Yoko, Shinobu ni, eto… 🤔
עַם יִשְׂרָאֵל חַי Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦 ❤️ 🇮🇱
[cites mondoweiss]
Their MBFC rating: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/mondoweiss/
Even Wikipedia consider that Nazi Hamas outlet biased and opinionated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Be better.
So sick of hearing how bad October 7th was.
You have to thank the 10/7 truthers for that. For those tinfoil hat folks “nothing happened on October 7th”, “there was no rape”, “Hamas are heroes”, and we have many, many of these 10/7 deniers on Lemmy that are amplifying the disgusting “believe all women, except Israelis”. It is important to remind that the rapes happened, that Hamas is not a “resistance movement” but merely a bunch of rapists and terrorists, and most importantly that rape is not resistance.
You’re grasping at straws, you clearly didn’t read the article (and don’t want to), so I quote the relevant passage for you as you seem to only have read the headline:
When asked whether there was evidence of other antisemitic phrases being used at the rally, Lanyon said “certainly”.
That + repeating “where’s the Jews” during a rally immediately 2 days after Hamas’ killings and mass rapes on October 7th is definitely indefensible and certainly is incompatible with how you want it to be interpreted.
You hoped that this article would be a gotcha moment but you seem to not have read anything beyond the headline, because the article is actually still pretty damning.
"As a result of that examination, the expert has concluded with overwhelming certainty that the phrase chanted during that protest, as recorded on the audio and visual files, was “Where’s the Jews?” he said.
“Not another phrase, as otherwise widely reported.”
When asked whether there was evidence of other antisemitic phrases being used at the rally, Lanyon said “certainly”.
“There is evidence of that, and those are offensive and completely unacceptable,” he said.
“But I think the major contention has been about the phrase that was chanted, and quite emphatically, our expert has said that it is 'Where’s the Jews?'”
Thank goodness, “where’s (sic) the Jews” instead of “gas the Jews”, just two days after the Oct 7 killings and mass rapes by Hamas, definitely makes it much better /s
I dare him to send some money to Hamas accounts and see whether his position that Hamas “isn’t a designated terrorist entity” still stands
Hamas is not a designated terrorist organization
It is:
is downvoted to shit
You should take those counts with a grain of salt, and they shouldn’t mean anything in principle since we have no Karma here. I caught someone making two accounts just yesterday to downvote everything on my profile. Lemmy has a clear vote manipulation problem and some are clearly weaponizing it to try to hide some stories from those who filter by “Hot”, like for instance this story which literally got censored by the bot downvotes: https://lemmy.world/post/10789603
It’s not when they themselves require “the fulfilment of two cumulative criteria: a person must require medical care and must refrain from any act of hostility”.
Again, since you’re fully confident in this, go ask the journal to retract the article I linked to. Show them how they should read the Geneva Convention, that it “shouldn’t be a debate” and that it shouldn’t even require an article.
One with Hamas, the two others with Islamic Jihad. So yes, that makes three terrorists.
Patients in hospitals, either ill or injured, are a protected class under the Geneva Conventions.
Again, not a clear-cut issue. You cannot extrapolate a few lines from the Geneva Convention with your own definitions of what constitutes a “patient”. So again, since this misinformation is being repeated, I find it only fair to quote a few passages on why that is, at least, debatable and why it is still indeed very important to add that the 3 killed were terrorists, were carrying guns and were planning a terrorist attack.
The Geneva Convention provides guidelines for the medical treatment of enemy wounded and sick, as well as prisoners of war. However, there are no comparable provisions for the treatment of terrorists, who can be termed unlawful combatants or unprivileged belligerents.
(there wouldn’t be an article about it if it was an obvious question: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19998085/ , you should contact that journal and ask them to retract that article since you seem to say that they’re wrong)
Qualifying as wounded or sick in the context of international humanitarian law requires the fulfilment of two cumulative criteria: a person must require medical care and must refrain from any act of hostility. In other words the legal status of being wounded or sick is based on a person’s medical condition and conduct.
(https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-12/commentary/2016 )
Being an active terrorist member of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, carrying at least one gun, planning a terrorist attack, and very likely committing perfidy by hiding as civilian patients in a hospital, all of that is certainly NOT “refraining from any act of hostility”. You’re free to consider the more general moral debate on whether it’s okay to assassinate terrorists hiding in a hospital, but it’s wrong and misleading to make the Geneva Convention say what it clearly doesn’t say at all.
