cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/15001340
“Such an invasion could lead to horrific massacres and raise scenarios of a second Nakba,” the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights said recently. “After 200 days of horrific genocidal acts in Gaza, the real objectives of the attack are the continuation of the 76-year-long ongoing Nakba and the erasure and genocidal destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza. Israel is laying the groundwork to fulfill its settler-colonial plan of colonizing Gaza.”
Human rights defenders have warned that Israel may ultimately seek to ethnically cleanse as many Palestinians as possible from Gaza.
Biden’s solution will be to rush them billions in more money and weapons
Ghettos of WW2 are making a comeback, who’s forcing people into those ghettos will SHOCK you!
Removed by mod
The United Nations is a corrupt organization that is controlled by the American government. It has failed to protect anyone from violence and it has failed to prevent catastrophic war.
We failed to learn from the mistakes of the 20th century. Fascism has risen its head and war crimes are a part of daily life. I don’t have any proposed solutions it is just profoundly depressing.
How trustable is this source? Just curious because never knew about the site.
They lean left. But everything presented as factis accurate.
It’s a super partisan one. I don’t know if they lie, but they definitely spin.
I would also like to know
Both of you are welcome to check here …
Removed by mod
Thanks did not know that exist.
Lmao trash site. Like a “malware detector” that’s just malware. That and ngo-monitor.org.
Israel would "move people out of Rafah, the main humanitarian hub in the enclave, to al-Mawasi
Yeah, that’s not their plan. There’s 1.42 million people in Rafah right now, which is 25 square miles. That gives it a population density of 56,800 per square mile, making it the 25th most densely populated city in the world - and with intact infrastructure enough for only a tiny fraction of that number.
So, Israel supposedly wants to move all these people to al-Mawasi. Now, al-Mawasi is barren, with; the last official count I could find said there were about 1500 people living there in a small Bedouin town. It’s also only about six square miles total.
Let’s say that Hamas is 10% of the population - I don’t think it is, but let’s use that number. That means there’s 1,278,000 innocent civilians they want to move to al-Mawasi. That would mean a population density of 213,000 per square mile. That would be twice the population density of Manila. And there is no infrastructure. They’re just taking a million people and throwing them into a barren desert next to the sea and saying, “Not our problem.” There’s no food, no water, no toilets, no shelter, no medical facilities, no electricity, no shelter from the heat - and no way to quickly make any of these things appear in enough quantity to matter.
The Palestinians are already on the verge of famine. This will make things worse, and disease is absolutely going to decimate the population. And then they’ll decide that al-Mawasi is hiding Hamas, and they’ll go after that as well.
Fuck Israel.
Thank you for your research.
Let’s say that Hamas is 10% of the population - I don’t think it is, but let’s use that number.
The Palestinians are already on the verge of famine. This will make things worse, and disease is absolutely going to decimate the population.
Decimation was the Roman practice of killing 1 out of every 10 mutinous/deserter (i.e., guilty of something) soldiers to punish an entire legion while still keeping it operational as a combat unit. Here we have the opposite. It is killing 9 innocents to get to also kill 1 additional (very hypothetically) guilty person.
This is the saddest “um ackchyually” I have ever written.
It’s going to be a lot worse than mere “decimation”.
Shrewd analysis - thanks for sharing!
I don’t doubt for one second that Israel is likely planning something like this. But let’s be careful about using sources that are just as biased as the ones that the other side uses.
If you’re reporting on news from some far-left website while at the same time decrying right-wing bias like Fox News and it’s ilk, then you lose the moral high ground.
There’s plenty of regular journalism that documents Israel’s bullshit without having to resort to non-credible sources. Stick to that or there’s no point in fighting because we’ve already lost.
You might not agree with their left wing bias but you can’t realistically argue that Common Dreams is not a credible source.
You could if the title does not match the article.
-
Israel may forcibly displace 1.2 million prior to ground invasion. Gives Hamas deadline for cease fire.
-
oxfam warns a ground invasion could be catastrophic for those in the city.
-
experts believe it may pave the way for eventually ethnic cleansing by Israel.
Make no mistake, a shit load of worrying information here. No where in this article does it say “here is the plan for ethnic cleansing” like stated in the title.
They’re not quoting the IDF’s plans for what they called an “ethnic cleansing.” They’re quoting someone who characterized the plans as an ethnic cleansing. I think it’s foolish to assume they meant to imply the IDF was waving around plans for something titled “the ethnic cleansing of Arabs in Rafah.”
Commondreams is a good outlet. Yes, they may editorialize and are not shy about their left-leaning positions, but that doesn’t inherently make an outlet untrustworthy. Fox calling themselves “fair and balanced” and using charged language in their chyrons—for example, I was at the gym and I saw them referring to the Campus sit-ins as “riots” and the participants as “antisemites.” (If I’m remembering those correctly, but it was insanely loaded language of their own creation)—is what leads them to be a problematic outlet. They skew facts, obscure the truth, and heavily edit out anything that doesn’t rile up their viewership.
Commondreams has a mission to give good information that may cater to the left, but they’re a non-profit outlet. And there is an inherent difference between left-bias and right-bias. Right bias has to alter reality to fit their narrative. The established left-leaning outlets like Commondreams aren’t altering and obscuring. They’re highlighting what they see as important information that, yes, adheres to a more left-leaning worldview, but what does that mean in this context? They’re willfully calling out Israel when “center” and right-leaning outlets are beholden to them. They’ll investigate issues that are important to civil rights, privacy, etc. But that doesn’t mean their worldview warps the reality of the topics they cover. They’re just more relevant to progressives/leftists.
