Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates

[tstorm823]

...So Israel gave an accusation of the UNRWA being filled with terrorists, provided no evidence of this, and the US and other countries cut off their funding based on these unsubstantiated claims. So the tweet is absolutely correct and you aren't disputing it? Way to self own. And you act like this tweet is the first one I've paid attention to regarding the entire situation, instead of months of context before now (like when the allegations of Israel beating false confessions out of captured aid workers came up). Maybe you shouldn't just jump into a conversation you haven't paid attention to and don't know anything about?

" The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed that until March 2024, they had received staff lists without identification (ID) numbers. On the basis of the March 2024 list, which contained staff ID numbers, Israel made public claims that a significant number of UNRWA employees are members of terrorist organizations. However, Israel has yet to provide supporting evidence of this. "

The US paused funding in January, multiple months before the claims without evidence, based on the 12 that were fired. Maybe you should try reading things.

U.S. Suspends Funding to U.N. Agency Amid Serious Claims

The U.S. — UNRWA’s main donor — said it is suspending funding for the organization in the wake of the allegations.

time.com

 

[crimson5pheonix]

" The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed that until March 2024, they had received staff lists without identification (ID) numbers. On the basis of the March 2024 list, which contained staff ID numbers, Israel made public claims that a significant number of UNRWA employees are members of terrorist organizations. However, Israel has yet to provide supporting evidence of this. "

The US paused funding in January, multiple months before the claims without evidence, based on the 12 that were fired. Maybe you should try reading things.

U.S. Suspends Funding to U.N. Agency Amid Serious Claims

The U.S. — UNRWA’s main donor — said it is suspending funding for the organization in the wake of the allegations.

time.com

There was no evidence of that, the tweet is still right, you're still arguing against nothing. You're wasting time playing the fool.

 

[Worgen]

Tweets can be irritating or insubstantial. Denying well-documented abuses without being willing to do your own (pretty easy) research can be worse.

At least its an article, its an extremely one sided article but it is an article. Like, it mentions "Israeli authorities in August 1949 granted thousands of dunams of state land to the Jewish Kibbutz of Ma’agan Michael" but, it doesn't mention the 1948 palestine war at all. There is so much back and forth in this conflict that to ignore it is to be dishonest.

 

[Satinavian]

Some people are still demanding that all their sources come from proven liars. But hey, tweets have the capacity to be wrong too, therefore ignore all tweets and only listen to people we know for a fact are lying.

I still don't take tweets as reliable news. At the best they are a reminder to look something other up.

Sure, the IDF and the Israeli gouvernment has lied pretty much constantly throughout the war. Russia is more trustworthy about the Ukraine than Israel about Gaza.

But that does not make tweets more reliable. It also does not make mainstream media unreliable. While many mainstream media often did present the Israli narratives, they generally put a disclaimer like "according to the IDF" to it. They don't just present it as a fact unless they have prove or it gets confirmed by several independent sources. Tweets rarely name their source.

Based on tweets.

Nope.
Based on independent investigations. Specifically from the UN which has shared their conclusions on several of those points. But also made by neutral countries and even some journalists though those need to actually present evidence to be believed.

 

[Kwak]

Then with all due respect, admit you know nothing.

That generally is my eternal starting point for everything in life.
But not sure what you think it means in this context. I can be fairly certain that misery and suffering are being experienced by the powerless from those wielding abusive power, and they are facing no consequences for doing that.

More than 200 bodies found in mass grave at Nasser Hospital in Gaza

Many Palestinians have returned to Khan Younis to search for their dead after Israeli forces withdrew from the city. For more than a week now, they’ve unearthed graves where hundreds of bodies were buried. Ali Rogin reports.

www.pbs.org

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I still don't take tweets as reliable news. At the best they are a reminder to look something other up.

Sure, the IDF and the Israeli gouvernment has lied pretty much constantly throughout the war. Russia is more trustworthy about the Ukraine than Israel about Gaza.