What would have clearly defended the terrorists’ right to care would have been if they surrendered and left Hamas. But in the absence of that, it’s, at best, still debatable whether the First Geneva Convention defends those terrorists’ right to hide as civilians in a hospital to “receive care” or not.
With all this said, yes, it is very much indeed misinformation to maliciously leave out the fact that the 3 killed were Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists.
When you’re in a hospital bed you are de facto refraining from any act of hostility. They aren’t active combatants in a hospital room no matter how much the IDF would like you to believe that.
Conveniently ignoring this doesn’t make your point true: being part of a terrorist organization that just committed a massacre on Oct 7 and is still holding hostages, planning a terrorist attack and carrying a gun are certainly NOT “refraining from any act of hostility”.
Your point would have been defensible if those three terrorists 1- surrendered and left Hamas, 2- weren’t carrying arms (at least one of them was carrying a gun), 3- weren’t accused of planning another terrorist attack and 4- didn’t commit perfidy by hiding as civilian patients in the hospital. Still being active members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, with one of the three being a commander, IS an act of hostility.
Our two quotes aren’t in contradiction? Here’s what the first Geneva convention defines as “wounded or sick”:
Qualifying as wounded or sick in the context of international humanitarian law requires the fulfilment of two cumulative criteria: a person must require medical care and must refrain from any act of hostility. In other words the legal status of being wounded or sick is based on a person’s medical condition and conduct.
(https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gci-1949/article-12/commentary/2016 )
Being part of a terrorist organization that just committed a massacre on Oct 7 and is still holding hostages, planning a terrorist attack and carrying a gun are certainly NOT “refraining from any act of hostility”.
medical units, i.e. hospitals and mobile medical facilities, may in no circumstances be attacked.[5]
Irrelevant as no medical facility got attacked (okay, they’ll probably have to replace the bedding) and most importantly not a single civilian got harmed in the process.
Hospitals are OFF LIMITS
To terrorists too? Your oversimplification makes it seem like a clear-cut case when it’s not.
With the escalation of terrorism worldwide in recent years, situations arise in which the perpetration of violence and the defense of human rights come into conflict, creating serious ethical problems. The Geneva Convention provides guidelines for the medical treatment of enemy wounded and sick, as well as prisoners of war. However, there are no comparable provisions for the treatment of terrorists, who can be termed unlawful combatants or unprivileged belligerents.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19998085/
So yes, sorry to insist on it again but it does matter and it is important to detail that the 3 assassinated were terrorists, and yes it should be considered misinformation to maliciously leave that out.
Don’t complaint here
Isn’t that what you all did when I merely quoted the AlJazeera article to break your false implied narrative that the IDF killed 3 random civilians? Leaving important details out is misinformation. I added an important excerpt from the same article you linked to and you suddenly got “how dare you say they are terrorists”.
You’re confusing me with someone else, or trying to put words in my mouth.
I’m referring to how commenters on c/world have been referring to this as “IDF killed 3 Palestinians” today thanks to this misinformation campaign.
you want to try and control the narrative but that’s not how this works
That’s… false? I’m not the one actively leaving out the fact that the 3 killed were Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists, which the AlJazeera article even admits. And I’m not the one trying to bury this detail with downvotes to keep the false “IDF killed 3 random Palestinians” narrative alive a little longer.
You believe that no one should be assassinated like that, whether they are a terrorist or not, that’s perfectly fair. (so I suppose you hate the way the US assassinated Osama Bin Laden too?)
But then, why do you feel that the affiliation should not be brought up? You should test your beliefs and go ask on c/asklemmy: “Is it morally wrong to assassinate three Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists hiding in a hospital?”.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!)
No target can have a high enough value to justify committing a war crime over.
Then you shouldn’t have any issues with detailing that the three were Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists when you refer to this incident instead of maliciously saying “IDF killed 3 Palestinians”?
You’re beating around the bush here. Why is it so hard for you to include the excerpt? Remember, the rules in this community allow you to do that. Why is it hard for you to write “IDF killed 3 Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists” instead of “IDF killed 3 Palestinians” when you refer to this incident?
I believe that’s the Orangutan opening