of it. You're not saying that the media treats Israelis and Palestinians the same, you're saying that because of the difference in nature between Hamas and the IDF, it makes sense to you that the media doesn't treat Israelis and Palestinians the same.
Civilians are obviously targeted on purpose by the IDF, the IDF aren't idiots, if they bomb a refugee camp because there's a Hamas member in it they're obviously aware that the refugees are also going to die, it's not an accidental death. This article is also worth reading in this context, as what is defined as "power targets" very clearly includes the targeting of civilian infrastructure.
But this isn't likely to change your mind, and this obviously is not how journalists decided how they would cover this conflict. They didn't sit in a room and go, okay, clearly terrorism is horrific but dropping bombs on children is not, here are the few lines that the IDF can or cannot cross in order to receive a coverage that is different from that of Hamas. These types of words are emotional rather than descriptive, they show and demand empathy. There has never been a conversation where someone went "My family was slaughtered during [x]" and someone answered "Technically [x] didn't meet the characteristics of a slaughter so you can't say that".
For your hypothetical, the media would condemn that specific event, but that wouldn't change how they cover the entirety of the conflict. Events that are similar in nature have happened, for example when Israelis gathered on hill tops to watch the bombs go off in Gaza and cheer, and they were roundly talked about and condemned when they happened, but then the standard coverage resumed.
So, while the US abstained from a vote (resulting in threatening language from Netanyahu), the US diplomat Linda Thomas-Greenfield calls the UN resolution "non-binding". Unfortunately it's quite common for these kinds of resolutions to be ignored by the targeted groups, but the fact that the US has decided to openly label it as "non-binding" has caused significant backlash.
Also very noteworthy is the fact that the UN resolution contains no condemnation of Hamas.
On March 27 2024 00:19 JimmiC wrote: People might start to pay attention to how many of those civilians are directly killed by Hamas as well as partial blame for all the citizens they put in harms way as they continue to use hospitals, refugee camps, schools and so on as staging areas, bases and places to fight.
Hard to say, hatred for Israel runs deep and has bene promoted on the socials for a long time. This could be the straw that breaks the Camals back but I doubt it.
Aside from racism and religious fanatism, is there any reason from the continuous support of Israel ? I guess I could add the case "western supremacism" but in the end that's still a racist component.
Mainstream media reliance is probably still the main one, but that is related to both racism and western supremacy.
And for those who keep poo pooing me pointing out how far left and far right are becoming twins we know have the "it's Main Stream Media's" fault.
Are you not a journalist? Do you not see value in the rules that MSM needs to follow compared to all the rest of the garbage out there?
edit: also explains all the presumptions as fact with no sourcing. Source is either social media, to embarrassing for those not down the rabbit hole or simply made up, I mean "presumed".
"Have more Palestinians or Israelis died in war? Half of Americans don’t know, poll says"
That’s a shit post. Explain what you mean so I don’t connect the dots incorrectly then you accuse me of whatever. Again are you not some sort of journalist can you not just say what you mean?
I’m going to assume that you are trying to show that “main stream media” is doing a bad job of educating them. How many Americans get their news from main stream media? How many even read the news at all? What percentage even know there is a war? If I happened to guess what you were trying to get at try again.
Edit: if your really are serious that you think the “msm” is not accurately reporting the casualties I can you show you tons from all over, cnn updates it daily even breaks it down by week. The accurate info is out there, it’s the opinion part that is being sold as fact on social media that is the problem.
It is an observable fact about reality that the MSM does a shit job of reporting Gaza. In this quantitative study by the Intercept, "Major U.S. newspapers disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict; used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians; and offered lopsided coverage of antisemitic acts in the U.S., while largely ignoring anti-Muslim racism in the wake of October 7."
The reason why this happens is in my opinion largely because of the Israeli military censor, which "every CNN journalist covering Israel and Palestine must submit their work for review by the news organization’s bureau in Jerusalem prior to publication, under a long-standing CNN policy."