But that does not make tweets more reliable. It also does not make mainstream media unreliable. While many mainstream media often did present the Israli narratives, they generally put a disclaimer like "according to the IDF" to it. They don't just present it as a fact unless they have prove or it gets confirmed by several independent sources. Tweets rarely name their source.

Nope.
Based on independent investigations. Specifically from the UN which has shared their conclusions on several of those points. But also made by neutral countries and even some journalists though those need to actually present evidence to be believed.

I mean, if you mean tweets of "I heard somebody say", then yeah, that's not reliable. Worgen and Tstorm though are arguing all tweets no matter the content or source are completely unreliable. And I don't think just putting an "IDF reports" followed by an uncritical reading of their position is a strong enough fig leaf to save traditional media. There are just some subjects they should be disregarded on, this is one of them.

 

[Satinavian]

And I don't think just putting an "IDF reports" followed by an uncritical reading of their position is a strong enough fig leaf to save traditional media.

I am not happy about it. But it is a way to be blatantly biased without technically lying. That and spin. I never claimed they were impartial.

But if they do also report contradicting statements when they come or evidence to the contrary, i give them a pass, even if those get smaller headlines. Unfortunately this kind of evidence tends to show up significantly later because someone actually has to investigate first and until then the original claim stands nearly unopposed.


But tweets... tweets have all the same problems and more. Anyone tweeting regarding the conflict is blatantly biases, tends to not properly name sources and tends to not report anything that is in favor of the other side. And that is without all the actual lying and misrepresentation on top of it. You have to go to tabloids to get traditional media of the same lacking quality.

You can use tweets as a promt to look something up elsewhere that otherwise would have flown under your radar. But if you can't find it in traditional media (including e.g. Al'Jazeira), it is probably a lie or misrepresentation, if it is of any significant scale.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I am not happy about it. But it is a way to be blatantly biased without technically lying. That and spin. I never claimed they were impartial.

But if they do also report contradicting statements when they come or evidence to the contrary, i give them a pass, even if those get smaller headlines. Unfortunately this kind of evidence tends to show up significantly later because someone actually has to investigate first and until then the original claim stands nearly unopposed.

We've seen them be perfectly capable of passing over dubious claims without reporting them. Or couch a claim in more discriminatory language against the source. I file reporting like what they do with Israel as deception. Is it a lie? Very technically no, but it is deceptive and that's what's important.

But tweets... tweets have all the same problems and more. Anyone tweeting regarding the conflict is blatantly biases, tends to not properly name sources and tends to not report anything that is in favor of the other side. And that is without all the actual lying and misrepresentation on top of it. You have to go to tabloids to get traditional media of the same lacking quality.

You can use tweets as a promt to look something up elsewhere that otherwise would have flown under your radar. But if you can't find it in traditional media (including e.g. Al'Jazeira), it is probably a lie or misrepresentation, if it is of any significant scale.

It really depends. One source I'm going to go back to in order to defend tweeting is MSF. Doctors Without Borders were there early raising the alarm on how Israel was targeting hospitals. MSF isn't a journalistic source certainly, but they're also a reasonably unbiased third party observer with feet on the ground able to say what's going on, and the medium they went to first was Twitter. While everyone else was quibbling about whether Israel was targeting hospitals or not, MSF came down with a resounding "We're being shot at in our hospitals, please stop".

 

[Satinavian]

It really depends. One source I'm going to go back to in order to defend tweeting is MSF. Doctors Without Borders were there early raising the alarm on how Israel was targeting hospitals. MSF isn't a journalistic source certainly, but they're also a reasonably unbiased third party observer with feet on the ground able to say what's going on, and the medium they went to first was Twitter. While everyone else was quibbling about whether Israel was targeting hospitals or not, MSF came down with a resounding "We're being shot at in our hospitals, please stop".

Oh, i agree.
I would take official MSF statements to have a relatively high credibility, even if they come via tweet. And so far they have never been caught in a lie.

