Leaked NYT Gaza Memo Tells Journalists to Avoid Words “Genocide,” “Ethnic Cleansing,” and “Occupied Territory”

The New York Times instructed journalists covering Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip to restrict the use of the terms “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” and to “avoid” using the phrase “occupied territory” when describing Palestinian land, according to a copy of an internal memo obtained by The Intercept.

The memo also instructs reporters not to use the word Palestine “except in very rare cases” and to steer clear of the term “refugee camps” to describe areas of Gaza historically settled by internally displaced Palestinians, who fled from other parts of Palestine during previous Israeli–Arab wars. The areas are recognized by the United Nations as refugee camps and house hundreds of thousands of registered refugees.

While the document is presented as an outline for maintaining objective journalistic principles in reporting on the Gaza war, several Times staffers told The Intercept that some of its contents show evidence of the paper’s deference to Israeli narratives.

Almost immediately after the October 7 attacks and the launch of Israel’s scorched-earth war against Gaza, tensions began to boil within the newsroom over the Times coverage. Some staffers said they believed the paper was going out of its way to defer to Israel’s narrative on the events and was not applying even standards in its coverage. Arguments began fomenting on internal Slack and other chat groups.

Linkerbaan,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Also here’s a very interesting video of the Biden Administration having a lot of difficulty pronouncing the word “Palestine”

NoLifeGaming,

This conflict has been great in seeing which media outlets are bought out by the establishment and are propaganda

Manmoth,

COVID revealed that.

Makhno,

How so?

HottieAutie,
theacharnian,
@theacharnian@lemmy.ca avatar

The media later: why doesn’t anyone trust us and believe in wild conspiracy theories?

They destroy their own credibility and then cry foul when the extreme right uses this to spread hate propaganda.

fuckingkangaroos,

“The media”

orrk,

yes, “the media” seeing as how over 80% of news is owned by the same 3 people, “the media” is very fitting

Linkerbaan,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Yeah “the media” indeed. Not sure how after this immense collaboration from almost every single major newspaper to manufacture consent for israel’s Genocide people still don’t think there’s something fishy going on.

The writer of this article himself just did an interview on The Hill elaborating on this

HawlSera,

It’s worse when it turns out some of the wild conspiracy theories were true all along.

If you lie to people and say Directed Energy Weapons don’t exist, and anyone who thinks they do is a Nazi spouting nonsense about “Jewish Space Lasers”, then people who find out not only do DEWs actually exist (In fact they even have a wikipedia page about them, that’s how blatantly real they are) trust you less, but they’re more likely to buy into really fucked up shit like Holocaust Denial and Flat Earth as they suddenly believe the media was “probably lying about that too!”

crusa187,

This should have been obvious to anyone watching. Their coverage was tripping all over itself to avoid accurate descriptions of the atrocities ongoing in Gaza.

GoodEye8,

That would be a quality black humor skit. A reporter walks down the street and finds a blow up torso. “This guy must’ve fallen out a window or something”. He continue walking and sees people getting lined up. “Just rounding up some thieves”. As he passes they all get shot. “what was that?”. Add a few more horrific images and eventually the reporter finishes his report with “as you can see, no violence is happening in Gaza”.

rottingleaf,

Oh, the free world at it again.

When a country populated with brown people is too weak, it’s bullied to not arm itself or pursue any other kind of strategically significant development, in economy and society too.

When it’s sufficiently strong and useful not to be bullied, it can do anything up to genocide, and not even have its hand slapped.

I’m becoming too sympathetic to Iran, Hezbollah and all that guerilla-mafia network over time. They look scary, but commit fewer crimes than people condemning them. Naturally “crime” here is not “crime as judged by a court”, but something of the “theft”, “murder”, “torture”, “rape” kind.

UnderpantsWeevil,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

When it’s sufficiently strong and useful not to be bullied, it can do anything up to genocide, and not even have its hand slapped.

Idk. I’m looking at Iran right now, and I am under the distinct impression that its about to get hella-bullied.

That said, Iran is aligning itself with a Central Asiatic block of states - China, Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey, maybe Saudi Arabia depending on how things go - that’s going to make it a harder target than in decades past. In much the same way Western conflicts with Russia failed to bring down Vladdy P’s regime, I don’t think simply throwing SWIFT banking sanctions at Iran one more time will do anything to shape their foreign policy or belligerent attitude towards Israel.

I’m becoming too sympathetic to Iran, Hezbollah and all that guerilla-mafia network over time.

Its easy to root for the underdog. I suspect you won’t like them as soon as you see their leaders assuming actual policy-making rules on a global scale. But I also can’t help notice how they’re fighting back against a creeping European fascism in a way we hadn’t seen in the 20th century.

I don’t know if that ends in a new Iron Curtain between the East and West or we go full tilt into WW3. Neither seem particularly good, but the former would see a lot fewer dead children.

In the end, that’s all I can really cheer for. An end to atrocity, and the sooner the better.

Fedizen,

WW1 2.0

rottingleaf,

I agree with most things, but I don’t think Iran’s relations with Turkey and Pakistan are going to become warmer than practical coexistence. Also in Russia that regime was almost supported as something more predictable than imagined communists or neo-nazis.

