Israel-Palestine war: Israel set to ban Al Jazeera after attorney general approval
Israel-Palestine war: Israel set to ban Al Jazeera after attorney general approval
Government to shut down operations of Qatari outlet in Israel after repeatedly criticising its coverage
You're viewing a single thread.
Nothing says, "we've done nothing wrong," quite like banning journalists who disagree with you.
In the article, it also says that at some point not too long ago, Israel killed one of their journalists.
Shireen Abu Akleh. There's a video showing what happened leading up to her death.
And there's a video of the IDF attacking her funeral
An Israeli sniper ""accidentally"" shot her
They're the propaganda arm of Doha, the same government that protects Hamas leadership. They've repeatedly printed Hamas lies without fact checking. Why would Israel not ban their propaganda outlet? Calling them journalists when they don't adhere to basic journalistic standards is ludicrous. This isn't new either. They've been acting this way forever. Lying about the hospital bombing was just the last straw.
Lies like the 40 beheaded babies that the entire western media spread?
Israel literally kills journalists.
Lies like the 40 beheaded babies that the entire western media spread?
"Lies" in this case means "reported on claims made by actual Israeli soldiers without sufficient cross-checking, but explicitly walked back pretty much immediately", plus there are non-Israeli sources (at least one french journalist-editor and czech ambassador) who specifically say that they were shown the actual photos of beheaded babies and cross-checked them (the number 40 seems to be bullshit, but iirc most media did not report that and these people did not claim that either).
Next to that is Al Jazeera whose purpose for existing is to spread Qatari world of view by reporting relatively objectively on most things to gain trust and spreading pure propaganda on issues like most things related to Israel.
It really isn't all that similar.
So random rumors spread by soldiers should be treated as truth (because its pro-team Israel ) but reporting on what the ministry of health of gaza, officials in israel, and random israel soldiers all confirm is spreading baseless lies (because it is anti-team Israel)?
No denying AJ doesn't spread propaganda. But if Israel wants to stop propganda, maybe they should start by getting rid of their officials and soldiers, who are spreading the rumors in the first place?
So random rumors spread by soldiers should be treated as truth (because its pro-team Israel )
I thought that my quote on what happened in that case pretty clearly implied that it was a screw-up. Nevertheless, it was a relatively short-lived screw up which, unlike the claims of 500 killed by a supposed Israeli strike on a hospital, didn't seem to do any damage apart from slightly lessening the trustworthiness of media or Israel for some people.
reporting on what the ministry of health of gaza, officials in israel, and random israel soldiers all confirm
If you're talking about the hospital strike, I haven't seen anyone but the ministry of health of Gaza say what they said, and the ministry of health of Gaza is de facto Hamas. I do see Hamas, a terrorist organization, as implicitly less trustworthy than IDF, even though I don't trust everything IDF says, yes.
Yeah man, nothing happened except succeeding in dehumanizing Palestinians and Muslims, which resulted in a man in the US to stab a Palestinian woman, and kill her 6 year old son by stabbing him 26 times with a 7 inch knife while screaming "ALL MUSLIMS MUST DIE".
Nothing important really.
So you didn't even bother looking at the sources for the claim you make fun of?
Given members of the IDF have supported the idea that it was an intentional attract to get Hamas hiding in the hospital from the moment it happened, why don't you believe the IDF members and Hamas when they agree that it was an Israeli attack? I don't even believe it was an Israeli attack* and this incident just further demonstrates the IDF members and Israeli officials will just make up stuff to bolster their side even when they have no actual information. There's no reason to believe either side imo.
*The worst case is Israel defended themselves against a missile and the payload from the middle happened to fall on a hospital because a terrorist group was too incompetent to make sure that a hospital wasn't directly under the trajectory. I don't think someone having an incoming missile has any obligation to first check what happens to be under the missile at the time before destroying said missile, so it's still doesn't make Israel look bad imo like some people are claiming.
Yes, because we all know how much "walked back immediately" means.
Nothing. It means nothing. People are still spreading the beheaded baby horseshit and will continue to spread it because a lie will get around the world before the truth has gotten its boots on.
It's a basic propaganda technique. You, to great fanfare, release some big fuckoff lie that makes the "other" look bad ("V17 FUCKS GOATS! V17 IS A GOATFUCKER, EVERYONE!") and then days or weeks later you follow up with the truth to head off any claims that you couldn't possibly be a REAL journalist ("Our apologies, it seems V17 was only washing his car. There was no goat. He did not fuck the car.") but you do so in as quiet and half-assed of a manner as possible.
Tactic as old as time.
People are still spreading the beheaded baby horseshit
Honestly, the only context in which I see it is people complaining about it being a lie, but that may just be that we have different internet bubbles.
Personally I don't call it horseshit because several people that I consider trustworthy confirmed being shown photos of beheaded babies (though not 40 of them, but I've never even seen that claim anywhere, I've seen a separate early claim that 40 babies were killed in total, not specifically beheaded) by Israeli officials, one of them being our ambassador, who so far has been a completely trustworthy person as far as I know. We also do know that Israelis only showed some photos privately to selected foreign politicians, journalists and diplomats, because (apart from them saying so) the people shown described those photos and they were later released publicly. It is not inconceivable that the beheaded babies were among those not released to public for some reason.
It's a basic propaganda technique. You, to great fanfare, release some big fuckoff lie that makes the "other" look bad ("V17 FUCKS GOATS! V17 IS A GOATFUCKER, EVERYONE!") and then days or weeks later you follow up with the truth to head off any claims that you couldn't possibly be a REAL journalist ("Our apologies, it seems V17 was only washing his car. There was no goat. He did not fuck the car.") but you do so in as quiet and half-assed of a manner as possible.