A good question to ask in light of the existence of this military censor would be, why wouldn't this happen? Are they shit at their job? We have circumstances in which it makes total sense that a biased coverage would develop, then we have obvious evidence of this biased coverage both in the data and in the reception of the data. I think that's very clearly a salient point, worth mentioning on top of racism and western supremacy, that causes a lot of people to still defend Israel: their cultivated ignorance of what's going on.
Thank you for doing a whole post instead of gotcha comment that belongs at the bottom of social media post trying to farm likes.
There is bias in almost everything, hell you can even look up which directions what outlets lean, it is really not a counter to anything I said. Talking about the "MSM" is so dangerous and dumb because it is simply a catch all for people who don't agree with whatever (often unproven and consprirational ideas). Heck sometimes it includes Fox news some times it doesn't. I bet some people would consider the intercept MSM if it disagreed with them.
I do appreciate that you chose a real news outlet and not some social media star, because those are who I have the most issues with. They are all about getting clicks by farming outrage and making big bold claims as if they are fact based on a bunch of loose connections. The leftists that don't have the monetization turned off is the worst. Almost nothing grinds my gears more than getting linked to some leftist video where I see a video on how to make money quick with the same tag line as the video "what They won't tell you about...." and then other same ads. Oh yes you true communist making bank off internet scam ads. I'm sure there are some good ones, but a hell of a lot more grifters.
As to your last point there are lots of legitimate reasons to have a different opinion and presumption than you, Elrio brought some up here and others have in the past. That you go with lying or something nefarious when people disagree is on you not them and makes for always contentious conversations.
So the next time you agree with what I'm saying, you have the option of not talking about how me saying it is evidence that the far right and the far left are the same.
On March 27 2024 00:19 JimmiC wrote: People might start to pay attention to how many of those civilians are directly killed by Hamas as well as partial blame for all the citizens they put in harms way as they continue to use hospitals, refugee camps, schools and so on as staging areas, bases and places to fight.
Hard to say, hatred for Israel runs deep and has bene promoted on the socials for a long time. This could be the straw that breaks the Camals back but I doubt it.
Aside from racism and religious fanatism, is there any reason from the continuous support of Israel ? I guess I could add the case "western supremacism" but in the end that's still a racist component.
Mainstream media reliance is probably still the main one, but that is related to both racism and western supremacy.
And for those who keep poo pooing me pointing out how far left and far right are becoming twins we know have the "it's Main Stream Media's" fault.
Are you not a journalist? Do you not see value in the rules that MSM needs to follow compared to all the rest of the garbage out there?
edit: also explains all the presumptions as fact with no sourcing. Source is either social media, to embarrassing for those not down the rabbit hole or simply made up, I mean "presumed".
"Have more Palestinians or Israelis died in war? Half of Americans don’t know, poll says"
That’s a shit post. Explain what you mean so I don’t connect the dots incorrectly then you accuse me of whatever. Again are you not some sort of journalist can you not just say what you mean?
I’m going to assume that you are trying to show that “main stream media” is doing a bad job of educating them. How many Americans get their news from main stream media? How many even read the news at all? What percentage even know there is a war? If I happened to guess what you were trying to get at try again.
Edit: if your really are serious that you think the “msm” is not accurately reporting the casualties I can you show you tons from all over, cnn updates it daily even breaks it down by week. The accurate info is out there, it’s the opinion part that is being sold as fact on social media that is the problem.
It is an observable fact about reality that the MSM does a shit job of reporting Gaza. In this quantitative study by the Intercept, "Major U.S. newspapers disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict; used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians; and offered lopsided coverage of antisemitic acts in the U.S., while largely ignoring anti-Muslim racism in the wake of October 7."
The reason why this happens is in my opinion largely because of the Israeli military censor, which "every CNN journalist covering Israel and Palestine must submit their work for review by the news organization’s bureau in Jerusalem prior to publication, under a long-standing CNN policy."
A good question to ask in light of the existence of this military censor would be, why wouldn't this happen? Are they shit at their job? We have circumstances in which it makes total sense that a biased coverage would develop, then we have obvious evidence of this biased coverage both in the data and in the reception of the data. I think that's very clearly a salient point, worth mentioning on top of racism and western supremacy, that causes a lot of people to still defend Israel: their cultivated ignorance of what's going on.