UnderpantsWeevil,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

I don’t think Iran’s relations with Turkey and Pakistan are going to become warmer than practical coexistence.

As the BRI extends through Central Asia, I think you’re going to see a lot more cross-pollination of ethnic groups and business interests. That’s going to bring the block together in the same way rail projects stretching across Europe presaged the EU.

Also in Russia that regime was almost supported as something more predictable than imagined communists or neo-nazis.

The prime mover behind United Russia’s success is the most rapid improvement in living conditions for native Russians since the collapse of the USSR. It isn’t an imagined outside enemy but a very real inside economic boom. And this, despite a collaboration of Western nations to crash the Ruble and bring the Russian war machine to a grinding halt.

rottingleaf,

I may agree about Central Asia.

I would also like to see Uzbekistan developing and modernizing, as a counterweight to Turkey and a country with no natural enemies (except China, with Uyghurs and Uzbeks being more or less the same people) and big population.

But still Turkey and Pakistan are simply in another block. They may not like Israel, but that doesn’t mean any fundamental split with NATO, West etc.

About Russia - I meant also that before than boom, after Yeltsin’s election of 1996, it was a popular point of view than even if he cheated, the alternative was communists winning that election. And also - it was, yes, very real, but I am not talking about arguments in favor of Putin inside Russia (not persuading everyone, because most of the improvement happened in Moscow, SPb etc), I am talking about Western institutions confirming Russian elections even as massive protests were happening, and also that talking point that if not Putin, then neo-Nazis would win.

UnderpantsWeevil,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

But still Turkey and Pakistan are simply in another block. They may not like Israel, but that doesn’t mean any fundamental split with NATO, West etc.

Its been a split that’s widened as Turkey was divided from the EU block and NATO/West interests piled into India after Pakistan kicked out its military dictator, Parvez Musharraf, in 2008. A lot of the post-Cold War alliances have shifted as these military juntas have failed. Egypt would likely be another in the Iran/Iraq/Turkey/Pakistan block if Mohamed Morsi - the replacement for Hosni Mubarak - hadn’t himself been couped back out of power in short order. And you know Qaddafi’s Libya would have been on board, as he’s been a Pan-Africanist since the 70s.

About Russia - I meant also that before than boom, after Yeltsin’s election of 1996, it was a popular point of view than even if he cheated, the alternative was communists winning that election.

Well, the Communist Party did win the referendum in 1992. The cheating and the rapid privatization were what ultimately fractured and collapsed the Soviet party system. Once they no longer had a patronage system to command broad popular support, there was very little incentive (other than ideological orthodoxy) to continue on. But United Russia absorbed more Soviets than just Putin.

The real failure of Communism as an institution came under Brezhnev and Gorbachev, as economic progress stalled relative to the Western peer nations. That, plus the near-total infiltration and privatization denuded the party of its base of support.

If someone came into the US GOP or Dem parties and stripped them of all their donors, their NGOs, and a huge swath of their state/local leadership positions, neither of them would last very long either. But the members of those parties would continue on in some other configuration.

rottingleaf,

I meant that in 1996 CPRF were the scarecrow and it was said that even if the results were falsified, they shouldn’t be allowed to win the election.

And later instead of CPRF the scarecrow was some poorly-defined neo-Nazis which would come to power if Putin loses the election (implicitly also saying that falsifications are fine to preserve stability or something).

UnderpantsWeevil,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

the scarecrow was some poorly-defined neo-Nazis which would come to power if Putin loses the election

I don’t know about “poorly defined”. I think they were pretty explicitly calling liberal candidates outside the United Russia party out as puppets of Berlin and DC. And its not like the Christian Democrats of Germany (much less the modern Greens or the AfD) have done an incredible job of purging fascist ideology from their ranks.

Russians were very rightly worried about getting the Yugoslavia treatment if a liberal reformer came in to further balkinize the state. And say what you will about the Balkins before Tito’s death, but it got inundated with far-right ideology as soon as his corpse was safely six feet under.

rottingleaf,

I think they were pretty explicitly calling liberal candidates outside the United Russia party out as puppets of Berlin and DC.

I don’t mean what Russian state propaganda was saying. I mean what people in the West in appearance unconnected to it would often say. That the alternative to Putin is something dangerous, so let them steal elections and let Russia rot further, if that’s more stable.

And since that stable Russia only became unstable in the direction of Ukraine, I’d say it really was a win for Europe. Not a win for Ukraine.

Anyway, after Artsakh I just want a similar portion of all big European nations (USA included) to burn. I’ll say and think deep and sincere condolences, of course. Maybe donate a few $ for restoration.

Like a few of those nations “sent aid” for accommodation of refugees from Artsakh, a cost of a few fighter jets, maybe? A fraction of what they gain yearly from dealing with Azerbaijan. Naturally being silent about any right of return or about dealing with this like with Kosovo. Being suddenly silent even about things which they were loud about before 19.09.2023 .

And of course no intelligence service was aware that this was going to happen, and they totally weren’t silent intentionally and thus complicit.