 

[Silvanus]

At least its an article, its an extremely one sided article but it is an article. Like, it mentions "Israeli authorities in August 1949 granted thousands of dunams of state land to the Jewish Kibbutz of Ma’agan Michael" but, it doesn't mention the 1948 palestine war at all. There is so much back and forth in this conflict that to ignore it is to be dishonest.

You're complaining that the Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel is focusing on Arab minority rights?

 

[tstorm823]

There was no evidence of that, the tweet is still right, you're still arguing against nothing. You're wasting time playing the fool.

When your argument requires time travel, you lose. I'm sorry, that's just how it works. You read tweets of headlines and believed impossible scenarios, I read actual things of value and knew you were full of crap.

 

[Silvanus]

When your argument requires time travel, you lose. I'm sorry, that's just how it works. You read tweets of headlines and believed impossible scenarios, I read actual things of value and knew you were full of crap.

Did Israel provide evidence for its January allegation that staffers took part in the attack then?

 

[Worgen]

You're complaining that the Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel is focusing on Arab minority rights?

Yes, because its exceptionally biased to the point of being worthless.

 

[Worgen]

All of the news sites that report on atrocities done to the palestinians are al jazeera or underground blogs. Western sources will report the bare minimum if it's a big enough incident only.

You mean like this from the front page of CNN?

April 23, 2024 - Israel-Hamas war

After 200 days of war, Israeli attacks in Gaza have killed more than 34,000 Palestinians, according to the enclave's health ministry. CNN cannot independently confirm the numbers due to the lack of international media access.

www.cnn.com

 

[Silvanus]

Yes, because its exceptionally biased to the point of being worthless.

In the same way that Cancer Research is exceptionally biased for how little it talks about Ebola.

This is a completely asinine argument. You're moaning that they focused on something that's literally their specific purview, rather than something that isn't. Yet they have a strong legal track record, and that fact sheet directly provides you the precise laws that discriminate on racial bases. You have no reason to feign ignorance, and this is pure deflection.

 

[Satinavian]

Yes, because its exceptionally biased to the point of being worthless.

First you want information about a specific topic and when directed to a source that specifically compiles information about this very topic you complain about that as well. What do you want ? 30 different sources about 30 different instances of discrimitory laws ? An aggregation was the best answer and you know it.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

When your argument requires time travel, you lose. I'm sorry, that's just how it works. You read tweets of headlines and believed impossible scenarios, I read actual things of value and knew you were full of crap.

How does it require time travel? You still haven't shown anything relevant to your argument, you've talked yourself into a circle.

 

[Seanchaidh]

How does it require time travel? You still haven't shown anything relevant to your argument, you've talked yourself into a circle.

Israel went back in time from March to January to make slightly less grandiose unsubstantiated claims about UNRWA. This requires time travel and not just a propensity to make shit up repeatedly for some reason.

 

[tstorm823]

Did Israel provide evidence for its January allegation that staffers took part in the attack then?

Not to me. But one must imagine evidence was provided to UNRWA that they were able to identify them.

Regardless, that line in the report is explicitly about the March allegations. Tiring it back to the January allegations is a lie.

How does it require time travel? You still haven't shown anything relevant to your argument, you've talked yourself into a circle.

For countries to cut funding in January based on Israel's March accusations requires those countries to know what would happen in two months.

 

[Worgen]

In the same way that Cancer Research is exceptionally biased for how little it talks about Ebola.

This is a completely asinine argument. You're moaning that they focused on something that's literally their specific purview, rather than something that isn't. Yet they have a strong legal track record, and that fact sheet directly provides you the precise laws that discriminate on racial bases. You have no reason to feign ignorance, and this is pure deflection.

Except that cancer doesn't cause ebola or vice versa and the two have very little to do with each other. It would be more like if it said "in 1944 America bombed france and killed 1352 germans." This is the 'and then stuff happened' type of history that article does.

Some of the laws in that sheet are and some can be utilized that way, but are palastinians israeli citizens?