this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
206 points (91.9% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26702 readers
3139 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics.


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Looking at the two big news publishers in my country. One isn't reporting about the current bombings at all, while the other one is phrasing their words mostly anti-Palestinian.

Is there some neutral coverage I can keep up to? Where do you guys get your info from?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AlmightySnoo 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

but that’s because a lot of the news is “Isreal claims this” and “An IDF statement that” the sources themselves are biased

It's also important to keep in mind that when you read "Gaza health ministry claims", in reality it's the same as "Hamas' health ministry claims" since Hamas has been ruling that area since 2006 and tortured the Palestinian opposition ever since (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/05/gaza-palestinians-tortured-summarily-killed-by-hamas-forces-during-2014-conflict/ ). Same thing with claims by Al Jazeera since Qatar hosts Hamas' leadership and funds their lavish lifestyles there so it wouldn't be right for them to suggest in their own newspaper that they're hosting terrorists, thus their news will rarely be critical of Hamas.

What's the solution? There are a few choices you could make. You could cherrypick pro-Palestinian sources like Al Jazeera, Middle East Eye or Electronic Intifada and automatically dismiss whatever Israel says as disinformation and it could make you feel good about yourself as it's very easy to oversimplify the conflict as just one big high-tech state abusing poor people fighting back with stones. You could also do the same cherrypicking for a pro-Israel position. Or you could dismiss any pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel source and only listen to news sources that provide a "balanced" account of the events (Associated Press is indeed very good). Or, much better but will require more thinking on your part: you read all of them and you dismiss none of them.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Ugh. That link is horrible. I mean the descriptions behind it.

It looks like non-Hamas Palestinians have two enemies working against them.

Makes me wonder what exactly a Pro-Palestinian position is.

[–] SCB 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A pro-Palestinian position is (for now) anti-Hamas and pro-Abbas, supports the removal from Hamas from power, supports Israeli action against Hamas, but decries the limitations of aid or the blockades from Egypt/Jordan/etc against even short-term refugees.

Palestine would currently be a country, for the first time in human history, if Hamas did not exist.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Palestine would currently be a country, for the first time in human history, if Hamas did not exist.

Can you expand on this?

[–] SCB 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

A 2 state solution was offered multiple times and was denied because Palestinian leadership had a hard line of Israel not existing.

When a 2 state solution became politically viable in Palestinian territory, Hamas seized power and refused further elections

Just because I don't know if you want clarity on the whole thing, Palestine as never been a country. It was part of Jordan and Egypt before being lost in the 6 Day War, and part of a chain of empires before that. There was no unified Palestinian identity prior to 1967.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To my knowledge the closest state to the 2 state solution was an offer to Arafat after the Camp David negotiations. He didn't take the offer, but I don't know why. But that was in 2000, before Hamas seized power in 2005. That was why I asked.

[–] SCB 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Abbas moving toward the 2 state solution was what led to the Hamas takeover, and violent skirmishes between the PA and Hamas. Specifically their issues were the more secular state the PA favors and that they don't believe Israel should exist

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

So the ideal solution would be a 2-state+1-cage solution, where the cage is for Hamas and Netanyahu together with his Ultra Orthodox faction, where they can fight each other to death, while Israel and Palestine negotiate on a peace treaty.

[–] SCB 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I very strongly support this idea.

Use the PPV money to pay for investment in Gaza.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Tally me in. Strongly agree.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

After Amnesty's report on Ukraine when russia invaded it, many people no longer consider it a credible source.

[–] SCB 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Amnesty is not a neutral source. They are always biased toward minimizing casualties regardless of political outcome.

Once you know that, and that they aren't news so much as they cite news, it's readable.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"Minimize casualties" is a short-sighted, pointless cop-out that is only beneficial to the aggressor. Very much similar to "Stop fighting".

[–] SCB 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah definitely. But, they're a charitable organization focused solely on that and not on political outcomes so I give them some leeway. It's not like they hide their intent.