And of course the sudden surrender of Artsakh has nothing to do with the rumors of a wholesale massacre of a few villages near Drmbon, which were surrounded by Azeris and I don’t remember any news about new arrivals of refugees from there. By pure coincidence that’s also where a few Russian PK’s were killed “by mistake”, including some officers. Anyway, who can search for those people now when there are like a thousand people still unaccounted for.

The thing is, of course, that nothing of what happened there can be a mystery for USA, for example.

UnderpantsWeevil,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

And since that stable Russia only became unstable in the direction of Ukraine, I’d say it really was a win for Europe.

I haven’t seen anything - agg worker riots stretching from Spain to Poland, fascist party membership spikes in the face of Ukrainian refugees, sharp contractions in the German economy over energy shortages - that would define this as a win for any European proles. Maybe a few big arms manufacturers - Rolls-Royce and Lockheed Martin - come out ahead. But the lay European is eating shit right now.

And of course the sudden surrender of Artsakh has nothing to do with the rumors of a wholesale massacre of a few villages near Drmbon, which were surrounded by Azeris and I don’t remember any news about new arrivals of refugees from there. By pure coincidence that’s also where a few Russian PK’s were killed “by mistake”, including some officers. Anyway, who can search for those people now when there are like a thousand people still unaccounted for.

The brutality of war never ceases to shock the conscience and terrify the soul.

But Europeans want this war to drag on because they think its going to “bleed Russia”. Its the old Bushism “Fight them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here”.

rottingleaf,

But the lay European is eating shit right now.

Well, I meant, a win compared to things getting unstable sooner in Russia.

But then would they? Most people to support RSFSR’s transformation into modern Russia and democratization were communist after all. In 1996 CPRF represented basically all democratic opposition to Yeltsin. If they won (and it’s a common theory, a bit forgotten in 2024, that they would if not for falsifications), how different would it be? Maybe the Chechen wars wouldn’t be as bloody. Maybe the financial crisis of 1999 could be averted. Maybe their foreign policy inside former USSR would be more directed at preserving ties and not asserting dominance.

And oil prices hiking up in early 00s were not Putin’s doing, so Russia still would have that period of growth. Maybe it would have a bit more Soviet-style laws and political mechanisms, like Ukraine still does. Doesn’t seem too scary.

The brutality of war never ceases to shock the conscience and terrify the soul.

It’s not what Azeris are capable of, it’s rather trust into certain states on the globe.

Pogroms in Indian countryside may be something unexpected for them, but Artsakh - how many satellite images with sufficiently high resolution and how many reports do, say, US or French intelligence services have on every hour of its existence for a month before 19.09.23? And they didn’t prevent it nor warn about it, not protest\condemn after. This means a greenlight and also implicit statement that Azeri understanding of territorial integrity is above ICJ rulings, above UN charter, above Kosovo as an example, above their own statements, above even agreements signed and in general above any civilized principle.

It’s a bit harder to process, because a hegemon (or a group of such) is still a main guarantor of rules in any system. Which means there are no rules except for “might makes right”. As we can see from Israel’s actions now.

But Europeans want this war to drag on because they think its going to “bleed Russia”. Its the old Bushism “Fight them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here”.

The issue with this is that it won’t bleed Russia dry, while its military will become more competent.

UnderpantsWeevil,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

If they won (and it’s a common theory, a bit forgotten in 2024, that they would if not for falsifications), how different would it be?

Presumably, we wouldn’t have seen the wholesale nationalization and subsequent fire sale of Russian state assets. It can’t be overstated how badly Russia was basically looted, after they deregulated their export markets and had large parts of their economy liquidated by foreign investors.

And oil prices hiking up in early 00s were not Putin’s doing, so Russia still would have that period of growth.

The “Russia is an oversized gas station” line wasn’t exactly untrue back in the mid-00s.

But the oil price jump was the direct result of our Iraq invasion. And the Iraq invasion was largely possible only after the US no longer had a USSR operating on a global scale as a counterweight. Also, Russian energy exports were a bandaid on a bleeding gut wound.

Its very possible that a CPRF-run Russia wouldn’t be a net energy exporter but a manufacturing hub attempting to rival Germany and Japan. Far easier to believe a Russia that maintained its universities and laboratories and manufacturing hubs followed China’s lead into the 21st century as a consumer production giant, rather than simply sending out big hoses full of fossil fuels.

Which means there are no rules except for “might makes right”. As we can see from Israel’s actions now.

It was harder to see when might was something western states projected outward to make things our flavor of right. Much more apparent when we’re on the back foot and other countries are using their own boutique domestic medias to justify a war to their people.

The issue with this is that it won’t bleed Russia dry, while its military will become more competent.

That’s something Europeans simply don’t want to believe, because they still assume Russians are inferior and incompetent.

rottingleaf,

Presumably, we wouldn’t have seen the wholesale nationalization and subsequent fire sale of Russian state assets. It can’t be overstated how badly Russia was basically looted, after they deregulated their export markets and had large parts of their economy liquidated by foreign investors.

Much of that had already happened by then, one of the reasons for 1996 election dynamics. And I don’t think there was possibility to make many of Soviet industries profitable or even functional. It was a complete collapse due to administrative rot.

However, that would be a couple fewer years of looting properties which could still be put to some use. Some Soviet plants died later in 90s or even in 00s, which means that they did successfully adjust to market economy.

