3 ms·
I did not read the whole thing, I read far enough to realize the methodology was garbage. The article basically says anyone ever associated with Hamas or resist
by jquery 2y ago
I did not read the whole thing, I read far enough to realize the methodology was garbage. The article basically says anyone ever associated with Hamas or resisting the IDF is a legitimate military target. Let's try switching that around. Anyone who served in the IDF or spoke positively of a successful attack of Israel against Palestine is a legitimate military target and not a journalist? No, this is obviously nonsense. I'm pretty sure at this point, there's almost nobody left in Gaza that hasn't said a few epithets towards Israel... that doesn't make them military targets.
Al Jazeera getting banned tracks with the current Israel government not being a huge fan of journalism.
- vdsk 2y ago> Anyone who served in the IDF or spoke positively of a successful attack of Israel against Palestine is a legitimate military target and not a journalist? This very specific point is made almost always by Hamas and co to justify indiscriminate firing of rockets into populated areas. "No civilians because everyone has done military time or is a reservist, even women" is a very, very common point.
- jquery 2y agoIn both cases, it's post-hoc reasoning to justify something they would have done regardless.
- indigo945 2y agoYou conflate average Gazans who "said a few epithets towards Israel" with those who "promoted and celebrated terrorism and the death of innocent civilians".