Now, there are definitely a lot of terrible, probably non-journalist run outlets that really cropped up around 2016 like those “blue news” Wordpress sites or whatever that used to fly around Reddit. There is a way to be untrustworthy and left/liberal-biased. Definitely not saying it’s impossible. But it’s a different beast when discussing long-established, trustworthy left-leaning sources.
You know how it’s been said “reality has a left-leaning bias?” Well, that’s pretty relevant here. To be left-biased, you still report on facts that speak to leftist people. To be right-biased, it means you’re singling out minority groups, catering to big business in disingenuous ways (because that’s how they operate. They can basically run propaganda as private institutions, and the right-biased outlets unquestioningly run with it.) Left-biased outlets are critical, right-leaning uncritical. That’s a huge difference.
Well said. Like Democracy Now there’s bias in the choices of what stories to report on but the reporting itself is accurate.
DN! Is a great example. They’ll report on the pipeline protests, the genocide in Gaza…they’ll cover things an outlet that’s trying to gain more viewership by catering to “fairness” like NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc. wouldn’t dare touch—or would go out of their way to not take a position on. You’d never catch Amy Goodman bringing on a fossil fue exec to hear their opinions on the pipeline protesters and how they should all go back to work or whatever.
Catering to “fairness,” (the best way I’ve ever heard this problem described) is, assuming the republicans adopted flat eartherism, NYT would run an article saying “democrats and republicans can’t agree on shape of earth.”
That’s ignoring basic facts to cater to a larger audience and not “appear biased.” But one of those positions is inherently wrong. The factionalism of the US political system doesn’t change that fact. Although it does immediately cut your audience in half if you can’t appear to treat the absurd point s somehow equal.
Treating climate change scientists and the spokespeople for Exxon as having two differing points on a debatable topic is catering to fairness. To the point that it turns your reporting into complete fucking trash.
Just making sure I understand this correctly.
What you are saying is its ok for a news organization to push one side of a story, report only stories that support their views, use language that makes it seem more urgent and serious than it actually is, and this is a reputable organization that should be listed to?
And what the other poster is saying is that this is especially acceptable as its the side they agree with?
And this is ok?
What you are saying is its ok for a news organization to push one side of a story, report only stories that support their views, use language that makes it seem more urgent and serious than it actually is, and this is a reputable organization that should be listed to?
To a greater of lesser degree, all news orgs do this.
Yes, most organizations lean one way or another.
The issue I’ve got is that this discussion seems to be saying that it should be celebrated as the be all and end all of this conflict, that you should only be looking at organizations that support your view, and that you shouldn’t look into what bias your organizations is pushing without further analysis and understanding.
Effectively, that it’s more important your views are confirmed than you are informed and accurate.
Welcome to Lemmy
-
This news outlet is disreputable.
Didn’t the US give them a choice between Iran and Rafah?
If they really do that the irony of Jews doing ethnic cleansing would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
Please don’t call Israel “the Jews.” I am a Jew and I do not stand with Israel. Israel wants you to think all Jews are Israelis and all Israelis are Jews.
There’s a difference between Jews and “the Jews”. Your comment is not at all incorrect but it doesn’t apply to the comment you responded to.
Some of the Israeli Jews that are commiting genocide right now are decendents of Holocaust survivors, so I would say the irony is definitely there.
Me too. I’m seriously considering buying a kippah to visually make this point.
For the sake of completeness, Israel does happen to be Jewish, just like Hamas happens to be Muslim. And yeah, in light of recent history that’s ironic. Hopefully nobody here has forgotten we don’t all agree with our (distant, in my case) relatives.
I am not a Jew, but I have to recognize that many of the people most fiercely standing up against Israeli human rights violations are Jews.
In the USA, Bernie Sanders, Robbert Reich and Chuck Schumer are three Jewish politicians that have been very consistent in their messaging.
So 3 out of 341,352,598 Americans then, according to you. And you feel that’s a fair representation.
Seems to me you forgot to put on your critical thinking cap today.
Are you disagreeing with the thesis of the comment above, or just critiquing the quality of their data?
If you disagree with the thesis, can you explain what your position is?
If you can’t tell the difference between a limited number of well known examples and a statistical percentage, then perhaps you shouldn’t lecture others on thinking.
If you had provided an analytical statistical source instead of “three well-known individuals” we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Really? Fighting just to fight? Be better, you knew that that was only supposed to be an example of well known Jewish people standing up against Israel, not a comprehensive breakdown of the whole population.
I’ll be your fucking huckleberry though, I can fight about stupid shit just to piss people off all day.
I find it funny and it keeps you from bothering others.
Bring it
Fuck off antisemite
I’d argue they’re notable because they’re Jewish, and are afforded an odd ‘extra legitimacy’ to criticize Israel because of that - until the ‘self hating Jew’ trope is brought out…
I am constantly disappointed that society as a whole cannot see through the obvious ploys by the hyper-partisans to hijack and disrupt honest discussion by treating all criticism as anti-Semitic
I assume you’re not the denomination of Jews they’re talking about.
Which denomination are they talking about? Chabad-Lubavitch?
Just to add to this; half of the global Jewish population lives in the US. We’re not all Israeli.
Yep, I’ve never even been to Israel. I don’t particularly want to go other than seeing the archaeology. I was born in Indiana. I have far more in common with Christians from Indiana than I do a Jew from Haifa.
The fun thing with the people downvoting my above comment is that it’s hard to know if they’re pissed off because I don’t support Israel or don’t like that I’m a Jew.
Don’t worry, I usually don’t (and I didn’t say “the Jews”, just “Jews” - big difference, since a “the” in front of it would imply that it’s all while without “the” it’s just a part of them).
It just was needed in this context for the sake of my comment (the irony would be harder to understand otherwise).
I apologise
“Go to Rafah and you’ll be safe. Also, fuck you and get out of Rafah or we’ll kill you.”
You just summarized zionism (fascism)