But the oil price jump was the direct result of our Iraq invasion. And the Iraq invasion was largely possible only after the US no longer had a USSR operating on a global scale as a counterweight. Also, Russian energy exports were a bandaid on a bleeding gut wound.

While that is true, most of that oil wealth was misused, so in just a bit more transparent and democratic system it would be used more efficiently.

And Russia wouldn’t be capable of acting as any kind of counterweight for like a decade in any case. So, if that’s the main reason, it would still happen.

Its very possible that a CPRF-run Russia wouldn’t be a net energy exporter but a manufacturing hub attempting to rival Germany and Japan.

To rival is a strong word, but Russian manufacturing would still exist, and with it a different culture in the society. Which can’t be overstated.

It was harder to see when might was something western states projected outward to make things our flavor of right.

Rather it was harder to see not living somewhere in the ME or Latin America, or Indochina, reading a bit of history.

Now it’s easier for me to see being part Armenian. The whole situation with “the West” pressuring Armenia for the same illegal concessions that T*rks do, including the ethnic cleansing part, just “graciously” throwing a few cents to accommodate refugees and not demanding outright surrender of Syunik, is eye-opening.

That’s something Europeans simply don’t want to believe, because they still assume Russians are inferior and incompetent.

Well, the transition from 00s Web to today’s Web looks like it just becoming clumsy, crappy and not cool. It doesn’t seem like a well-planned operation or a result of consistent policy, but I think it is exactly that.

It may be very inefficient, but it adds centralization and vertical control to powerful governments which they lacked before. They now have ability to efficiently suppress any news or viewpoints or discourses they couldn’t in paper media, without accepting responsibility for censorship, and without even spawning discussions of censorship, because of centralized social media where everything can be controlled.

As of Russia, it is simply very hard to believe that a state would spend 200+k lives and a lot of money just thrown out in broken hardware to teach its military to conduct warfare.

But that’s exactly what happened. Instead of doing reforms and making things more efficiently, they preserved their power over Russia, their way of doing things, their culture as a kind of elites etc, while still achieving that goal with expenses they consider acceptable. Ukraine may start losing the war soon.

My point is - it was hard to believe for anyone, not just Europeans.

Itdidnttrickledown,

The new york times approves of the genocide. Why else restrict the use of the word?

OldWoodFrame,

They are not making an assertion for or against the actions themselves. They are saying the term “genocide” is not a journalistically appropriate term for the actions. You can obviously disagree with that assertion but they are trying to use terms as neutrally as possible in order to be impartial.

Think of like “pro life” vs “pro choice”, newspapers have to pick words to say, there is a guide where they say what to say about who. Even if they decided to say “pro choice” and “anti abortion” that might indicate political bias but it doesn’t mean they approve of abortions themselves.

apfelwoiSchoppen,
@apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world avatar

Manufacturing consent.

Blackmist,

Not just them either.

My personal hate is the word “settler”, which invokes an image of somebody taking previously useless land and making it fit for human habitation, but apparently has been redefined within the borders of Palestine to mean “armed invader”.

Don’t hear much about those Russian “settlers” visiting Ukraine…

SolarMech,

My personal hate is the word “settler”, which invokes an image of somebody taking previously useless land and making it fit for human habitation, but apparently has been redefined within the borders of Palestine to mean “armed invader”.

North American Natives probably resent that sentence…

It is very rare for no humans to make use of land at all. Whenever someone “settles” it, they are taking it away from someone else. Usually force gets involved at some point, even for nomadic tribes. It’s why colonialism has a bad rep these days.

tb_,
@tb_@lemmy.world avatar

Regardless of the negative connotations the word should technically have, it’s been sorta green washed. It is a noteworthy term to use when it isn’t applied elsewhere (e.g. Crimea)

JesseoftheNorth,

My personal hate is the word “settler”, which invokes an image of somebody taking previously useless land and making it fit for human habitation, but apparently has been redefined within the borders of Palestine to mean “armed invader”.

That is revisionist history. Settler colonialism isn’t a thing that happened in the distant past, it is an ongoing process that is still going on to this day. What is currently happening in Palestine and Ukraine is an exactly what happened in the lands that you live on. You are a settler living on stolen indigenous lands, which were taken by brutal force no less inhumane and heinously than that being used by the IDF and the Russian state. Fuck off with that “previously useless land” bullshit.

juicy,

But they’re right that the word “settler” connotes “an image of somebody taking previously useless land” for the average reader. It’s due to ignorance of the grim reality of our history, but it’s nonetheless true.

ieatpwns,

Settlers have always been invaders. It’s just that it seems different in this context because we’re watching it happen instead of reading about it in text books

Linkerbaan,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Not always. Settling on empty land is possible. The word settler here comes from “Settler Colonialism”.

It differentiates from an “Extraction Colononialism” because the Settler Colonists try to replace the current inhabitans, instead of just stealing the wealth and enslaving the inhabitants.

It’s just rather unlucky most people use the word "settler"instead of “colonialist” from this term to describe Israelis.

UnderpantsWeevil,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

Settling on empty land is possible.

