That's what we were thought in school as well, but the actual history quite a bit more complicated than that.
Modern racial antisemitism and political Zionism were two modern political projects that grew from the same 19th century soil of nationalism and race theory. They did not agree with each other, but they converged, from opposite directions, on the same fundamental conclusion: that the Jewish people constituted a distinct, unassimilable national and racial body that could not coexist as equals within a European nation-state. Political Zionism did not adopt the idea of Jewish separateness from antisemites. It inherited this idea directly from traditional Judaism itself. The entire structure of Halakha (Jewish Law), with its dietary codes, Shabbat observance, and, most crucially, its powerful prohibition on intermarriage, was a system designed to maintain the Jewish people as a distinct, separate, and unassimilated nation in exile. This was the internal, self-defined jewish reality for millennia. Modern racial antisemitism took this existing reality of Jewish separatism and reframed it as a hostile, biological threat to the European nation-state.
The secular European Zionists looked at this situation and synthesized two ideas. Zionists accepted the traditional Jewish premise ("we are a separate people") and accepted the antisemite's practical diagnosis ("they will never accept us as equals"). They rejected both solutions, the religious passivity of waiting for a Messiah and the "liberal delusion"(as Zionists described it) of assimilation. Instead, they chose to take the existing identity of Jewish separateness and reforge it using the modern tools of European nationalism and colonialism. That's also why Zionists published scathing articles about assimilated jews whom they perceived as deluded, cowardly, and "self-hating" for trying to be part of a European society.
The leadership and foot soldiers of the early Zionist project in Palestine (1900s), were not suffering from the trauma of the Holocaust (it was decades before) and did not suffer from any meaningful antisemitism, which they also documented themselves ("the Palestinians are child-like and easy to befriend"). Zionist actions and attitudes were thus the direct, confident expression of 19th Century European settler colonialism, as evident in the writings of Herzl, Jabotinsky and co. Zionism was born in the same intellectual environment as the "Scramble for Africa" and the "White Man's Burden."
Their argument was not: "We are traumatized victims who need a safe space.", because if that had been the case they wouldn't have rejected the ugandan land they were offered - it was: "You Europeans have successfully conquered and colonized vast territories inhabited by inferior natives. We, as a superior European people currently without a state, claim the right to do the same thing as you". It was the logical, confident, and systematic execution of a European colonial project by a group that chose to see itself as a superior people with the right to displace and subjugate an indigenous population it viewed as inferior (i.e. the 'kushim' of Palestine). Those secular European atheist jews who, despite rejecting religion as superstitious and irrational, still saw value in it as essential myth-making tool to justify the dispossession of natives and legitimize their colonial zionist project by weaponizing those myths ("our God [which they as atheists didn't even believe in] promised this land to us") .
> The leadership and foot soldiers of the early Zionist project in Palestine (1900s), were not suffering from the trauma of the Holocaust (it was decades before) and did not suffer from any meaningful antisemitism
You're conveniently ignoring the Eastern European pogroms during the late 19th and especially early 20th century. Jewish immigration, in both number and origin, to Palestine not-so-coincidentally tracks the severity of the pogroms. And actually, during this time many times more Jews immigrated to New York than to Palestine. Immigration to Palestine didn't explode until the rise of Nazi anti-semitism.
Collective punishment is wrong. Full stop. Global civil society largely internalized this ethic, after millennia of accepting collective punishment as legitimate, in large part because of the experience of Jews in Europe. It's ridiculous to deny the history of how this norm came about no less than it is to deny that collective punishment has become the facial justification for Israel's war in Gaza.
You're conveniently imposing your misreading on that quote since it's clearly talking about the experiences of _those Zionists living in Palestine_ around 1900.
David Ben-Gurion was the founder of Israel and its first Prime Minister and he confirms that: "They are nearly all good-hearted, and are easily befriended. One might say that they are like big children." David Ben-Gurion in Igrot (Letters), Tel Aviv: Am Oved and Tel Aviv University, Vol. I, 1971
And how come those pogroms didn't make those Zionist-Jews more empathetic to suffering and persecution? Instead they had the exact same racist and supremacist attitudes as the europeans they were complaining about.
"The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes [kushim in Hebrew] and for those there is no value." - Weizmann, quoted by Arthur Ruppin in: Yosef Heller, Bama'avak Lamedinah , Jerusalem, 1984, p.140.
> The leadership and foot soldiers of the early Zionist project in Palestine (1900s), were not suffering from the trauma of the Holocaust (it was decades before) and did not suffer from any meaningful antisemitism
Ben-Gurion himself was witness to pogroms in Poland. Does one need to be murdered or violently attacked to "suffer antisemitism"?
