I think you'll find I'm actually Bibi blaming, because he wanted this all to happen to cement his fascist rule, and he doesn't care how many people die to do it.
He doesn't want all the hostages, he needs excuses, just like how Bush refused the Taliban turning over Osama Bin Laden for a ceasefire.
Bush Regime demands: Turn over Bin Laden and we'll stop bombing you.
Taliban: Ok, if you present any evidence at all.
(One might note at this point that Bush was bombing them for having Bin Laden, and they said they had Bin Laden, so everyone involved says the Taliban had Bin Laden)
Eh. True or not, but Israel strikes without much care and Hamas is known to use hostages as shields. So I wouldn't call it unlikely, just contextually kinda irrelevant. It's a shit show and both sides try to get brownie points / make the other one look more inhumane than the other.
Overall, we rate The Messenger Right-Center biased based on story selection and editorial perspectives that moderately favor the right. We also rate them as Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to the use of poor sources, sensationalized content, and one-sided reporting.
If their objective is "balanced journalism [...] objective, non-partisan", then they should stop using loaded terms in their news articles. Until that happens, I'll consider them less reliable as a source.
This is what I don't get here. Why the hell do people interpret this as if it's spreading Israeli propaganda?
We know Hamas killed substantial number of innocent people and are keeping hostages.
We know these hostages are kept somewhere in Gaza.
We know Israel is bombing the shit out of Gaza, actively destroying civilian infrastructure.
What we learn from this is that Israel has indeed killed hostages in their indiscriminate bombing, that Hamas seem to be keeping hostages alive when they are not killed by Israeli bombs, and that being held hostage by Hamas in Gaza is still an awful situation to be in.
If this makes Hamas look bad it's because they are bad.
If you think it makes Israel look good you're sick in the head - this is triggered by them intentionally bombing Gaza until there's nothing left.
If you're upset that it makes a Jewish person look human then fuck right off you worthless piece of shit.
I have to admit I've had this approach taking to Israelites for a while - I never felt comfortable in a conversation before having some sort of an indication of their political leaning. Israelites seem to often have a way of talking about things without talking about things, which usually makes it clear pretty quickly where they stand. I guess they also often feel a need to place themselves.
As for Jewish people living outside of Israel, I think the fact that they've all had a standing invitation to move to Israel and opted not to make use of it speaks for itself. Sure there are Bibi supporters, but that goes for Christians as well.
Still I see where you're coming from of course. And I find it freaking terrifying to be honest.
The thing for me is I wanted to become a dual citizen because hey Israel is where my people are from why wouldn't I want to but I was much younger and as I grew up I felt felt drive to do so. At first it was because I'm a pacifist and refused to join any military. Now I'm of age I can dodge that but I see what the country is doing and how could I in good conscience want to be a part of that?
So I'll be a Jew and I'll speak out against tyranny as I have and thus I speak out against the actions of the Israeli military and government. I'm not a fan of how Hamas acted before the start of this genocide but no matter how much I didn't like that I can't say Israel's response is in any way justifiable. This is a slaughter of innocents and that is not Judaism as I know it. This is not what God would want us to do.
I think it's not so difficult to understand the appeal, of course for those deeply religious who long back to Zion, but also to those who just long for a home country. I know old secular Jews who, before all this bullshit, was considering moving to Tel Aviv for their retirement because it felt more like home to them then the US, despite being American all their lives and despite being politically progressive and very much not on the Bibi side of things.
It's a complicated situation now - on one hand I think it's crucial that Jews should not feel the need to be apologetic or to constantly have to emphasize that they don't represent a government they have nothing to do with. If that becomes the standard we're already lost. On the other hand, people might need to hear it in order to understand Netanyahu is not some supreme leader of the unified Jews of the world, as too many people seem eager to believe.
Netanyahu is not some supreme leader of the unified Jews of the world
No, but he represents the political will and direction of politics in Israel. Far right parties dominate the political landscape in Israel, and Israeli political interests and money (which, ironically, is often coming from the US) is used to influence politics in the US, like passage of anti-BDS laws in nearly every state in the US.
I feel like that lends some credibility to Sab's point.
They said unified Jews of the world and you've said politics in Israel not even necessarily Jews but of Israel.
Way too often do these two things get confused as one and the same. Israel doesn't help at all with this either so it's frustrating to have someone implying they represent me out there doing things I certainly don't agree with.