“Empty land” tends to be a consequence of human behaviors. Europeans spreading a plague through North America produced a lot of vacant real estate. Changes in environment - upstream dumping, massacre of native flora and fauna, Chernobyl style disasters - can kill a lot of people in short order and render land vacant.

But the most consistent and heavily practiced method of producing Free Real Estate is by pogrom. Rounding up all the locals and killing them until they leave.

Without that you’re stuck. Any area of the planet that’s habitable was inhabited tens of thousands of years ago, during the last big outward expansion of homo sapiens. Before that, we had near-human populations stretching around the world as far back as 2M years ago.

And that’s not even getting into the volume of mega-fauna and other native life we’ve obliterated during the Holocene Extinction. There is no such thing as “Empty Land” in a material sense. There’s only land that’s relatively easy to push other people off of.

UnderpantsWeevil,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

Having read Settlers, I’ve had a much different interpretation of the term since.

Don’t hear much about those Russian “settlers” visiting Ukraine…

I hear it constantly. But its always in a twisted “It was okay when we did it, but these guys are different!” revisionist context.

Aceticon,

Whenever you’re wondering why fake news took off so easilly and swindled so many to believe in complete total bollocks, consider the possibility that “liberal” newsmedia like the New York Times has long been pushing propaganda, weakening trust in the authoritativeness of the Press and in practice plowing the field that far right news outlets sowed.

It would’ve been a lot harder for the likes of Fox News to manipulate the political beliefs of Americans if the likes of the New York Times hadn’t been doing “opinion forming” in favour of specific political idelogies rather than Journalism since well before Fox News came to the scene.

Nobody,

No one is immune from propaganda and just because a media outlet is historically part of “your team,” it doesn’t mean they don’t engage in propaganda. The military and intelligence agencies manipulating the media has been a thing since the beginning of the Cold War.

Aceticon, (edited )

You seem to be limited in your idea of what is possible by the constraints you live under in the US enviroment, including things like its falacious two-sides politics and the anti-Democratic relationship between most of the Press and the two parties of the Political Duopoly.

It’s perfectly possible for a media outlet to be critical of that which deserves criticism independently of the “side” - it’s what is known as “Journalistic Integrity”. The US. however, has very very little of that.

Also that “it has always been so (in the US)” falacy neither turns it from a bad thing into a good thing nor proves that it’s impossible for it to be otherwise - somehow some news publications in the US (and even more outside) manage to only be biased on occasion instead of being salesmen for a political side in every single news piece they publish.

Ultimatelly it’s up to people to be more demanding with the news, especially those they pay for, and a bit more skeptical. Something as simple as punishing media outlets when they are so shamelessly biased as the NYT by not buying their publications or giving your time to their websites would be a much better push for a decent Press environment than coming up with falacious excuses for their actions.

bartolomeo,

The memo… “offers guidance about some terms and other issues we have grappled with since the start of the conflict in October.”

I think she meant May.

May 1948.

rottingleaf,

I’m part Jewish, I’ve been too enthusiastic about the Zionist project (and I don’t even think the word is bad) most of my life even after realizing that the real state of Israel sucks, but yes. It should be untangled from that very point. From the start of their foundational myth too.

DdCno1,

It's the only functioning democracy in the region (despite Netanyahu's worst efforts), the only nation in the Middle East that is food-independent, the only one that has a functioning economy that isn't based on resource extraction, the lowest corruption, the best education system, by far the best research and most modern manufacturing. All of this was slowly built up over the course of decades as they were being besieged by and had to defend themselves against their aggressive neighbors, who from the first day of Israel's existence had nothing but genocidal intentions.

Israel has issues and not few of them, but one also has to take a step back and look at what this tiny country managed to achieve against all odds.

rottingleaf,

It’s the only functioning democracy in the region

This really gets old. It’s just a bit more democratic than half of CIS states were 20 years ago.

he only nation in the Middle East that is food-independent, the only one that has a functioning economy that isn’t based on resource extraction, the lowest corruption, the best education system, by far the best research and most modern manufacturing.

This can be shortened to “they are stronger than anybody around”.

All of this was slowly built up over the course of decades as they were being besieged by and had to defend themselves against their aggressive neighbors, who from the first day of Israel’s existence had nothing but genocidal intentions.

As if Israelis were less aggressive and less genocidal.

Israel has issues and not few of them, but one also has to take a step back and look at what this tiny country managed to achieve against all odds.

This is really bullshit. A person may be an idiot or a genius, but a country’s path usually makes sense if you look close enough at conditions.

Say, Israel was created by people from developed European countries. That’s an enormous advantage when your initial pool of elites is not of activists, poets, shepherds, foot soldiers and mountain Robin Hoods, but of engineers and competent military men etc.

Count042,

Built off of terrorism.

What happened to the Irgun, again?

Also, What happens if I am in Israel, and say that the war against Palestinians is genocide? Do I go to jail? Pretty sure that that law against identification with “Terrorist activities” would hit me. Pretty ironic coming from a country with a military literally built from terrorist militias that conducted slaughters to ethnically cleanse territory they wanted to claim as theirs. I guess they needed some “Living space”, right?

So much for freedom of speech, I guess.

All of the above is what you are justifying with your positive descriptions.

So, I ask you this: Is there anything that justifies genocide?

nyctre,

Disregard the hundreds of billions in economic and military aid over the decades.

