Discover insightful articles on Claims of Mass Rape by Hamas Unravel Upon Investigation. Join us in exploring solutions for a just, sustainable, and compassionate world. #Claims of Mass Rape by Hamas Unravel Upon Investigation
www.yesmagazine.org
as has been pointed out to you over and over again-- these other organisations (including the Guardian, as well as local women's orgs and volunteer NGOs) did their own separate investigations.
this is the first time you seem to have mentioned this particular argument. Maybe I missed it, as I've little patience for you. It seemed like you were focused on the Guardian article. I don't think this new argument is very persuasive, as it seems that 'investigation' can include anything from witness interviews and forensic analysis to referring to a newspaper article.
I read the UN report and the Guardian article. I was not impressed with the reliability of the evidence given the context of the Israeli government wanting there to be reports like these. Like this isn't just garden variety #MeToo stuff targeting powerful guys like Henry Weinstein, this is part of the rhetorical arsenal justifying slaughter on an industrial scale. And that requires the application of a higher standard because there is clear incentive for the people who support that slaughter to lie.
and isn't what i objected to, as you well know
actually, no. I assumed that you disagreed with my conclusion, not just some particular premise.
i have repeatedly pointed to the suspension of judgment as my conclusion and the rest as supporting premises. you repeatedly neglected to clarify that you (apparently?) did not have a problem with suspending judgment. the theses of my posts on this particular issue (aside from the first, which was just a link to a tweet) has in each and every case been clearly identifiable as relating to the suspension of judgment, have they not? if you don't have a problem with suspending judgment, then there is little meaningful argument to be had, though i would still look askance at how you've evaluated the atrocity propaganda. suspending judgment is not a fucking fig leaf, it is the entire point.
In short: The involvement of the Americans or British is a requirement for criticism. Its always odd to hear it out loud; usually a double standard is at least obscured under one or two more layers.
About who to give benefits of doubt? Yes, usually it is implied that foreign adversaries are inherently mendacious and any attempt at fairly hearing or representing them suspect. That's just simple prejudice built on a well-known cognitive bias-- the fundamental attribution error-- but there is actually good reason to not just fix that error but to go further in the other direction.
You should be more willing to give adversaries of your government or its allies the benefit of doubt because your opinion-- theoretically-- matters in determining what your government does (and if it doesn't, then,
well: you've got bigger problems to address before thinking about the scary predatory foreigners, haven't you?) And the media environment you are exposed to is designed to get you to accept your government's actions (especially about foreign policy; about domestic policy the strategy is a little more complicated and tends to involve a greater number of jingling keys). So there are two independent reasons to have a "double standard", which is actually just one standard that takes into account the advocative nature of your media environment and the practical effects of your assent (albeit mediated through a kind of Kantian categorical imperative-- that you should not do what you would not will everyone to do likewise-- since your influence
alone is kind of small even if you were to live in a
real democracy).
So, yeah:
Hamas is the government of Gaza. Gaza is facing genocide. Israel is treating Hamas as an excuse for that genocide. They are so doing with your government's material support. What you think-- in your capacity as a member of the British public-- about Hamas is therefore weaponized against Gaza, whether it's a bad election or 'mob rule' that your government fears if they act too far outside your collective wishes. You should give the benefit of doubt, therefore, to anyone facing the murderous Israeli aggression in Gaza including Hamas, at least until your agreement is not in a position to be weaponized against a vulnerable population that is being starved and otherwise murdered.
Controversial, I know! The standard, not so heretical view is that we're supposed to rush to judgment, go in guns blazing and let God sort it out after. Like men!
