160
Refugee camp reportedly hit as Israel bombards Gaza | Reuters Video
(www.reuters.com)
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 04 Dec 2023
160 points (94.0% liked)
News
23332 readers
1565 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Reportedly by whom? The only source listed is the GHM/Hamas.
By Reuters? There's a video of it.
So just to be clear, you think that Reuters is reporting that Reuters is reporting it? Or did you misread the article?
Are you being dense on purpose
The Reuters article uses the word "reportedly," which is news-speak for "this has been reported by a group or individual but not independently verified." It's basic media literacy. They use specific terminology when it is information that is not coming from their reporters, but from an unverified third party.
If the source is generally reliable, then a reader might consider such an early report likely to be accurate. If it is a source like the Gaza Health Ministry (a branch of Hamas), then one should consider their unreliable record.
You, for reasons I don't understand, didn't link to something that supports an unreliable record. Just to a tweet by the Reuter's Jerusalem beareu chief pointing out that they are part of Hamas.
You should point out their unreliable record which in my opinion would be an examination of their lengthy history of providing numbers and not just being wrong about one here or there.
Please see my other replies and links. They famously fabricated 500 deaths and an Israeli airstrike against Al Ahli hospital, that turned out to not be Israeli, not be the hospital, and not be 500 deaths.
I'm familiar with your other posts. I have a tough time understanding why you wouldn't link to the CNN reporting to start with if you're trying to make a point about their "unreliable record".
Again, I don't think that CNN report alone is sufficient to refute their claims nor the refutation of the claim is enough to refute their long and well regarded record.
Unreliable record? Bruh UNICEF came out and said the GHM's numbers are accurate.
The Gaza Health Ministry, which is quoted by basically all organizations operating in the region. Look, there's one complaint about the Gaza Health Ministry's information, and that's that they don't differentiate between Hamas and civilians. That's it.
The GHM is a branch of Hamas. There are international organizations/observers that are quoted in many articles, so no it is not "quoted by basically all organizations."
It has been proven an unreliable source in this conflict, like when they claimed 500 were killed in an Israeli airstrike on a hospital and it turned out it wasn't Israel, there weren't 500 killed, and the misfired PIJ (Palestinian) rocket didn't even hit the hospital, but a parking structure near the hospital.
Those organizations quote the GHM. See: UNICEF.
I remember seeing that article. I also remember seeing articles afterwards saying different things, like it was a rocket launch attempted FROM the hospital parking area, one saying evidence pointed at it coming from Israel's side, and that investigations are still ongoing but unlikely to finish due to the ongoing conflict.
And my source for that is the same source for your claim of GMH being Hamas. "trust me Bro I read it somewhere recently"
So many incorrectly half-remembered statements in this but here, take your pick of source that GHM is Hamas.
The Guardian
CNN
ABC
Barrons
The Week
BBC
CBS
WSJ
Ultimately, it's should the numbers given by the GHM be trusted. The first article you provided give two different views.
The against side, as represented by the Reuter's beareu chief, rightfully points out that they have a self interest in inflating their numbers.
The other side, as represented by the Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch, notes that their numbers have been trustworthy in the past and verified by their organization. Further, they provide detailed lists of the killed to support their numbers. Finally, their numbers have been used by others like the US to understand previous conflicts.
We should, as skeptical people, doubt them. But if people involved in the situation on the ground level are vouching for them, we shouldn't fully discount them either. And the sad reality is, we have no alternative. No other organization is providing numbers. No other organization is on the ground. The lives lost are real and it's sad.
Edit: The Week article also adds nuance to the Hamas control angle. And it's not like the Week is some leftist rag.
I'm not sure if you're arguing in good faith or not, but if you're like me, this is a lot of new information. Maybe humble your responses.
Yes, as you've mentioned their statistical information about the number of deaths is the only available information, and is relied upon by International organizations in the absence of any other source. That doesn't mean that they should be considered trustworthy with reporting attacks in progress, as is the case here. The most obvious example is the reporting of deaths around a hospital that they claimed was bombed by Israel, which turned out to be a rocket from inside Gaza, most likely PIJ.
There are reporters on the ground and international intelligence agencies and satellite photography. Unlike the tragic casualty statistics, which are only reported by Hamas and their Health Ministry, we have other and more reliable sources for developing news.
I'm not saying they are trustworthy because there is no other source. I'm saying something that is quite opposite and nuanced to that.
The on the ground reporters lack organization that can provide comprehensive evidence and, as far as I'm aware, have provided direct evidence to counter their claims. This includes the CNN article that counters the Al-Shifa hospital bombing because their evidence is analysis of satellite photos. I don't consider satellite photos alone to be as strong front line evidence. It supplement and clarify it, but not sufficient by itself. And as far as I've seen, I don't know of any official report to support the CNN analysis.
As for intelligency agencies on the ground, do you have anything that supports this claim? And what is their bias?
The only Hamas reports the world should rely on are total figures killed, since they alone have access to the hospital and morgue records that reporting agencies would need. Unfortunately, they don't indicate how many of those killed were combatants, or how many Palestinians have been killed by Hamas or PIJ. Reuters reports that there are 40,000 Hamas militants. Israel estimates fewer, and that about 4,000 have been killed in the fighting so far.
What CNN article are you talking about? Please link.
Hamas established the Gaza Health Ministry. I'm not really sure what you mean by the statement that they have been around before Hamas. I don't know how many staff may predate the 2007 Hamas takeover of Gaza, but I'd be interested in learning if you have information about it. Here are articles from French, Canadian, US intelligence agencies independently verifying that Hamas (Gaza Health Ministry) lied about the al-Ahli hospital bombing.
They all concluded it was a misfired rocket from Gaza.
You have shifted your argument. Before you said that the Gaza Health Ministry is not a reliable source. Now you say they are for the total figures killed. I never really had much more than that. Their methodology only supports that much of a conclusion. Still.... that's over 13,000 dead. We aren't even talking about casualties, just the dead.
This is your post in which you linked to this CNN article. As for the other articles you provided, none were from intelligence agencies. They were all published by new outlets (surprisingly you sourced one from Al Jazeera) within seven days of the attack and none mention their data and methods for drawing this conclusion. Just that they are confident. Why is this enough for you?
I want to be clear here. I'm not saying that a rocket fired from Gaza by Palestinian militants didn't hit the hospital. I'm saying that I need better evidence.
I'm also saying that the report from the Gaza Health Ministry at that time could very well be wrong. But not because of any agenda on their part but because their statement was made too close to the date of the incident without sufficient evidence to support their conclusion.
Hamas may have established the Gaza Health Ministry, but the personnel and systems were already in place when they worked for the Palestinian Ministry of Health. I got that from The Week's article where they said "and many of the Gaza Health Ministry's civil servants predate Gaza’s Hamas takeover."
Your link doesn't provide the Israelis estimate for Hamas fighters. Nor does it give the methodology for their determination if someone is Hamas fighter. If they are using the standard developed during the American invasion of Afghanistan, then it's every male of a fighting age.
Re your edit:
Again, the article post is not about number of casualties. It is about a reported attack in progress. Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry is not a reliable source for this information.
Edit: Also please check the dates for the articles that I've linked. They are not all up to date, but they all make clear from various sources that the Gaza Health Ministry is a part of Hamas.
No reporting of attacks in progress should be "reliable". It's not a binary. It's a body of evidence that grows over time and points towards a conclusion whose accuracy is determined through methodology. Good methods creates good data which creates accurate conclusions. The more agencies collecting and sharing data through high quality methods, result in a clearer picture.
Just wow.