DdCno1,

American aid was very small for decades, as low as a mere 5.5 million in loans in 1967, with military aid becoming a major component in the late '60s and truly began to take off in the '70s in order to counteract Soviet influence in the region. Economic aid came predominately from Germany in the 1950s and '60s, in the form of payments to Holocaust survivors and the Israeli state, as well as items such as industrial equipment and infrastructure. There's also a French and British connection, but both were so unreliable that the small nation decided to become mostly self-sufficient in key areas such as food production and defense. Israel's economic miracle happened long after aid stopped being a major economic factor.

Even then, the total amount of aid Israel received from America since 1949 (including loans) is $160.5 billion, not hundreds of billions. Sounds like a lot, until you realize that Egypt alone received half as much aid from 1978 onward. With Egypt, this only bought America an ally, since the country isn't producing anything of value, but in the case of Israel, they got an ally and priority access to tech cooked up in Israeli research labs. This investment more than paid for itself.

juicy,

Much of the aid to Egypt served to buy Egypt’s tolerance of Israel, so really you could argue it was an indirect subsidy of Israel.

nyctre, (edited )

Source I found said 300 billion from the US alone. www.cfr.org/article/us-aid-israel-four-charts

DdCno1,

I used this source, which lists aid for every year:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/total-u-s-foreign-aid-to-israel-1949-present

Count042,

Seems like you’re too afraid to answer the question elsewhere while praising a country committing genocide, so I’ll ask you here again:

Do you think there is anything that justifies genocide?

DdCno1,

No, never.

I also don't think this is a genocide. It's "merely" the most televised (the word that would have been used in the past) war in history, one that overshadows far worse conflicts like the Sudanese Civil War in our public consciousness. The war in Gaza is the first war most people who are claiming that this is a genocide are closely following (if watching Russian, Chinese, Iranian and Palestinian propaganda on social media can be called closely following), thus the outrage. Most people have been isolated from the horrors of war, most, including on the Lemmyverse, have no idea how to process what's going on, most have no idea about international law concerning warfare, shouting ignorantly that every single conventional act of war is automatically a war crime, provided it's Israel who is doing it - and almost all people are completely blind to the wider geopolitical behind the scenes game that is at play here.

Just to name one aspect that I've rarely seen discussed, isn't it odd that South Africa of all countries filed the frivolous lawsuit against Israel at the ICJ while at nearly the exact same time hosting Hamas and war criminals who have been far more credibly accused of committing genocide? This can only be partially explained by at best dubious historic analogies and past connections with the PLO.

Note that I'm not denying that individual Israeli soldiers are committing war crimes. Of course that's happening and they should be punished for it. Settler crimes are a huge issue as well and the Israeli state needs to come down hard on these people - but what these individuals with at most tacit approval from parts of the government are doing is at worst attempted displacement. I'm not denying the abhorrent conditions civilians in the Gaza strip are suffering from due to the war, but as the successful evacuation corridor created for Palestinian civilians and defended by the IDF against Hamas attacks has shown, there is a clear and obvious divide between this almost comically evil fictional IDF that people have invented and the actual actions of it as an organization, between it and Hamas.

What I am extremely doubtful of is that there is a deliberate and systematic campaign of extermination against the Palestinian people. It just doesn't add up. I've studied several real genocides and the patterns that unite all of them are completely different from this war. There is no legal disenfranchisement of Palestinians living in Israel - in fact, the opposite has happened in recent years. There is no drop in birth rates, like we are seeing in Xinjiang among the Uyghurs, with the Palestinian population growing at a far greater rate than Israel's and consistently so. There is no systematic dehumanization of Palestinians in Israeli media and education - at worst some far-right individuals are saying deplorable things which do not represent the consensus within Israeli society. An army committing genocide does also not spend an inordinate amount of resources on warning systems for civilians they are allegedly trying to exterminate. Why would they send flyers and text messages, call, hack TV stations, provide websites with info on which areas are less dangerous and even invent the costly and to the Israeli military detrimental warning method of roof-knocking if they were trying to kill as many Palestinians? It doesn't make any sense.

One aspect that surprised me about this conflict is just how easily well-meaning people can be programmed to repeat a small handful of propaganda talking points, a frightening spectacle to witness during the ramp-up of a major war in Asia and a series of defeats for Ukraine. It's one thing to witness similar patterns among far- and alt-right people who have no principles - but more left-leaning people usually do (I should know), which makes us particularly impervious to changing opinions that we believe are based on the moral high ground.

The effect of a combined disinformation campaign by Russia, Iran and China are practically overwhelming the West, at least in part with the help of the shockingly effective Trojan Horse that is TikTok. You wouldn't believe how frequently I've come across the exact same "75 years of Israeli occupation" and other false and misleading sound bites. This one in particular has become such a meme that nobody is even updating it to the current year - and nobody who is blindly spouting it has even heard of Egyptian and Syrian occupation of Palestine (one of my least favorite interactions involved educating and Egyptian about this, which went back and forth a few times, until he doubled down on his denial of Egyptian occupation and declared that the entirety of Wikipedia was Western propaganda"), but I digress. It's the same with the genocide allegations, which few people I've come across are even trying to suppor

Count042, (edited )

Ah, a wall of text. A typical attempt to imply nuance where none exists.

