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?

  • AlmightySnoo 🐢🇮🇱🇺🇦@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • redballooon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • redballooon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          Can you expand on this?

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            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.

            • redballooon@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              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@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                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

                • redballooon@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I very strongly support this idea.

                    Use the PPV money to pay for investment in Gaza.

    • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            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.