Every group is capable of and, in fact, exhibits racist attitudes. Hannah Arendt observed and commented on the racial hierarchy among Jewish Israel's when attending the Eichmann trial, with the European immigrants having higher socio-economic status than the native, darker-skinned Jewish population. Jews are no different than any other group, ethnic or otherwise.
And, FWIW, Jews are hardly the only ethnic or religious (or mixed ethnic-religious) group which has maintained a distinct identity across millennia and within larger populations, or found itself displaced and then displacing others. In fact, the Middle East has many such groups. The insistence on distinguishing and rationalizing Jews as being peculiar in this and similar regards is a distinctively European cultural obsession, though many regions around the world have their own "Jews" that play this perpetual "other" cultural role.
Again, collective punishment is wrong[1]. Full stop. There's no need to build a complex, racist, colonial narrative as a way to characterize Jews, Israelis, or Zionists as the bad guy in the unfolding Gaza crisis. There's zero need to make recourse to centuries of history to deduce what's wrong with Gaza or even how it came about. The left's oppressor-oppressed modality perpetuates prejudiced, reductive, racist thinking no less than other modes of reducing people to caricatures, and in the end just an excuse to malign or elevate people on a whim. Zionists emigrating from Europe to Palestine to flee persecution... bad. Salvadorians and other populations chain migrating to the US to flee persecution or economic hardship... good. But these assessments can and will flip on a dime.
[1] At least in the modern Westernized ethos, though it seems this judgment re the legitimacy of collective punishment or collective blame is sadly, demonstrably precarious.
>Ben-Gurion himself was witness to pogroms in Poland. Does one need to be murdered or violently attacked to "suffer antisemitism"?
Poor old Ben-Gurion, he "suffered so much from antisemitism" in europe that it turned him into a bloodthirsty racist colonialist who had to engage in a bit of ethnic-cleansing and mass-murder of kushim as therapeutic treatment.
>And, FWIW, Jews are hardly the only ethnic or religious (or mixed ethnic-religious) group which has maintained a distinct identity across millennia and within larger populations, or found itself displaced and then displacing others. In fact, the Middle East has many such groups. The insistence on distinguishing and rationalizing Jews as being peculiar in this and similar regards is a distinctively European cultural obsession,
That's not a "European cultural obsession", it's literally just Jewish Law (Halakha). It's also what Zionist-Jews themselves relentlessly weaponize as myth making tool to justify their occupation of Palestine and to make themselves immune to any criticism, even while committing Genocide.
>Jews are no different than any other group, ethnic or otherwise.
Jews would disagree with you on this, their whole claim to the land and justification for colonization and occupation of Palestine rests on that notion of being different, being the "chosen people" which perfectly aligns with the supremacist zionist ideology which had no qualms about ethnically-cleansing Palestine from those they classified as inferior kushim. ("The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes [kushim in Hebrew] and for those there is no value." - Weizmann, quoted by Arthur Ruppin in: Yosef Heller, Bama'avak Lamedinah , Jerusalem, 1984, p.140.)
>There's no need to build a complex, racist, colonial narrative as a way to characterize Jews, Israelis, or Zionists as the bad guy in the unfolding Gaza crisis.
"There's no need to build a complex, racist, colonial narrative as a way to characterize Aryans, Germans, or Nazis as the bad guy in the unfolding Dachau crisis."
>The left's oppressor-oppressed modality perpetuates prejudiced, reductive, racist thinking no less than other modes of reducing people to caricatures, and in the end just an excuse to malign or elevate people on a whim. Zionists emigrating from Europe to Palestine to flee persecution... bad.
"The left's oppressor-oppressed modality perpetuates prejudiced, reductive, racist thinking no less than other modes of reducing people to caricatures, and in the end just an excuse to malign or elevate people on a whim. Nazis emigrating from Europe to Poland to flee persecution... bad."
> The leadership and foot soldiers of the early Zionist project in Palestine (1900s), were not suffering from the trauma of the Holocaust (it was decades before) and did not suffer from any meaningful antisemitism
I might be misreading you here, but it really sounds like you're claiming that antisemitism began and ended with the Third Reich. You're aware that's not the case, right?
