693
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
693 points (96.1% liked)
Palestine
1237 readers
744 users here now
A community to discuss everything Palestine.
Rules:
-
Posts can be in Arabic or English.
-
Please add a flair in the title of every post. Example: “[News] Israel annexes the West Bank ”, “[Culture] Musakhan is the nicest food in the world!”, “[Question] How many Palestinians live in Jordan?”
List of flairs: [News] [Culture] [Discussion] [Question] [Request] [Guide]
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Here's the Guardian article on the condemnation of the attacks: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/18/un-human-rights-chief-voices-horror-at-israel-new-gaza-strikes
It does include that Israel is accused of genocide by multiple parties and explicitly includes Turkey's response, which also directly accuses Israel of genocide. The French response calls out the Israeli justification, saying there's no identifiable military objective.
They do name Hamas, but not as a terrorist organization.
Here's a slightly more recent article that focuses on Israel's justification and Netanyahu's comments: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/18/israel-gaza-strikes-deaths-latest-update
It contains the justification that Israel provided, but also additional context (e.g. the actual terms of the ceasefire) that show a stark contrast between the ceasefire agreement and what Israel is doing now. The article also highlights the human suffering this has caused. It also concludes by showing the disproportionate death toll that Israel has inflicted on Gaza.
Here's an opinion article published today from one of the main columnists that is very explicit about the genocide in Gaza: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/19/imagine-silent-terrible-evil-committed-gaza-inaction-censorship
So maybe let's not attack media outlets that do actually show what is going on and that are willing to call it what it is?
I won't bother with the Dutch state broadcaster because I doubt you speak the language, but with them it's mostly the same story, though they don't have opinion articles and the liveblog posts are a bit more concise. But they too have reported on ceasefire violations by Israel and the ICC case for genocide against Israel, and they often have expert opinions that also call out the disproportionate violence from the Israeli side.
Hey, that one's actually good, only issue being one instance of "Hostages" vs "detainees"
This one is pretty damn bad though, spending a disproportionate amount of time uncritically repeating the lies and rhetoric of Israel, it also repeats the lie of Hamas starting the fighting by "attacking Israel" as well as not differentiating between civilian and military casualties on October 7th, before immediately giving a comedicly low death count for Israel's genocide in Gaza.
A good editorial, not that it too talks about how bad the media has been.
I mean, they're still extremely hesitant to actually call it what it is, instead resorting to qualified "some say" framing, while also giving equal consideration (or sometimes greater) to obvious lies from Israel. Don't get me wrong, the guardian is way better than most, but that a relative statement.
Doesn't Hamas also call them that? Or perhaps it's just translated as such.
The entire point of that article is to report on what Israel is saying. So I'm not sure how that can be disproportionate if it exclusively talks about what it says in the headline. I think it makes sense for a media outlet to also report what Israel says, even if it can be disproven (and the Guardian does add that context). The Guardian here objectively reports on what Israel says, which I think is an important function of a news outlet. The Guardian also mentions that the "eruption of violence" started on October 7th, and I'm pretty sure that's objectively true as well. Before that there was a very uneasy "peace" with plenty of violence to go around, but nothing to the scale of what we saw on Octobee 7th and beyond. Note how the language used doesn't explicitly blame Hamas for the entire conflict.
The "comedically low death count" is the count as reported by the Gaza health ministry. Of course more people have indirectly died as a result of the war, but that's a different statistic. Not sure what you want the Guardian to do here, unless you think Hamas is also fudging the numbers or something(?)
Doesn't even know the Palestinian Authority are fully controled by the genociders.
The Gaza health ministry is under Hamas jurisdiction.
That is true, the Ministry of Health however isn't.
They could've provided the low numbers.
The article says "Palestinian health authorities" which could mean either or some other 'officials' and I suspect it's deliberately kept vague to not reveal an israeli (controlled) source.
"Gaza health ministry" isn't even mentioned once in this article?
You naming that specifically is pretty suspicious and sneaky.
Hasbara sneaky even.
The Gaza Health Ministry are the ones reporting 48k. That's not a "could" or "maybe", you can easily Google this.
Or just check here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_war
There's nothing suspicious or sneaky happening here, your reading comprehension is just not that good.