- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
To Palestinians, Gaza is a symbol of resistance. To Israel, Gaza is a template to pummel and isolate that resistance.
On June 19, Israeli combat helicopters fired missiles into the camp, ostensibly as part of an arrest operation that ended up killing five Palestinians, including a 15-year-old girl named Sadeel Naghniyeh.
Then in early July, in the worst attack on the West Bank since 2002, the Israeli armed forces terrorised the inhabitants of Jenin for two days and killed at least 12 people, including children. The massive aerial and ground assault involved helicopter gunships, missiles, drones, armoured vehicles, bulldozers and more than 1,000 Israeli soldiers.
That is what happens, it seems, when Palestinians keep rebuilding – and keep existing. Indeed, Al Jazeera quoted 56-year-old camp resident Ahmed Abu Hweileh on the takeaway from the bloody escapade: “The message to the world and the occupation is that this camp will keep on going. They tried to destroy it and it came back up.”
Israel’s recent comportment in Jenin – and particularly the sudden use of air strikes in the West Bank for the first time in years – has invited comparisons to the Israeli modus operandi in the Gaza Strip, another location that has come to symbolise Palestinian resistance.
Al Jazeera is owned by the Qatari government.
Al Jazeera has been given many awards for fair and (relatively) unbiased journalism. Notably, many of the journalists at Al Jazeera are not Qatari.
Qatar is openly hostile to Israel.
Notably, Qatar does not consider the Hamas a terrorist organization. Hamas leaders are based in Qatar.
I am well aware that Al Jazeera is generally considered unbiased, but the conflict of interest is very obvious when it comes to coverage of Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
So is anyone with a fully-functional brain. What is your point?
That its national news agency will be biased against Israel?
Anyone with a fully-functional brain should be able to realize this.
Notice that I never, in any comment, showed support for Israel.
Hiding your pro-fascist tendencies under a paper-thin “concerns over objectivity” will only work on liberals.
Fascists deserve to burn.
You don’t know shit about me.
You can stop running interference for them any time you feel like.
then just cross-reference it with more articles that aren’t as biased?
like all news is biased, that’s why you’re not supposed to just read one source about a thing
Lmao. Cope and seethe, terrorist sympathizer
Oh, I don’t think I will. The days when all the narratives in the west glorified Israel is long gone (I know, because I am old enough to remember them) and they are never coming back. World opinion on Israel has shifted decisively… the US is the last hold-out, and even that is looking pretty wonky these days.
Besides… snorting copium is something only right-wingers do.
Of course it is. Israel is a terrorist state.
Qatar literally provides shelter to the leaders of the Hamas, a globally recognized terrorist organization.
Have these same people who classify Hamas as a “globally recognized terrorist organization” classified Israel as a terrorist state?
No?
Then their “classifications” isn’t worth shit, is it now?
You know what, I kinda agree with you, these “classifications” really aren’t worth shit most of the time.
But I don’t need anybody else to tell me that the Hamas is a terrorist organization - just read their fucking charter.
Hmmm… do you think Israel regrets funding Hamas, then?
I hate to break it to you, Clyde… but Hamas is the lesser evil here. And Israel only has itself to blame for that.
Anyone with a heart and half a brain should be openly hostile to Israel as it currently operates.
I get what you’re saying and I think we should be mindful where we get our news from, but then being against Israel isn’t enough to discredit their coverage, especially since they’re on the right side on history of this one - meaning they don’t need to make anything up to make Israel look bad. They would be downright stupid to lie, even if they were nothing but Qatari state propagandists.
You know what, idgaf if they’re right or wrong about Israel.
I do care that they actively support terrorism, and provide shelter for the leaders of a globally recognized terror organization. Anyone with a heart and half a brain should be openly hostile to Qatar, and see that the news network it operates will clearly be biased about the topic.
If I said a US news network was biased for some reason, I don’t think people would have argued with me nearly as hard. Why do you defend supporters of terrorism?
Yes, we all know what Israel is.
…every country actively supports terrorism when it’s on their self interest. The self-proclaimed free world has organised coups in democratic countries, propped up terrorist groups when they didn’t like the current leadership of countries, invaded sovereign states on false premises and assassinated democratically elected leaders.
Terrorism is a form of violence to achieve a goal. If you’re in favour of it you call them freedom fighters, mujahideen, guerrilla warriors or whatever else. If you want to vilify them you call them terrorists. Truth is, both are spins of a given situation, in line with the interests and/or biases of whatever person or entity is informing you.