I'm clearly specifying a subset of Zionist-Jews in a specific location at a specific time "The leadership and foot soldiers of the early Zionist project *in Palestine* ..." and the crucial part which you simply dropped in your quote "which they also documented themselves [i.e. their experiences with the natives of Palestine] ("the Palestinians are child-like and easy to befriend")"
I honestly don't get how one can read that sentence and come to that conclusion, but at least you already suspected yourself of misreading
that seems to be the abridged version, the exact quote I found says:
"They are nearly all good-hearted, and are easily befriended. One might say that they are like big children." David Ben-Gurion in Igrot (Letters), Tel Aviv: Am Oved and Tel Aviv University, Vol. I, 1971
The problem is your comment doesn't make much sense unless you come to the conclusion I did - who cares if they weren't traumatized by the Holocaust specifically (of course they weren't!) if they were instead traumatized by, say, pograms?
They were so "traumatized" that they became racist and supremacist?
"The British told us that there are some hundred thousand negroes [kushim in Hebrew] and for those there is no value." - Weizmann, quoted by Arthur Ruppin in: Yosef Heller, Bama'avak Lamedinah , Jerusalem, 1984, p.140.
Interesting behavior. One would assume that those horrible pogroms would have thought those Zionist-Jews the value of empathy, but they just seem to have taken it as instruction manual and have been applying it themselves for almost a century now.
The question of whether you can find third-hand (or even first-hand) accounts of Zionists saying or doing bad things doesn’t really have any bearing on the question of to what extent Jews faced persecution, or to what extent that persecution motivated the Zionist project.
Incidentally, the idea that persecution or trauma necessarily makes a person (or a people!) better is flatly untrue; anyone familiar with psychology knows that. And, after all, we can find lots of examples of Palestinians doing bad things too.
>The question of whether you can find third-hand (or even first-hand) accounts of Zionists saying or doing bad things doesn’t really have any bearing on the question of to what extent Jews faced persecution, or to what extent that persecution motivated the Zionist project.
True! Zionism was clearly a white supremacist colonial project inspired by european nationalism in teaching and writing either way.
>Incidentally, the idea that persecution or trauma necessarily makes a person (or a people!) better is flatly untrue; anyone familiar with psychology knows that. And, after all, we can find lots of examples of Palestinians doing bad things too.
Also true! Similarly, Norman Finkelstein describes in "The Holocaust Industry"[1]: "that the American Jewish establishment exploits the memory of the Nazi Holocaust for political and financial gain and to further Israeli interests. According to Finkelstein, this "Holocaust industry" has corrupted Jewish culture and the authentic memory of the Holocaust". Zionists pumped out Hollywood movie after movie to lecture the world on how their tribe's oppression has been so uniquely evil, just to turn around and oppress others in the exact same way once they gained power.
I lost 3 great uncles in WW2, one lost his mind to PTSD and drink, and my grandfather came back a different human forever changed. That they fought and died fighting Nazis only for America to adopt and support ethnonationalist fascism is beyond my comprehension and tolerance.
Interestingly you only picked the latest ones and even those still contain bias. The evidence needs to be analyzed holistically, from start to finish. BBC consistently used passive voice when it comes to Palestinian deaths like "20 Palestinians 'died' in Airstrike" which can appear "non-biased" but becomes clearer when compared to proper headlines like "20 Palestinians, including children, were killed in an ISRAELI Airstike"
"Instead, the report says, the BBC’s coverage has involved the systematic dehumanisation of Palestinians and unquestioning acceptance of Israeli PR. This has allegedly been overseen by BBC Middle East Editor and apparent Binyamin Netanyahu admirer, Raffi Berg, who is accused by anonymous journalists of “micromanaging” the section."
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/bbc-impartiality-trust-isra...
"Instead, the report says, the BBC’s coverage has involved the systematic dehumanisation of Palestinians and unquestioning acceptance of Israeli PR. This has allegedly been overseen by BBC Middle East Editor and apparent Binyamin Netanyahu admirer, Raffi Berg, who is accused by anonymous journalists of “micromanaging” the section." - https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/bbc-impartiality-trust-isra...
"Comprehensive new research finds the BBC coverage of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza is systematically biased against Palestinians and fails to reach standards of impartiality.
Analysis of more than 35,000 pieces of BBC content by the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) shows Israeli deaths are given 33 times more coverage per fatality, and both broadcast segments and articles included clear double standards. BBC content was found to consistently shut down allegations of genocide." - https://novaramedia.com/2025/06/16/bbc-systematically-biased...
The tagline is "As many question BBC’s coverage, three academics tell openDemocracy why they don't think the broadcaster is impartial", which I think sums up the article accurately. That doesn't seem to add much aside from proving that there are outsiders (impartial or biased, we don't really know) that agree with one side. It shouldn't be surprising that with any culture war issue, than you can find some academics to be on your side.