Honestly it would be like if Trump tried to imply he was doing what white people around the world wanted and I'm sure we all know that can't be 100% honest.
I don't disagree with his point about Netanyahu not being the voice for Jews in the US. Most Jews in the US are Reform, which is a pretty liberal interpretation of the religion. Even the Conservative sects of Judaism are pretty liberal, relatively speaking. The Orthodox, Hasidim, and the ultra-Orthodox sects are a tiny fraction of Jews in the US, but they exert tremendous political power in Israel. And because Israel has such an influence in US politics, the very conservative Jews--again, largely in Israel--exert outsized influence in US politics.
At least we can now see more broadly who is and isn't okay with what Israel's government does. Not that this is exclusive to Bibi, the whole settler garbage has been going on for decades too and Israeli nationalism was also rising for quite some time before him.
It's less trustworthy as a source because they're using loaded terms in the article. The headline calls it a "sick video", labels it as "propagandist". Those are terms intended to provoke a reaction: 'sick' is an attempt to prime your reaction if you watch the video, 'propagandistic' is intended to make you distrust the intent behind the video.
An impartial journalist would've used different language or added sources. If I was writing the article, I would've called it a 'new video' or perhaps a 'newly-released video'. I wouldn't have used 'propagandistic' at all; the speculation on the intent behind it is adequately covered a few paragraphs later. If you were intent on calling it propagandistic, that wording should be credited to a specific person, preferably an Israeli government spokesperson or a high-ranking official.
Using loaded words should only ever be done in clearly labeled opinion columns or letters to the editor (although honestly, I'm against their presence even there); if used in a news article, they should only be used when quoting a person.
Objectively, I know that loaded words are going to be impossible to avoid: even describing someone as a 'Hamas fighter' vs a 'Hamas terrorist' is fraught, and don't get me started on why civilians held by Hamas are 'hostages' while civilians held by Israel are 'prisoners'. But simple, obvious terms designed to tell the reader how to feel about the news should absolutely be avoided.
Saying 'forced to reveal fate' instead of saying what that fate is, coupled with 'sick video' instead of letting viewers decide for themselves make this appear as sensationalism.
It's also an article about a video that doesn't show the video its reporting on.
Instead, we get some guy talking over images. Lol.
Unreliable =/= false. Even heavily biased outlets usually get their facts straight, but editorial choices like whom to quote, how to frame events, and what stories to cover can absolutely give a wrong impression. Especially if the audience isn't paying close attention.
You can take a fact like "two hostages were killed in an Israeli airstrike" and frame it as "look how indiscriminate the IDF bombings are" or "look how cowardly Hamas is". Those are two very different stories, but neither are "false".
Genuine fake news is pretty rare, unless the source is a random link from Xtwitter. Go fact check what you consider a heavily biased source and I think you'll be surprised.
Engaging in the act of actively occupying another individual's territory, confining them in concentration camps, employing indiscriminate carpet bombing, killing approximately 30.000 and asserting dominion over essential resources such as water, electricity, and medical provisions is undeniably more morally reprehensible and ethically repugnant.
But yes, hostage (who is an occupier) announcing fate of “hostages” (also occupiers) is sick.
Flee the country then? Pretending that agreeing to become a murderer for hire / geunie pig / cannon fodder is somehow more agreeable because of long term financial impacts is straight out of a lucky duck comic.
Military service is compulsory in Israel. You might as well call all Vietnam veterans terrorists and revel in their capture. Absolutely sickening take.
You can take the 30 days in prison instead, and many do. If you know that military service involves being an occupying force (as opposed to just dicking around with guns like in other countries), the moral choice is to do the 30 days.
If you're going to whaddabout like this, then what about the US and Canada? They are occupied territories. But instead of a timeline of almost 1 century, it's a timeline of a few centuries. Where do we draw the line? Or should the US and Canada be giving back their territory?
You're blaming a victim here based on the circumstances of her birth.
Or hey, when we're in that territory, should white Americans be personally responsible for slavery? Any problems a white American experiences should be written off, and have them described with "(who is an oppressor)"?
The problem is with these kinds of 'great thinkers' is that their answer is inevitably "Yes" to all of those questions, because their entire worldview is based off the premise that certain people and groups are inherently bad and other people and groups are inherently good.