The western world agrees that ideologically motivated violence is okay (see: our foreign policy record), but tries to act shocked when it’s ideologically motivated violence they disagree with. It’s ridiculous.
Also: Israel terrorises Palestinians. If you want to be offended at terrorism, you should be against Israel.
And anyone with a full rain can recognize that Palestine is 100% in the wrong for repeatedly starting wars and refusing every peaceful solution simply because they hate jews.
Go troll somewhere else
Then why does the Israeli government still allow interviews with Al Jazeera reporters? And Qatar is not openly hostile to Israel; it condemns Israel’s human rights abuses but still offers full diplomatic and economic ties with them in exchange for a two state solution (what the U.S. also claims to back) but the rightwing Netanyahu government refused the deal.
Sorry, but if Qatar openly supports a terrorist organization which opposes Israel, I don’t see how they could possibly be said to not be openly hostile to Israel.
And I don’t see why the Israeli government should limit interviews with foreign press, regardless of origin?
Edit: Maybe “openly hostile” is too harsh, I’m not a native English speaker.
That’s dramatically oversimplifying to the point of being wrong. Hamas has agreed to a Two State solution with Israel and has done so for years. So has Qatar. I wouldn’t call Qatar openly hostile to Israel, same way the Israeli government supports people who are openly hostile to Arabs but Israel is not openly hostile to Qatar.
The Israeli government limits interviews with foreign press all the time, and bans certain Lebanese TV channels for being too supportive of or linked to Hizbullah, but they are okay with interviews with Al Jazeera.
Al Jazeera is also banned in Israel.
And you’re delusional if you think Hamas will agree to a two state solution.
I know that you have a stereotype in your head about Hamas that facts won’t penetrate, but Hamas has publicly agreed that a two state solution is the best they’ll get. They call it “a divorce” from the Jews. Hamas has held up their end of ceasefire deals and Israel has been the one to usually break them.
Maybe you should focus on the Israeli extremists who won’t allow a two state solution.
What do corrupt awards given by a corrupt industry prove?
Should I link US controlled media then? To further spread the liberal narrative?
I don’t feel like arguing politics.
But don’t put words in my mouth - I’m not American and in my country media isn’t controlled by the state.
Then why bring that up at all
Liberal narrative is not politics. 😀
Haven’t you heard? Politics is anything that diverges from the current status quo. Anything in line with it, on the other hand, is cool and good and apolitical.
Reminds me of this quote by Martin Luther King
The historical context being the white moderates defined themselves as neutral but they actively worked to prevent any anti-racism changes.
There is no Center in politics. Only disguised right-wingers.
“Centrism” is the wet spot left over when liberals and conservatives fuck.
Whatever man you know nothing about me or my politics.
I only stated a fact to make people more informed and you started attacking me; maybe you’re the asshole here?
Do you read your facts in New York Times, Fox News or Rand?
Do you deny that Al Jazeera is owned by Qatar?
Do you mean libertarian?
The US defines itself as a “Liberal Democracy” therefore any American Narrative must be called Liberal Narrative and not any other term. Those are merely attempts to decouple American propaganda from America itself.
You’re an idiot then…
I’m not American, I don’t like what America is doing, I don’t think America has made many good decisions (as a country) in over half a century.
But keep telling me what I believe in.
so OP’s probably a leftist (like far left, not Democrat) and probably a Marxist; assume when leftists say “liberal” they mean “capitalist” or “status quo”
so they’re saying that the person they’re replying to thinks that the status quo narrative is somehow apolitical, and thinks that that’s not only flagrantly incorrect and self-absorbed but proving that people like that guy think that their beliefs are just how the world is instead of like actual beliefs that people hold on how the world ought to work (politics)
I don’t think he knows what he means.
I stated a fact. Some people might not be aware of it, that is all.
Actually, to be fair, because it might matter for future reference. If someone doesn’t “know about” Al Jazeera, but they see this piece and get an impression of journalistic integrity… it tells them almost nothing at all about whether or not they can be “trusted” in other areas of their reporting.
This person shared a simple fact that helps address this for people clearly, and without bias. Because there’s literally no way that this isn’t relevant to their reporting - or what they choose to report on - for literally any issue or area at all.
Doesn’t matter at all if it’s directly relevant to this post or not - and I don’t know international politics well enough to say that it doesn’t matter here, actually, do you?