Skimming the article, the methodology used is very questionable. For instance:
>Despite Gaza suffering 34 times more casualties than Israel, the BBC ran almost equal numbers of humanising victim profiles.
If you think 1 death = 1 coverage, then clearly BBC is biased. However, 1 death = 1 coverage is clearly not how anyone expect the media should operate. How many people die in civil wars in Sudan or Congo, compared to how much coverage are they getting? Does that mean the BBC has a anti-Sudan bias? Moreover should each death really merit equal coverage? Would it be biased if BBC ran more pieces about the sad plight of Ukrainian soldiers compared to Russian soldiers?
>It was also found to have attached “Hamas-run health ministry” to Palestinian casualty figures in 1,155 articles – almost every time the Palestinian death toll was referenced across BBC articles.
Why is this an issue? In the Russsia-Ukranie war for instance, if you cite casualty figures from Russia, it's pretty obvious that it's from the Kremlin. The Gaza Health Ministry is actually Hamas run, and that fact isn't readily apparent.
There are other serious allegations made in that piece that I don't have expertise to comment on, but the above two snippets don't inspire much confidence.
>>It was also found to have attached “Hamas-run health ministry” to Palestinian casualty figures in 1,155 articles – almost every time the Palestinian death toll was referenced across BBC articles.
> Why is this an issue? In the Russsia-Ukranie war for instance, if you cite casualty figures from Russia, it's pretty obvious that it's from the Kremlin. The Gaza Health Ministry is actually Hamas run, and that fact isn't readily apparent.
Hamas is the legitimate government of Palestine. "Health Ministry" would be just as accurate and much less biased than "Hamas-run Health Ministry". The implicit accusation of bias against them by emphasizing the identity of the source is also extremely glaring when put into context; nearly every outside observer that's not an Israeli or US government organization to analyze the data and numbers has come to the conclusion that the "Hamas-run Health Ministry"'s number are an undercount.
They might have defacto control, but most countries don't recognize Hamas as the "legitimate government".
>Hamas is the legitimate government of Palestine. "Health Ministry" would be just as accurate and much less biased than "Hamas-run Health Ministry". The implicit accusation of bias against them by emphasizing the identity of the source is also extremely glaring when put into context; nearly every outside observer that's not an Israeli or US government organization to analyze the data and numbers has come to the conclusion that the "Hamas-run Health Ministry"'s number are an undercount.
So if the BBC was covering the election in Venezuela, would it be "biased" to point out that the election results were from the "government controlled" electoral commission, and that it was packed with Maduro's cronies? After all, the electoral commission is probably the "legitimate" authority for counting votes, so why point out it's staffed by government cronies? Just say that the opposition claims that their guy won, but the electoral authority said Maduro won. End of story. Or is it only biased if the journalist thinks something fishy is going on (ie. the vote was rigged in favor of Maduro)? How would we adjudicate this? This just inevitably devolves into "if you support Israel then saying anything bad about them is bias, and if you oppose Israel then saying anything good about them is bias".
The current US administration was elected less than one year ago. Hamas was elected 19 years ago. By law they should have held another election in 2009, but they refused to hold that election and have refused to hold any other elections since. This would seem to raise some doubts as to their status as a legitimate elected government.
Yet, when was the last time 100+ concerned journalists penned a open letter saying that we needed more coverage of the genocide in Sudan? It's all good if it's some sort of principle that's being applied evenly, but it's pretty clear in the case of the Israel vs Palestine conflict, most people are invoking that principle are doing it only when it suits them.
Aside from the fact that nobody is lionizing a group in Sudan (vs say Israel), and so there's no direct comparison here?
One major difference that I see - though of course I can't speak for the journalists - is that my country and tax dollars are directly involved in this conflict. Every child who burns alive, every man woman and child raped in an Israeli camp, every doctor or medic killed by targeted drone or sniper fire is in a sense in my name. I'm not saying Sudanese political instability isn't impacted by western actions, but this conflict is very real for a lot of people because of a direct, material involvement.
Journalists maybe feel this way, too?
I do also think this is a pretty straightforward distinction, and suspect your bringing up a fundamentally different conflict to say something like "well you think Israeli deaths get too much coverage in this war, why do Sudanese deaths not get very much?" is weird and borderline disingenuous.
No. pointing out genocide, attacks that kill hungry or starving people trying to get food is not some special unusual mean thing. It's something that all decent peoples should be against. I'm against all attacks on the innocent. It doesn't need to be repeated, but I'll do it - I was against the attacks by Hamas on Israel too.
