3 ms·

Before levelling claims of bias and racism, consider that the reporting is by a Jewish run, Israeli newspaper and that the sources are IDF officers and soldiers

Before levelling claims of bias and racism, consider that the reporting is by a Jewish run, Israeli newspaper and that the sources are IDF officers and soldiers. To jump to a claim of anti-semitism suggestions you really need to examine your own biases. Atrocities against unarmed civilians are not excused by 'but they started it', who did? The old woman, the 10 year old boy? Justifying collective punishment like this takes a huge degree of racism and heartlessness. "once started (wars) are sometimes impossible to stop". How convenient then that land (belonging to people who also have nothing to do with 'the first punch') continues to be stolen as long as the war drags out.

froohmb 1y ago
War crimes should be taken very seriously, not dealt with in the court of public opinion. Just look at how “ready to convict” people are in this thread, without any evidence whatsoever, just on hearsay —though yes, Haaretz is very reputable. “Blood libel” may be too strong a term, but similar idea: the jews are conspiring to do evil to non-Jews and keep it secret by control of the media or by leveraging the “zog” or maybe shapeshifting or Kabbalah or something more imaginative. It’s all just shades of antisemitism. Even the stance that such claims must be valid because the reporters are Israeli, is itself derivative of the Jewish conspiracy trope. Is it more likely there is a large conspiracy afoot and Israeli officers are engaging in war crimes at large scale as many in this thread have concluded (even before this report), or that these are isolated and undesirable events playing out in the fog of war and representative of poor decision making in circumstances of which we have only partial knowledge? My bias, if I have one, is to believe that the Israeli military, or really any competently run military anywhere, is interested in not committing war crimes when avoidable.
- Sporktacular 1y ago
  There is no such thing as an unavoidable war crime. Reporting is one way they are brought to light. Commenters are allowed to discuss the validity of the claims, whatever their reasoning. You have decided to believe the Israeli military, others have the right to conclude otherwise. But that the reporters and sources are Israeli means your knee-jerk claims of their anti-semitism or conspiracy are absurd. Nor does that mean the claims must be valid, just that they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand by hair-triggered, wild accusations of anti-semitism. You do know they aren't doing anyone any favours, right?

froohmb 1y ago

War crimes should be taken very seriously, not dealt with in the court of public opinion. Just look at how “ready to convict” people are in this thread, without any evidence whatsoever, just on hearsay —though yes, Haaretz is very reputable. “Blood libel” may be too strong a term, but similar idea: the jews are conspiring to do evil to non-Jews and keep it secret by control of the media or by leveraging the “zog” or maybe shapeshifting or Kabbalah or something more imaginative. It’s all just shades of antisemitism. Even the stance that such claims must be valid because the reporters are Israeli, is itself derivative of the Jewish conspiracy trope. Is it more likely there is a large conspiracy afoot and Israeli officers are engaging in war crimes at large scale as many in this thread have concluded (even before this report), or that these are isolated and undesirable events playing out in the fog of war and representative of poor decision making in circumstances of which we have only partial knowledge? My bias, if I have one, is to believe that the Israeli military, or really any competently run military anywhere, is interested in not committing war crimes when avoidable.

Sporktacular 1y ago
There is no such thing as an unavoidable war crime. Reporting is one way they are brought to light. Commenters are allowed to discuss the validity of the claims, whatever their reasoning. You have decided to believe the Israeli military, others have the right to conclude otherwise. But that the reporters and sources are Israeli means your knee-jerk claims of their anti-semitism or conspiracy are absurd. Nor does that mean the claims must be valid, just that they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand by hair-triggered, wild accusations of anti-semitism. You do know they aren't doing anyone any favours, right?