Thank you for doing a whole post instead of gotcha comment that belongs at the bottom of social media post trying to farm likes.
There is bias in almost everything, hell you can even look up which directions what outlets lean, it is really not a counter to anything I said. Talking about the "MSM" is so dangerous and dumb because it is simply a catch all for people who don't agree with whatever (often unproven and consprirational ideas). Heck sometimes it includes Fox news some times it doesn't. I bet some people would consider the intercept MSM if it disagreed with them.
I do appreciate that you chose a real news outlet and not some social media star, because those are who I have the most issues with. They are all about getting clicks by farming outrage and making big bold claims as if they are fact based on a bunch of loose connections. The leftists that don't have the monetization turned off is the worst. Almost nothing grinds my gears more than getting linked to some leftist video where I see a video on how to make money quick with the same tag line as the video "what They won't tell you about...." and then other same ads. Oh yes you true communist making bank off internet scam ads. I'm sure there are some good ones, but a hell of a lot more grifters.
As to your last point there are lots of legitimate reasons to have a different opinion and presumption than you, Elrio brought some up here and others have in the past. That you go with lying or something nefarious when people disagree is on you not them and makes for always contentious conversations.
So the next time you agree with what I'm saying, you have the option of not talking about how me saying it is evidence that the far right and the far left are the same.
And we're back to the gotcha posts for the bottom of social media, if only you could know how many thumbs up you got!
Stilt talks about the reasons why people still support Israel and mentions racism and western supremacy, two clear prevalent reasons. I add one more, reliance on a mainstream media that is clearly producing coverage that is biased in favor of Israel. You decide to enter the conversation and make the profoundly stupid point that this is evidence that the far left and the far right are the same. I counter with evidence that the mainstream media is producing coverage that is biased in favor of Israel, and you agree that it's true.
What did you expect me to write about this interaction, a nuanced thesis? You said something silly and I showed that it was silly. Next time don't write the silly thing and I won't be able to answer with a gotcha.
On March 27 2024 10:30 Cerebrate1 wrote: Firstly, there are many war crimes that do not require interpretation. Like the law against taking non-combatant hostages
So you're finally agreed that Israel is committing war crimes, then?
Since taking non-combatant hostages is a war crime that does not require interpretation, surely detaining non-combatants without charges or a right to trial would constitute a war crime. Am I missing anything? ...
I apologize. It seems I inadvertently lead you to believe that international law was more simplistic, and less nuanced, than it is.
The Geneva Conventions make a clear distinction between Taking Hostages (prohibited) and taking Prisoners of War (POWs)(permitted [perhaps even encouraged since the alternatives in war are generally worse]).
Capturing a bunch of 5 year olds is a pretty clear cut case of hostage taking without any interpretation necessary.
Capturing 20 year old men (or even the oft mentioned 17 year old "children") who actively engaged in hostilities against soldiers in a time of war, generally lands pretty neatly in the POW camp. Although, they may not actually get the benefits of Privileged Combatants if the people were engaging in typical combat activities out of uniform, they may be designated as Unlawful Combatants instead. Additionally, if they are part of a Non-State Armed Group (like PIJ or the like), they may be held for insurrection under domestic law (instead of international law).
I'd also add that the Geneva Conventions definition of "combatant" is also much broader than you might think. Someone could have never touched a gun and still be considered a "combatant." For instance, if they were involved in planning an attack or if they were storing rockets on their premises.
I can't say I know the details of every specific case in this conflict, but suffice to say, prisoners detained by Israel are categorically different than hostages abducted by Hamas. And international law reflects this point.
On March 27 2024 10:30 Cerebrate1 wrote: Firstly, there are many war crimes that do not require interpretation. Like the law against taking non-combatant hostages
So you're finally agreed that Israel is committing war crimes, then?
Since taking non-combatant hostages is a war crime that does not require interpretation, surely detaining non-combatants without charges or a right to trial would constitute a war crime. Am I missing anything? ...