In contrast: Any government that intentionally withholds food, medicine, and potable water to a population it considers undesirable is a government intentionally committing genocide.

It’s a lot simpler when you aren’t trying to justify or explain the indefensible.

Now on to pointing out the errors that are so egregious they prove you’re either arguing in bad faith/lying, or unbelievably ignorant.

I also don’t think this is a genocide. It’s “merely” the most televised (the word that would have been used in the past) war in history, one that overshadows far worse conflicts like the Sudanese Civil War in our public consciousness. The war in Gaza is the first war most people who are claiming that this is a genocide are closely following (if watching Russian, Chinese, Iranian and Palestinian propaganda on social media can be called closely following), thus the outrage. Most people have been isolated from the horrors of war, most, including on the Lemmyverse, have no idea how to process what’s going on, most have no idea about international law concerning warfare, shouting ignorantly that every single conventional act of war is automatically a war crime, provided it’s Israel who is doing it - and almost all people are completely blind to the wider geopolitical behind the scenes game that is at play here.

This is very televised, but that has nothing to do with the fact people care. It has far more to do with the wide diaspora of the Palestinian people, caused by Israel ironically enough. I’m not going to respond to the stupid attempts and pathetically obvious attempts to imply contradictory evidence is simply propaganda of other states. Come on, I expect better propaganda from genocide justifiers. But yes, this is more televised then the genocide against Yemen, and the criminally ignored genocide of the Tigray.

Just to name one aspect that I’ve rarely seen discussed, isn’t it odd that South Africa of all countries filed the frivolous lawsuit against Israel at the ICJ while at nearly the exact same time hosting Hamas and war criminals who have been far more credibly accused of committing genocide? This can only be partially explained by at best dubious historic analogies and past connections with the PLO.

It isn’t odd at all to anyone with even a smidgen of historical knowledge. The ANC justifiably hates the Israeli government, who continued to trade with Apartheid South Africa when no one else in the world would. The Israelis did this even up to providing weapons to a white supremacist nation that they knew would use it to kill black people that wanted to be treated equally. There is even some evidence (Though not enough for it to be a certain thing) that the Apartheid South African government assisted the Israelis with testing their nuclear weapons as part of a quid pro quo. I like how you call the very pertinent historical aspects dubious without explaining it or justifying it. It makes it sound like you know what you’re talking about while also actually avoiding the topic. You’re not the individual that gets to decide what is dubious or not.

Note that I’m not denying that individual Israeli soldiers are committing war crimes. Of course that’s happening and they should be punished for it. Settler crimes are a huge issue as well and the Israeli state needs to come down hard on these people - but what these individuals with at most tacit approval from parts of the government are doing is at worst attempted displacement. I’m not denying the abhorrent conditions civilians in the Gaza strip are suffering from due to the war, but as the successful evacuation corridor created for Palestinian civilians and defended by the IDF against Hamas attacks has shown, there is a clear and obvious divide between this almost comically evil fictional IDF that people have invented and the actual actions of it as an organization, between it and Hamas.

Holy shit, there is a lot of evil in here to unpack.

I’m going to ignore the bit about the settler violence because I know that the only reason you’re even willing to admit it (though you choose to use the morally vague term ‘attempted displacement’ even though the more commonly, correctly villianized term would be ethnic cleansing.) is that you and I both know that it is explicitly government policy, and you can’t even pretend it isn’t. Instead you imply that the government is doing something, if only not enough, with that whole ‘the Israeli state needs to come down hard on these people’ bit. Instead of, you know, recognizing that the IDF goes with the settlers to ensure their safety while they commit pogroms.

The phrase ‘successful evacuation corridor’ while implying it was Hamas militants attacking the population, instead of acknowledging the extremely well documented habit of the IDF bombing the routes they publicized as safe is morally disgusting even more then I thought would be possible from your previous obvious lies.

What I am extremely doubtful of is that there is a deliberate and systematic campaign of extermination against the Palestinian people. It just doesn’t add up. I’ve studied several real genocides and the patterns that unite all of them are completely different from this war. There is no legal disenfranchisement of Palestinians living in Israel - in fact, the opposite has happened in recent years. There is no drop in birth rates, like we are seeing in Xinjiang among the Uyghurs, with the Palestinian population growing at a far greater rate than Israel’s and consistently so. There is no systematic dehumanization of Palestinians in Israeli media and education - at worst some far-right individuals are saying deplorable things which do not represent the consensus within Israeli society. An army committing genocide does also not spend an inordinate amount of resources on warning systems for civilians they are allegedly trying to exterminate. Why would they send flyers and text messages, call, hack TV stations, provide websites with info on which areas are less dangerous and even invent the costly and to the Israeli military detrimental warning method of roof-knocking if they were trying to kill as many Palestinians? It doesn’t make any sense.

You obviously haven’t studied them at all, in that you make some very clear obvious mistakes. This is also the paragraph that makes me believe you’re being paid for this, also. First of all, the most common and efficient method of genocide that humanity has ever discovered is simply starvation. This is the most accurate easiest definition of genocide it is possible to use. I’ll state it again for others, since I know you won’t care: Any government intentionally withholding food, medicine, and potable water from a population it considers undesirable is a government intentionally committing genocide. By the by, this is actually a more stringent definition then the ICJ uses.