Even calling this genocide is biased. Going into a country to kill the people from it of a race, and then texting celebratory texts that you killed some of that race, and capturing people of that race, is at least attempted genocide, if not completed.
Retaliating to that to get your hostages back and to stop the endless attacks on your race is not genocide.
I do not agree. Unless this applies to European Jews then? They were not all killed. Some were captured, some were used as labor or for experimentation. Some started a new state! If a sustained campaign is not successful in killing every single individual, how many before you might call it a genocide? This is a poor metric. If the borders of a country are eliminated (first politically, then practically), alongside hundreds of thousands of deaths targeted by culture/location/race, and confiscation of their property, there has been a genocide as far as most of the world is concerned. These are elements of culture and they can only be recreated or replaced or lost to time.
> Retaliating to that to get your hostages back and to stop the endless attacks on your race is not genocide.
The retaliation sped up the ongoing genocide as a pretext. Each side has wrongs they are retaliating from. The hostages are a justification to do what was already an official state goal. Complete annexation of Palestine. Imagine if any US state (or country) was slowly swallowed by a neighbor encroaching with violent and disposable settlers, the violence would be the same. This is the state of modern warfare demonstrated repeatedly over the last 200 years. Further imagining there is a moral actor, is arbitrarily picking a side.
> Unless this applies to European Jews then? They were not all killed.
I didn't say anything about "not all killed". Please - all these silly distractions and fallacies permeate any attempts to discuss this. You're not talking to an avatar representing all the worst, easiest to counter arguments from the "other side". You're talking to a real person who is articulating a view.
Characterizing history is complicated. Going about the thought process as to how I've come to my views, from a base set of assumptions, is not silly. Good luck with whatever.
> However, 1 death = 1 coverage is clearly not how anyone expect the media should operate.
How often should the media report deaths? Each time a group of people die? Each time bodies are found?
> How many people die in civil wars in Sudan or Congo, compared to how much coverage are they getting? Does that mean the BBC has a anti-Sudan bias?
Are you familiar with the saying, “when a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, then does it make a sound”?
> Moreover should each death really merit equal coverage?
I would assume that an individual or a group of people that aspire towards neutrality, fairness, and humanitarian principles would treat one life as the same as another.
>> Our mission is "to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain".
>> The Charter also sets out our five public purposes:
>> 1. To provide impartial news and information to help people understand and engage with the world around them
>> The BBC should provide duly accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming to build people’s understanding of all parts of the United Kingdom and of the wider world. Its content should be provided to the highest editorial standards. It should offer a range and depth of analysis and content not widely available from other United Kingdom news providers, using the highest calibre presenters and journalists, and championing freedom of expression, so that all audiences can engage fully with major local, regional, national, United Kingdom and global issues and participate in the democratic process, at all levels, as active and informed citizens.
>> 2. To support learning for people of all ages
>> The BBC should help everyone learn about different subjects in ways they will find accessible, engaging, inspiring and challenging. The BBC should provide specialist educational content to help support learning for children and teenagers across the United Kingdom. It should encourage people to explore new subjects and participate in new activities through partnerships with educational, sporting and cultural institutions.
>> 3. To show the most creative, highest quality and distinctive output and services
>> The BBC should provide high-quality output in many different genres and across a range of services and platforms which sets the standard in the United Kingdom and internationally. Its services should be distinctive from those provided elsewhere and should take creative risks, even if not all succeed, in order to develop fresh approaches and innovative content.
>> 4. To reflect, represent and serve the diverse communities of all of the United Kingdom’s nations and regions and, in doing so, support the creative economy across the United Kingdom
>> The BBC should reflect the diversity of the United Kingdom both in its output and services. In doing so, the BBC should accurately and authentically represent and portray the lives of the people of the United Kingdom today, and raise awareness of the different cultures and alternative viewpoints that make up its society. It should ensure that it provides output and services that meet the needs of the United Kingdom’s nations, regions and communities. The BBC should bring people together for shared experiences and help contribute to the social cohesion and wellbeing of the United Kingdom. In commissioning and delivering output the BBC should invest in the creative economies of each of the nations and contribute to their development.
>> 5. To reflect the United Kingdom, its culture and values to the world
>> The BBC should provide high-quality news coverage to international audiences, firmly based on British values of accuracy, impartiality, and fairness. Its international services should put the United Kingdom in a world context, aiding understanding of the United Kingdom as a whole, including its nations and regions where appropriate. It should ensure that it produces output and services which will be enjoyed by people in the United Kingdom and globally.