I apologize. It seems I inadvertently lead you to believe that international law was more simplistic, and less nuanced, than it is.
The Geneva Conventions make a clear distinction between taking Prisoners of War (POWs)(permitted [perhaps even encouraged since the alternatives in war are generally worse]) and Taking Hostages (prohibited).
Capturing a bunch of 5 year olds is a pretty clear cut case of hostage taking without any interpretation necessary.
Capturing 20 year old men (or even the oft mentioned 17 year old "children") who actively engaged in hostilities against soldiers in a time of war, generally lands pretty neatly in the POW camp. Although, they may not actually get the benefits of Privileged Combatants if the people were engaging in typical combat activities out of uniform, they may be designated as Unlawful Combatants instead. Additionally, if they are part of a Non-State Armed Group (like PIJ or the like), they may be held for insurrection under domestic law (instead of international law).
I'd also add that the Geneva Conventions definition of "combatant" is also much broader than you might think. Someone could have never touched a gun and still be considered a "combatant." For instance, if they were involved in planning an attack or if they were storing rockets on their premises.
I can't say I know the details of every specific case in this conflict, but suffice to say, prisoners detained by Israel are categorically different than hostages abducted by Hamas. And international law reflects this point.
Can you prove that? It's easy to claim that the prisoners are all being held for legitimate reasons and treated appropriately, but to me it sounds very much like you're making assumptions without independent verification.
On March 27 2024 10:30 Cerebrate1 wrote: Firstly, there are many war crimes that do not require interpretation. Like the law against taking non-combatant hostages
So you're finally agreed that Israel is committing war crimes, then?
Since taking non-combatant hostages is a war crime that does not require interpretation, surely detaining non-combatants without charges or a right to trial would constitute a war crime. Am I missing anything? ...
I apologize. It seems I inadvertently lead you to believe that international law was more simplistic, and less nuanced, than it is.
The Geneva Conventions make a clear distinction between taking Prisoners of War (POWs)(permitted [perhaps even encouraged since the alternatives in war are generally worse]) and Taking Hostages (prohibited).
Capturing a bunch of 5 year olds is a pretty clear cut case of hostage taking without any interpretation necessary.
Capturing 20 year old men (or even the oft mentioned 17 year old "children") who actively engaged in hostilities against soldiers in a time of war, generally lands pretty neatly in the POW camp. Although, they may not actually get the benefits of Privileged Combatants if the people were engaging in typical combat activities out of uniform, they may be designated as Unlawful Combatants instead. Additionally, if they are part of a Non-State Armed Group (like PIJ or the like), they may be held for insurrection under domestic law (instead of international law).
I'd also add that the Geneva Conventions definition of "combatant" is also much broader than you might think. Someone could have never touched a gun and still be considered a "combatant." For instance, if they were involved in planning an attack or if they were storing rockets on their premises.
I can't say I know the details of every specific case in this conflict, but suffice to say, prisoners detained by Israel are categorically different than hostages abducted by Hamas. And international law reflects this point.
Can you prove that? It's easy to claim that the prisoners are all being held for legitimate reasons and treated appropriately, but to me it sounds very much like you're making assumptions without independent verification.
Like I said, I don't know the specifics of every case. We might have to investigate specific cases to know more.
That said, a cursory glance at the types of prisoners Israel holds shows a list comprised mostly of fit men who would be very useful in a war. Even without knowing the evidence for each one, that supports the conclusion that Israel at least believes that they are capturing people who were participating in the war. Holding assets that would be useful to your enemy's ability to wage war is the definition of permitted capture of Prisoners of War.
Looking at the hostages released from Hamas and you see a bunch of elderly ladies with medical conditions and young children with their mothers. None of those people are contributing to Israel's war effort, so they are clearly just illegally held hostages.