The issue is that is not what happened. Apart from what I say above, the fact that white house representatives pretty much immediately walked back on that was widely reported by mainstream media a day later. Also, the attack was already so brutal that it changed nothing about how Hamas is being perceived. For most people, slaughtered civilians with marks of torture and burned babies (those were afaik released on photos, but I did not want to look to check) were unsurprisingly enough.
Compare that to a failed rocket of palestinian islamic jihad falling on a hospital parking lot, Hamas knowingly lying about it according to a released wiretap and people still arguing that Israel did it in similar threads on Lemmy.
Also I'll have you know that I fuck sheep, not goats.
So, why don't they show these pictures to the world?
Also
Personally I don't call it horseshit because several people that I consider trustworthy confirmed being shown photos of beheaded babies (though not 40 of them, but I've never even seen that claim anywhere, I've seen a separate early claim that 40 babies were killed in total, not specifically beheaded) by Israeli officials, one of them being our ambassador
Do you by any chance happen to have believed the US lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which the US lied about to invade Iraq, and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians?
So, why don’t they show these pictures to the world?
Decency? I don't know that of course, I'm not saying that I'm sure about this, but not releasing photos of people that are too undignified or drastic is a relatively common policy.
Do you by any chance happen to have believed the US lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which the US lied about to invade Iraq, and killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians?
I'm not from the US and I was not yet following US/international politics at that time. Also none of the people I talked about were americans ("our" ambassador being czech, a journalist-editor from France also confirmed seeing the photos), so I don't see it as particularly relevant anyway.
Oh, so Israel has images proving that Hamas beheaded babies, which is like, literally the worst thing in the world, but they just decided not to release to show the world for some reason, and you genuinely believe that? You just can't sense something weird in that at all?
By how much is it worse than burned babies, which were released?
Plus, notice that I said it's plausible, not that I believe one version or the other. And, again, even if we say that it was a lie and therefora a fuck up and journos did not sufficiently crosscheck the validity and several people who claim to have seen the photos are lying even if it could cost their careers, in the light of the colossal fuckup with the hospital parking lot bombing that endangered diplomatic ties with several countries and started protests in the streets of several countries, this was relatively minor and pretty well handled.
What's more likely?
That a news outlet appears totally committed to the most objective possible view on any issue ever except for exactly this.
Or
Maybe you might be wrong sometimes as humans are not infallible.
Both are entirely possible, even at once. Also it's not just "exactly this", it's generally a broader range of topics. And, to nitpick a bit, "relatively objectively" is not the same as "totally committed to the most objective possible view".
For another example of the former, as the guy below you says, years ago this was the exact modus operandi of (the english version of) Russia Today, until it reoriented and started targeting straight up pro-russian conspiracy nuts. Sputnik I think was always a bit out there, but I'm honestly not sure.
Yeah man, nothing happened except succeeding in dehumanizing Palestinians and Muslims, which resulted in a man in the US to stab a Palestinian woman, and kill her 6 year old son by stabbing him 26 times with a 7 inch knife while screaming "ALL MUSLIMS MUST DIE".
Nothing important really.
As criminal as that is, I'm pretty sure burned babies and slaughtered and likely tortured civilians were enough for that.
So, you acknowledge that Israel lied about beheaded babies, what makes you think they didn't lie about burned babies?
As far as I know, they released some of those photos publicly. I rely on word of others because I have no interest in seeing it, you can google it yourself.
No, they didn't.
You are just content with being fed propaganda and lies and are willing to spread them without verifying them.
If whatabautism about the other side propaganda is your best response to defend their journalistic integrity I don’t think you have an argument
Israel didn't just ban Al Jazeera, they also killed their reporter, Shireen Abu Akleh.
Have you condemned them for killing her?
Israel is out there killing reporters (which is a war crime), and you guys here are talking about biased media?
I absolutely condem rhe MURDER of that reporter by Israel and their other war crimes.
I also condemn the official state propaganda of Qatar and see no reason why Israel should allow the Hamas supporters to use their airwaves for broadcasting pro terrorist propaganda.
How is this a zero-sum issue for anyone? You can do both of these things.
Since you do condemn Israel for their war crimes, why isn't Israel prosecuted for them?
since you double down on not having any way to defend their integrity and derail by asking if i condemned I'll do the same.
Have you apologized for condemning israel for the "hospital bombing"?
No, because Israel did it.
Holy terrorist propaganda bots batman!
Thanks for showing your true colors. Blocked.
Lmao. Go live in your echo chamber.
There's way too many anti-semites parading around as outraged moral high ground assholes for you to ever ger an upvote on the truth about Al Jazeera.
It's so weird how more countries don't allow terrorist media support operations to broadcast across their airwaves! /s
Disclaimer: Not an Isreal supporter, not a terrorist supporter, condem war crimes on both sides. If you see a good side and bad side in the conflict, then you've not learned enough about it and are just playing armchair outrage kid.
There it is. Calling anyone who doesn't support Israeli genocide an anti-semite. Fuck off with your bullshit.
as someone that's relatively neutral and uninformed on the subject, where would one go look for evidence to suggest that al bagheera are a bunch of panthers waiting to eat your face off?
Seems like some people will never understand it's not about Jewish people, it's about an illegal occupation.
If Israel's religion was Christianity, Hinduism, whatever religion, or even if they were atheists, Palestinian people still would have defended their land.