> Would it be biased if BBC ran more pieces about the sad plight of Ukrainian soldiers compared to Russian soldiers?
Yes, it would be biased in the same way that the BBC runs more pieces about Ukrainian civilians than it does about Palestinian civilians. There are likely more published BBC articles about Ukrainian civilians with photographs, audio, video, and documents than there are about Palestinian civilians.
There is BBC staff reporting from Ukraine and/or with the help of Ukrainian media affiliates and Ukrainian sources.
A European news agency reporting more about a war in Europe than a war outside Europe is relevance bias, not a pro-Israel bias. I get more weather reports for my state than for outside it. That isn't a bias against the weather in Mexico by my local news.
I’ve read all three articles, and I skimmed them again quickly to verify that none of the three mention that “At least 78 Palestinians have been killed since the morning” like Al Jazeera does (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/7/8/live-israel...).
If the BBC is willing to publish 3 separate articles about recent developments in the Israel/Palestine conflict in the same day, then why does the BBC not also report the casualties of said conflict that happened on said day? Not even breaking news with reports of unknown casualties. Just nothing about it and no indication of anything having happened at all.
Your Al Jazeera link goes to a page that now states at 'least 95 Palestinians killed' but when I click the link next to that stat it takes me to an article that gives no numbers, no sources for numbers. I'm not sure why you would expect the BBC to publish something like that or why you hold that up to be good journalism?
I also find these live blog style news pages confusing. Scrolling down, I find the following
> Gaza death toll hits 95 as Khan Younis attack casualties rise
> At least 95 Palestinians have been killed as a result of Israeli attacks since dawn, hospital sources in Gaza tell Al Jazeera.
> According to Nasser Hospital in the southern part of the enclave, the death toll of the Israeli attack on the al-Mawasi area of Khan Younis that we reported on earlier has increased to seven people.
> Translation: A Palestinian boy injured in an Israeli bombing asks his sister for food as he is starving while he waits to receive treatment.
My reply still stands in that BBC still has made no visible attempt to report a story with any casualty figures for Gaza this day even though they did publish 3 other pieces of news concerning the conflict. Therefore, the "relevancy bias" does not apply to the BBC here because the BBC considers the conflict relevant enough to report on 3 times within 24 hours.
Why does the BBC not consider the daily toll of casualties in this very same conflict sufficiently relevant to report on?
No "preliminary estimates on this breaking story"?
Looks like we reached the message reply limit, so I am replying here.
Pasting again
> At least 95 Palestinians have been killed as a result of Israeli attacks since dawn, hospital sources in Gaza tell Al Jazeera.
> According to Nasser Hospital in the southern part of the enclave, the death toll of the Israeli attack on the al-Mawasi area of Khan Younis that we reported on earlier has increased to seven people.
We will have to agree to disagree if hospital sources and the Nasser Hospital are not sufficient.
What source would be sufficient?
This approach towards determining relevancy is what I meant by “if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, then does it make a sound” earlier.
Update:
> Dr Mohammed Saqr, the director of nursing at Gaza’s Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Younis, said he had personally witnessed countless mass casualty incidents in recent weeks.
> “The scenes are truly shocking – they resemble the horrors of judgment day. Sometimes within just half an hour we receive over 100 to 150 cases, ranging from severe injuries to deaths … About 95% of these injuries and deaths come from food distribution centres – what are referred to as the ‘American food distribution centres’,” Saqr said.
> On Wednesday, between 20 and 44 people were killed, according to officials in Gaza.
'doctors say hundreds' isn't a reportable real number though. That isn't an official number from a hospital. The reportable real numbers are from the Gaza Ministry of Health but those are cumulative numbers, not from the incident. This is basic journalism stuff that applies to every conflict, not BBC bias.
> However, 1 death = 1 coverage is clearly not how anyone expect the media should operate.
In armed conflict far away from the country in question, comparatively for each side, yes, both sides' deaths getting similar coverage is how one should expect the media to operate.
If Chile and Peru get into a war tomorrow, the expectation would absolutely be that coverage of deaths by the BBC would be similar for both.
>How many people die in civil wars in Sudan or Congo, compared to how much coverage are they getting?
The obvious key difference here is that in those wars both sides of those conflicts do still tend to get similar coverage per death; which is almost none. At the very least there's not orders of magnitudes difference. Not sure how you missed this, but it doesn't inspire much confidence.
> Would it be biased if BBC ran more pieces about the sad plight of Ukrainian soldiers compared to Russian soldiers?
No, as Russia is a reasonable threat to the UK whereas Hamas is clearly not.