It should be noted that some of the remaining people captured by Hamas (assuming they are still alive) were IDF soldiers. Those actually would be legitimate POWs. The only problem there would be Hamas not following the Geneva Conventions for how to treat POWs. Given that we keep getting pictures of them dead with thoats slit and such, that's probably unlikely.
and treated appropriately,
I didn't actually mention the treatment of prisoners in Israel in my previous post, but since you seem concerned, I'll give it a sound bite:
Israel had Yaya Sinwar in their prison previously. Possibly one of the worst criminals in their custody (he since became the mastermind for Oct 7). He was going to die of natural causes to a brain tumor. Israel paid a lot of money for a complex brain surgery (that most people wouldn't have been able to get/afford) that saved his life. If that's how far they go to take care of their worst prisoners, it's reasonable to assume they aren't too terrible to prisoners of lesser criminal status.
You're not supporting your claim. Israel may be dealing with the prisoners appropriately, or they may not. There is no independent verification either way. They could just be rounding up every single suspect and skipping over various hurdles that exist to protect innocent people from captivity. Fortunately I don't have a pro-Israel bias, and for that reason I don't randomly assume that the procedure for the inmates is fair and just. I need to see evidence of that before I believe it, and so far nothing has been shown. Israel has rejected every manner of independent investigation, and no information is coming out about the conduct of the IDF and the treatment of Palestinian captives. That's the only thing we truly know.
The treatment of Israeli hostages by Hamas is irrelevant to that point. We know Hamas have committed various atrocities, and that knowledge has no bearing on what Israel is doing to Palestinian captives. The fact the we know Hamas is terrible and unjust doesn't lead us to the conclusion that therefore the IDF and the Israeli administration is good and just.
Israel-OPT/Gaza: Urgent action needed to protect Palestinians detained by Israel from torture
In a submission sent today to the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Torture, human rights organisations call for urgent action to end the systematic abuse, torture and ill-treatment of Palestinian prisoners and detainees in Israeli prisons and detention facilities. Since 7 October 2023, at least seven Palestinians have died in Israeli custody. We describe a “brutal escalation” over the last four months, “characterised by what appears to be systemic violence against Palestinians in Israeli custody”.
"Israel holds over 1,200 detainees without charge. That’s the most in 3 decades, a rights group says"
Israel is holding over 1,200 detainees — nearly all of them Palestinians — without charge or trial, the highest number in over three decades, an Israeli human rights group said Tuesday.
The detainees, 99% of whom are Palestinians, are held under Israel’s policy of “administrative detention,” without trial and under allegations that Israeli authorities keep secret.
Being charged also doesn't mean the charges aren't ridiculous.
Dozens of Arab citizens of Israel have been arrested in connection with social media posts about the war in Gaza.
Among them is a well-known singer and influencer from Nazareth, Dalal Abu Amneh, who was held in police custody for two days before being released on Wednesday on bail. She's now under house arrest until Monday.
According to her lawyer, Abeer Baker, she was accused of "disruptive behaviour" by police officers, who said her posts could incite violence among her followers.
The post that attracted police attention was an image of the Palestinian flag with the Arabic motto: "There is no victor but God."
There was also that video that came out recently of a French-Israeli soldier proudly bragging to other soldiers about a Palestinian detainee being tortured while showing off the wounds.
Aside from racism and religious fanatism, is there any reason from the continuous support of Israel ? I guess I could add the case "western supremacism" but in the end that's still a racist component.
Mainstream media reliance is probably still the main one, but that is related to both racism and western supremacy.
And for those who keep poo pooing me pointing out how far left and far right are becoming twins we know have the "it's Main Stream Media's" fault.
Are you not a journalist? Do you not see value in the rules that MSM needs to follow compared to all the rest of the garbage out there?
edit: also explains all the presumptions as fact with no sourcing. Source is either social media, to embarrassing for those not down the rabbit hole or simply made up, I mean "presumed".
"Have more Palestinians or Israelis died in war? Half of Americans don’t know, poll says"
That’s a shit post. Explain what you mean so I don’t connect the dots incorrectly then you accuse me of whatever. Again are you not some sort of journalist can you not just say what you mean?
I’m going to assume that you are trying to show that “main stream media” is doing a bad job of educating them. How many Americans get their news from main stream media? How many even read the news at all? What percentage even know there is a war? If I happened to guess what you were trying to get at try again.