Secondly, I can’t even believe that you wrote out that there hasn’t been a decline in birth rates since Oct 7th. It’s also not true at all. Populations try to have as many babies as possible after a depopulation event. It’s one of the reasons that the Palestinian population was so young. To be clear, I’m not calling previous Israeli aggressions against Gaza attempted genocides But they definitely caused mass causalities. Also, the whole birthrate argument is always used by those trying to deny genocide, including the Nazis, and neo-nazis. You’re making this argument in company appropriate for what you’re trying to justify.

You also apparently didn’t even watch South Africa’s case before the ICJ. There absolutely has been an intentional campaign of dehumanization language, at every level of the government. Not only is this the most televised genocide ever, it’s also the most televised promotion of the intent to commit genocide ever. The Israeli government are basically bragging to the world of what they intend. The South African ICJ presentation gathered all the various statements for anyone curious, and that was quite a while ago, too.

They also didn’t do the whole stupid ‘roof knocking’ or cellphone hacking this go around. You’re trying to use past behaviors to hide the fact that the ROE was different this time around. This is also one of the things that makes me think you’re being paid for this bullshit. I’m actually engaging with your bullshit, however, because implying something is paid for propaganda so you can dismiss it is just a cowards way out. Also, as previously addressed. There are no safe routes, as the IDF airforce would intentionally bomb the routes the IDF provided. The fact you aren’t aware of this means you were either living in a bubble or are intentionally lying when you talk about safe routes. Also, it doesn’t help to publish that shit to a webpage for a population that doesn’t have power.

I’m ending this now due to a character limit. I’ll follow up on the last two paragraphs of your intentional genocide justification in another comment.

Count042,

One aspect that surprised me about this conflict is just how easily well-meaning people can be programmed to repeat a small handful of propaganda talking points, a frightening spectacle to witness during the ramp-up of a major war in Asia and a series of defeats for Ukraine. It’s one thing to witness similar patterns among far- and alt-right people who have no principles - but more left-leaning people usually do (I should know), which makes us particularly impervious to changing opinions that we believe are based on the moral high ground.

There isn’t any programming. Viewing opinions that differ from yours when public opinion turns against a country committing genocide is just a lazy way to attempt to dismiss even the possibility that people disagree with you.

Also, you’re apparently left-wing in the ‘scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds’ sense, and only in that sense.

The effect of a combined disinformation campaign by Russia, Iran and China are practically overwhelming the West, at least in part with the help of the shockingly effective Trojan Horse that is TikTok. You wouldn’t believe how frequently I’ve come across the exact same “75 years of Israeli occupation” and other false and misleading sound bites. This one in particular has become such a meme that nobody is even updating it to the current year - and nobody who is blindly spouting it has even heard of Egyptian and Syrian occupation of Palestine (one of my least favorite interactions involved educating and Egyptian about this, which went back and forth a few times, until he doubled down on his denial of Egyptian occupation and declared that the entirety of Wikipedia was Western propaganda"), but I digress. It’s the same with the genocide allegations, which few people I’ve come across are even trying to suppor

I didn’t have to say a goddamn thing about historical events (except for the South Africa bit) because IT DOESN’T MATTER to define genocide when it is happening now.

Because nothing justifies genocide, right?

geneva_convenience,
SeaJ,

I can see pushing to avoid the use of genocide and maybe even ethnic cleansing. But occupied territories? What the fuck else could they be considered?

And for the record, I think Israel’s actions are pretty clearly ethnic cleansing at the very least.

rottingleaf,

But occupied territories? What the fuck else could they be considered?

Well, annexation means giving citizenship, and occupation means avoiding that. By now these people apparently think they hold God by the beard and can avoid the reputational unpleasantness of calling occupation occupation too.

apfelwoiSchoppen,
@apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world avatar

And by UN official statements and standards adopted after the Holocaust: definitional genocide.

MrBusiness, (edited )

“”“”“settlers”“”“” I think is the term they’re using for the territories being taken. Meaning killing and running off current residents.

Cocodapuf,

“Settlers” is such a euphemism already. What would work better? Interlopers? Invaders? Thieves?

TokenBoomer,

Ryan Grim is doing great work.

Etterra,

The irritating truth is that the only way the media can reliably get the government to say anything is for them to play by the governments rules “guidelines.” If they start agroing the govt. they’ll get left out of the loop (or that particular reporter will be blacklisted) and there’s always somebody else willing to kiss ass to get ahead.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • news@lemmy.world
  • DreamBathrooms
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • Youngstown
  • mdbf
  • rosin
  • slotface
  • InstantRegret
  • khanakhh
  • Durango
  • kavyap
  • osvaldo12
  • tacticalgear
  • GTA5RPClips
  • megavids
  • ngwrru68w68
  • everett
  • tester
  • ethstaker
  • cisconetworking
  • cubers
  • modclub
  • provamag3
  • anitta
  • normalnudes
  • Leos
  • JUstTest
  • lostlight
  • All magazines