Anyone who call it "Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza" is hardly a reliable source.
And the entire criticism is amount of coverage per death? I men the Israeli deaths have names attached to them and you can verify them, the Palestinian ones are just numbered by Hamas. Obviously the coverage will be different.
I skimmed the article by CfMM and it's hardly a neutral source. Like they complain that BBC doesn't call Palestinian prisoners hostages. Well obviously they don't them them that, because they aren't hostages.
The Palestinian dead have names too, and it doesn’t take much to verify them.
Beyond the deaths, the hostages taken by both sides are exactly that: hostages. Why do you suggest Palestinian prisoners are not? What makes you think anything akin to “due process” is happening in Gaza right now?
> Why do you suggest Palestinian prisoners are not?
A hostage is taken randomly to force the other party to do something. The Palestinians arrested were arrested because of a specific reason pertaining to them, some have been tried in court, some have not, but none were taken randomly.
You can call some of them prisoner of war, but of course those would be combatants, and again they were taken because they were fighting.
None were taken randomly, so none are hostages.
> akin to “due process” is happening in Gaza right now?
I'm not surprised you are getting basic information wrong, most Palestinians activists know almost nothing about Palestine or Gaza. To give you a correction the prisoners we are talking about were arrested in the West Bank, not Gaza.
It doesn't matter if the the original cause for the war is just or not if the war involves mass slaughter of civilians, and concealing this fact is deeply unethical. This is true in all other cases that you mention - whether civilians are targeted by the West and its allies in the war against ISIS, or by Ukraine in the war against Russia, that should all be covered objectively, not suppressed.
Separately from that, you seem to be conflating Hamas with Palestinians in general. Most people killed by Israel in Gaza are not Hamas.
There is no other way to fight this sort of war. What you are saying is that Israel should just surrender because it has no way to fight the militants who are embedded with civilians and civilian infrastructure and the other specific situation of this conflict.
This is not how war works from an international law perspective or otherwise. It's also not how ethics work. It is ethical and moral for Israel to defend its citizens against attack even at the cost of civilian lives on the attacking side. It is moral and ethical for Israel to use force to recover the hostages that were abducted on Oct 7th and to ensure its enemy can't keep attacking its civilians. No other country in the world would do anything different here.
Israel is not targeting civilians. Israel targets the enemy's military. The vast majority of situations where the media portrays Israel as intentionally targeting civilians Israel has a legal military objective. For example the media portrayed Israel as attacking the European hospital when the target was Muhammad Sinwar the head of Hamas in a tunnel by and under the hospital:
Anti-Israeli media basically just reports Israel attacking hospitals and so if that's where you get your news that might be the picture you get (e.g. 10's of millions of people consuming Al Jazeera content.)
I am not really conflating anyone with anyone. The facts of the story are:
- Hamas is the elected government of Gaza.
- Hamas ran and still runs portions of Gaza and exerts absolute control. Anyone going against it in any way is tortured and/or killed.
- Surveys show broad support amongst Gazans to attacking Israel and to Hamas. The precise numbers vary.
- Civilians were involved in the Oct 7th attacks, looting, killing etc.
- Civilians were also involved in holding Israeli hostages.
- Hamas intentionally blends the line between civilian and militant. A civilian grabs an RPG from a weapons stash, fires it, then becomes a civilian again. A civilian triggers a rocket to be fired at Israeli cities, from civilian infrastructure, and then becomes a civilian again. A civilian building has a tunnel exit where a civilian comes out of a tunnel, fires at Israelis, and then he and the building becomes civilian again. The entirety of the Gaza strip has been built for years to support this sort of warfare.
- To be clear this does not mean that uninvolved civilians are a military target but the civilians in Gaza, very much like civilians in other military conflicts, are impacted by wars and can't magically be removed from the conflict.
- The media seeks to decouple the idea of "Palestinians" (Gaza/Hamas civilians) from "Hamas" as another lever against Israel. This decoupling is mostly impossible. I.e. somehow Israel is responsible for the well being of the Gaza civilians and their government that started this war is not even in areas ruled by the Hamas government.
- Israel provides civilians with early warnings and a chance to evacuate, with areas that are designated as safer (and they are safer despite what the media tells you, just not perfect safety which is impossible in a war), and tries to minimize civilian deaths when going after militants embedded with civilians.