Edit: if your really are serious that you think the “msm” is not accurately reporting the casualties I can you show you tons from all over, cnn updates it daily even breaks it down by week. The accurate info is out there, it’s the opinion part that is being sold as fact on social media that is the problem.
It is an observable fact about reality that the MSM does a shit job of reporting Gaza. In this quantitative study by the Intercept, "Major U.S. newspapers disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict; used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians
Neb, don't you think the difference in language and reporting between the Israeli and the Palestinian deaths has anything to do with the nature of these deaths? There are many Palestinians who have died which all of us think is a tragedy; there is a discussion to be had about how much their deaths were caused by disproportionate use of force from the IDF and how much it is because Hamas is actively hiding among civilians (hospitals, schools etc.).
But on the other side you have the purposeful killing of as many civilians as possible in the most gruesome way possible. The difference in reporting is not because of some bias against the Palestinians; for example, if something like this happened in Tel Aviv (dead civilians paraded through the streets of Gaza cheered on by crowds of people), don't you think it would be all over the news all the time for years to come: https://nypost.com/2023/10/07/horrifying-videos-show-hamas-terrorist-invasion-of-israel/
I would contend that what you're doing here is agreeing with the bias, describing why the bias makes sense to you, as opposed to arguing against the bias' existence. If Hamas had access to the IDF artillery and was using it to bomb military targets in Tel-Aviv, I am absolutely certain that neither the mainstream media nor you would shy away from calling it horrific, or a slaughter. Nor should they, by the way, it is fucking horrific.
And then there's a chicken and egg question that arises from it, was it always your view that this difference in coverage makes sense, or did the way the media reports them shape your perception of this difference? It's difficult to answer.
Another factor that is definitely worth mentioning in the creation of this bias is that a lot of people have trouble empathizing with others, and it's much easier for Europeans to see themselves as victims of terrorism than it is to see themselves as victims of a colonizing force. This may or may not apply to you, I wouldn't know.
I am not sure what your argument is other than doubling down on the claim that the media are biased against Palestinians and the usual postcolonial hermeneutics of suspicion.
My claim was that if the media are reporting on the Israeli deaths on Oct 7 differently than the Palestinian deaths it's not necessarily because of media bias. If civilians die in a strike against Hamas fighters it's qualitatively different from if they are targeted on purpose. If Israeli soldiers behaved like the Hamas soldiers (ie, targeting civilians on purpose) the reporting would also be completely different.
And I asked you a counterfactual question: if Israeli soldiers raped and killed young Palestinian women, on orders by their commanders, took the bodies and paraded them through the streets where the civilian population cheered them on - do you think the media would treat that differently from the Oct 7 attack? I don't think so.
The problem with this is that what you describe is a biased coverage, and you're expressing your approval of it. You're not saying that the media treats Israelis and Palestinians the same, you're saying that because of the difference in nature between Hamas and the IDF, it makes sense to you that the media doesn't treat Israelis and Palestinians the same.
Civilians are obviously targeted on purpose by the IDF, the IDF aren't idiots, if they bomb a refugee camp because there's a Hamas member in it they're obviously aware that the refugees are also going to die, it's not an accidental death. This article is also worth reading in this context, as what is defined as "power targets" very clearly includes the targeting of civilian infrastructure.
But this isn't likely to change your mind, and this obviously is not how journalists decided how they would cover this conflict. They didn't sit in a room and go, okay, clearly terrorism is horrific but dropping bombs on children is not, here are the few lines that the IDF can or cannot cross in order to receive a coverage that is different from that of Hamas. These types of words are emotional rather than descriptive, they show and demand empathy. There has never been a conversation where someone went "My family was slaughtered during [x]" and someone answered "Technically [x] didn't meet the characteristics of a slaughter so you can't say that".
For your hypothetical, the media would condemn that specific event, but that wouldn't change how they cover the entirety of the conflict. Events that are similar in nature have happened, for example when Israelis gathered on hill tops to watch the bombs go off in Gaza and cheer, and they were roundly talked about and condemned when they happened, but then the standard coverage resumed.
Elroi is saying that the media covers different types of events differently. Like if there was a school shooting, a domestic homicide, and a building collapse because of a negligent architect, those are all tragic and have someone responsible for the deaths. Nevertheless, the media obviously covers each of those events very differently, even if they have no political bias at all.
You are merely adding that in practice, one group of people has a lot of school shootings while the other has a lot of collapsing buildings. That those regularly get different types of coverage is not a proof of media bias.
Meanwhile, I'm not sure why you seem to think the media is entirely anti-Palestine. There are plenty of Pro-Palestine media outlets just like there are Pro-Israel ones, as well as some who even manage to be somewhat balanced on this topic. Heck, one of the most common outlets quoted by certain people on this thread is Al Jazeera...
I do agree with JimmiC in that some anonymous dude on YouTube is not exactly a step up in terms of reliability either.
You're basically equating collapsed buildings from engineering failures with collapsed buildings from bombing raids that may or may not have had some degree if intelligence signifying that there was a bad man inside the building, here. That is a much bigger stretch than asking that calculated collateral damage should be considered not that different from deliberate murder.
Mainstream media reliance is probably still the main one, but that is related to both racism and western supremacy.
And for those who keep poo pooing me pointing out how far left and far right are becoming twins we know have the "it's Main Stream Media's" fault.
Are you not a journalist? Do you not see value in the rules that MSM needs to follow compared to all the rest of the garbage out there?
edit: also explains all the presumptions as fact with no sourcing. Source is either social media, to embarrassing for those not down the rabbit hole or simply made up, I mean "presumed".
"Have more Palestinians or Israelis died in war? Half of Americans don’t know, poll says"
That’s a shit post. Explain what you mean so I don’t connect the dots incorrectly then you accuse me of whatever. Again are you not some sort of journalist can you not just say what you mean?
I’m going to assume that you are trying to show that “main stream media” is doing a bad job of educating them. How many Americans get their news from main stream media? How many even read the news at all? What percentage even know there is a war? If I happened to guess what you were trying to get at try again.
Edit: if your really are serious that you think the “msm” is not accurately reporting the casualties I can you show you tons from all over, cnn updates it daily even breaks it down by week. The accurate info is out there, it’s the opinion part that is being sold as fact on social media that is the problem.
It is an observable fact about reality that the MSM does a shit job of reporting Gaza. In this quantitative study by the Intercept, "Major U.S. newspapers disproportionately emphasized Israeli deaths in the conflict; used emotive language to describe the killings of Israelis, but not Palestinians
Neb, don't you think the difference in language and reporting between the Israeli and the Palestinian deaths has anything to do with the nature of these deaths? There are many Palestinians who have died which all of us think is a tragedy; there is a discussion to be had about how much their deaths were caused by disproportionate use of force from the IDF and how much it is because Hamas is actively hiding among civilians (hospitals, schools etc.).
But on the other side you have the purposeful killing of as many civilians as possible in the most gruesome way possible. The difference in reporting is not because of some bias against the Palestinians; for example, if something like this happened in Tel Aviv (dead civilians paraded through the streets of Gaza cheered on by crowds of people), don't you think it would be all over the news all the time for years to come: https://nypost.com/2023/10/07/horrifying-videos-show-hamas-terrorist-invasion-of-israel/
I would contend that what you're doing here is agreeing with the bias, describing why the bias makes sense to you, as opposed to arguing against the bias' existence. If Hamas had access to the IDF artillery and was using it to bomb military targets in Tel-Aviv, I am absolutely certain that neither the mainstream media nor you would shy away from calling it horrific, or a slaughter. Nor should they, by the way, it is fucking horrific.
And then there's a chicken and egg question that arises from it, was it always your view that this difference in coverage makes sense, or did the way the media reports them shape your perception of this difference? It's difficult to answer.
Another factor that is definitely worth mentioning in the creation of this bias is that a lot of people have trouble empathizing with others, and it's much easier for Europeans to see themselves as victims of terrorism than it is to see themselves as victims of a colonizing force. This may or may not apply to you, I wouldn't know.