- Israel enables and provides aid to Gaza civilians despite not occupying the territory where they reside. This is mostly unheard of in modern war, e.g. Russia sending food to Ukraine or the other way around or the western allies sending food to ISIL. Hamas steals the food by force and resells it in the markets to raise money or hoards it to support its fighters. Again civilians are certainly impacted but the expectations from Israel here and pressure on it has no other war time precedent that I can think of. Again Israel is expected to wage war here like nobody else does. The media and the UN has been using words like famine and starvation from something like the second week of this long war, mostly as a weapon against Israel. I'm not sure what is a realistic expectation here from Israel and why e.g. when Egypt controlled their Gaza border during the beginning of the war there was no demand from Egypt to provide safe haven for civilians and/or to provide aid. Legally and morally Israel should be allowed to put a total siege on the northern Gaza strip as long as it has told civilians to evacuate and provided them a location in the south to do so - it has done both.
EDIT: So e.g. from news that just came out. Civilians were killed in Nuseirat in the central Gaza strip. The IDF says the target was a militant from the Islamic Jihad but the precision bomb used malfunctioned and fell 10's of meters away from the intended target killing civilians in the area.
It's an extremely dense urban area. Israel uses precision munitions. But they don't always hit their intended targets. Israel conducts dozens, sometimes hundreds, of strikes, a day against military targets.
What would you do if you are Israel? Give the Islamic Jihad and Hamas immunity because they are in civilian urban areas? Withdraw and let them run Gaza again?
"Comprehensive new research finds the BBC coverage of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza is systematically biased against Palestinians and fails to reach standards of impartiality.
Analysis of more than 35,000 pieces of BBC content by the Centre for Media Monitoring (CfMM) shows Israeli deaths are given 33 times more coverage per fatality, and both broadcast segments and articles included clear double standards. BBC content was found to consistently shut down allegations of genocide."
The self-described mission of the Centre For Media Monitoring is "Promoting Fair And Responsible Reporting Of Muslims And Islam", so they might be slightly biased...
According to your own logic I should not even bother providing any evidence when you can simply assume any organization to be biased based on identity alone instead of addressing the evidence they provide, like the BBC operates under a Royal Charter agreed upon with the britsh government, "so they might be slightly biased..."
"Instead, the report says, the BBC’s coverage has involved the systematic dehumanisation of Palestinians and unquestioning acceptance of Israeli PR. This has allegedly been overseen by BBC Middle East Editor and apparent Binyamin Netanyahu admirer, Raffi Berg, who is accused by anonymous journalists of “micromanaging” the section." - https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/bbc-impartiality-trust-isra...
Would you honestly accept a report by an Israeli think tank that came to the opposite conclusion? I feel like most people would be suspicious of such a report.
It's a good and necessary thing to become "radicalized" in order to prevent genocide and break out from the pacifying programming of the state. the state puts pressure on centralized social media companies to enact clever methods of censorship to pacify the masses for them. such companies might even just willingly self-censor in anticipation out of obedience or just plain uncritical acceptance of state department propaganda.
So the state and the ruling class produced a radicalization of the masses themselves where the status quo is to pretend that genocide is normal - a "zone of interest" type of effect is supposed to be part of what's "normal". While I agree with you that decentralization is not a silver bullet, because it can create pockets of echo chambers, it's still a good tool for communities to be independent from certain influences like from the state or corporate culture.
I'm not singling out this kind of radicalization, but any kind, including alt-right, qanon, etc.
I'd say that inaccessible bubbles become echo chambers of people screaming into the void. The point is the be visible and heard, and federation does the opposite.
The modus operandi of zionists is to use their propaganda to deflect from the facts that make Israel indefensible e.g. the fact that israel has systematically destroyed Gaza's health care system.
>So the side that dies more has the moral high ground in your opinion?
No the side that has been ethnically cleansed and colonized for 75+ years and made refugees in their own land have the moral high-ground. Palestinians have every right to resist to the evil they have been subjected to for almost a century.
I would say 75+ years of Zionist terrorism[1][2][3], ethnic-cleansing, apartheid, being locked up in a concentration camp. I mean you could have looked those up yourself but something tells me you just didn't care to look it up.
>something that would cause civilians on oct 7 join en masse a fest of rape
there is 0 evidence for "mass rape" on oct7, this has been debunked.
Every one of your accusations is a confession: "Israel: UN experts appalled by reported human rights violations against Palestinian women and girls."
“We are particularly distressed by reports that Palestinian women and girls in detention have also been subjected to multiple forms of sexual assault, such as being stripped naked and searched by male Israeli army officers. At least two female Palestinian detainees were reportedly raped while others were reportedly threatened with rape and sexual violence,” the experts said. They also noted that photos of female detainees in degrading circumstances were also reportedly taken by the Israeli army and uploaded online."