I am not sure what your argument is other than doubling down on the claim that the media are biased against Palestinians and the usual postcolonial hermeneutics of suspicion.
My claim was that if the media are reporting on the Israeli deaths on Oct 7 differently than the Palestinian deaths it's not necessarily because of media bias. If civilians die in a strike against Hamas fighters it's qualitatively different from if they are targeted on purpose. If Israeli soldiers behaved like the Hamas soldiers (ie, targeting civilians on purpose) the reporting would also be completely different.
And I asked you a counterfactual question: if Israeli soldiers raped and killed young Palestinian women, on orders by their commanders, took the bodies and paraded them through the streets where the civilian population cheered them on - do you think the media would treat that differently from the Oct 7 attack? I don't think so.
The problem with this is that what you describe is a biased coverage, and you're expressing your approval of it. You're not saying that the media treats Israelis and Palestinians the same, you're saying that because of the difference in nature between Hamas and the IDF, it makes sense to you that the media doesn't treat Israelis and Palestinians the same.
Civilians are obviously targeted on purpose by the IDF, the IDF aren't idiots, if they bomb a refugee camp because there's a Hamas member in it they're obviously aware that the refugees are also going to die, it's not an accidental death. This article is also worth reading in this context, as what is defined as "power targets" very clearly includes the targeting of civilian infrastructure.
But this isn't likely to change your mind, and this obviously is not how journalists decided how they would cover this conflict. They didn't sit in a room and go, okay, clearly terrorism is horrific but dropping bombs on children is not, here are the few lines that the IDF can or cannot cross in order to receive a coverage that is different from that of Hamas. These types of words are emotional rather than descriptive, they show and demand empathy. There has never been a conversation where someone went "My family was slaughtered during [x]" and someone answered "Technically [x] didn't meet the characteristics of a slaughter so you can't say that".
For your hypothetical, the media would condemn that specific event, but that wouldn't change how they cover the entirety of the conflict. Events that are similar in nature have happened, for example when Israelis gathered on hill tops to watch the bombs go off in Gaza and cheer, and they were roundly talked about and condemned when they happened, but then the standard coverage resumed.
Elroi is saying that the media covers different types of events differently. Like if there was a school shooting, a domestic homicide, and a building collapse because of a negligent architect, those are all tragic and have someone responsible for the deaths. Nevertheless, the media obviously covers each of those events very differently, even if they have no political bias at all.
You are merely adding that in practice, one group of people has a lot of school shootings while the other has a lot of collapsing buildings. That those regularly get different types of coverage is not a proof of media bias.
Meanwhile, I'm not sure why you seem to think the media is entirely anti-Palestine. There are plenty of Pro-Palestine media outlets just like there are Pro-Israel ones, as well as some who even manage to be somewhat balanced on this topic. Heck, one of the most common outlets quoted by certain people on this thread is Al Jazeera...
I do agree with JimmiC in that some anonymous dude on YouTube is not exactly a step up in terms of reliability either.
In my understanding, this is influenced by the natural desire that all journalists have to not have to rewrite anything: another article will be demanded of them soon, and they're not paid by the hour, so any rewriting that they have to do is time spent on it that they could have spent on something else. Writing things that the Israeli military censor is likely to censor is therefore very risky in terms of time investment, as is writing edgy things. It is not edgy to write that terrorism is horrific, nobody is going to question you for that, but it is edgy to write that Palestinians dying to Israeli bombs is horrific in a context where the war has a lot of support in your country and your government keeps talking about self-defense. Self-defense is not horrific. So I view this general trend as the result of unconscious bias and the material situation of journalists, rather than active malice on their part.
In your understanding, journalists from mainstream media in the US perceive that when Palestinians kill an Israeli, a different event is happening than when Israelis kill a Palestinian. One is a slaughter, horrific, worthy of empathy, and the other is not. One is a school shooting and the other is a bridge in Baltimore.
What you're saying is making them look worse than what I'm saying. You do understand that what you're saying is worse than what I'm saying, right?
EPT
