Instead of “forced to reveal fate in sick video”
It should say what that fate is and, of course, provide an embedded video.
Edit after clicking article: No video, just some guy talking over images.
Downvoted for sensationalism.
For some comparison, here are the headlines from BBC:
“Israel Gaza war: Hamas video claims to show dead hostages”
… and Times of Israel:
“Hamas airs propaganda clip of hostages Noa Argamani, Yossi Sharabi, Itay Svirsky”
The Messenger’s headline is trash. It’s so sensationalized that I don’t even know what it’s talking about.
Anything from [email protected] is certain to be propaganda.
They’re a genocide supporter.
? The article clearly states, well, what the claim is.
The three of them were in a building bombed by the IDF, one died.
Another died in a later airstrike.
True? Seems unlikely given the source of the video and appearance if duress.
Eh. True or not, but Israel strikes without much care and Hamas is known to use hostages as shields. So I wouldn’t call it unlikely, just contextually kinda irrelevant. It’s a shit show and both sides try to get brownie points / make the other one look more inhumane than the other.
Media bias / fact check for The Messenger:
Overall, we rate The Messenger Right-Center biased based on story selection and editorial perspectives that moderately favor the right. We also rate them as Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to the use of poor sources, sensationalized content, and one-sided reporting.
So it’s false because Israel bombed the building they were in and killed them, or it’s false because Hamas released the video?
It could just be a shitty source.
Saying ‘forced to reveal fate’ instead of saying what that fate is, coupled with ‘sick video’ instead of letting viewers decide for themselves make this appear as sensationalism.
It’s also an article about a video that doesn’t show the video its reporting on.
Instead, we get some guy talking over images. Lol.
There’s a reason this isn’t AP Or Reuters.
This is what I don’t get here. Why the hell do people interpret this as if it’s spreading Israeli propaganda?
We know Hamas killed substantial number of innocent people and are keeping hostages.
We know these hostages are kept somewhere in Gaza.
We know Israel is bombing the shit out of Gaza, actively destroying civilian infrastructure.
What we learn from this is that Israel has indeed killed hostages in their indiscriminate bombing, that Hamas seem to be keeping hostages alive when they are not killed by Israeli bombs, and that being held hostage by Hamas in Gaza is still an awful situation to be in.
If this makes Hamas look bad it’s because they are bad.
If you think it makes Israel look good you’re sick in the head - this is triggered by them intentionally bombing Gaza until there’s nothing left.
If you’re upset that it makes a Jewish person look human then fuck right off you worthless piece of shit.
I’m upset because I’m Jewish and now I have to use a disclaimer “but fuck bibi”
At least we can now see more broadly who is and isn’t okay with what Israel’s government does. Not that this is exclusive to Bibi, the whole settler garbage has been going on for decades too and Israeli nationalism was also rising for quite some time before him.
I have to admit I’ve had this approach taking to Israelites for a while - I never felt comfortable in a conversation before having some sort of an indication of their political leaning. Israelites seem to often have a way of talking about things without talking about things, which usually makes it clear pretty quickly where they stand. I guess they also often feel a need to place themselves.
As for Jewish people living outside of Israel, I think the fact that they’ve all had a standing invitation to move to Israel and opted not to make use of it speaks for itself. Sure there are Bibi supporters, but that goes for Christians as well.
Still I see where you’re coming from of course. And I find it freaking terrifying to be honest.
The thing for me is I wanted to become a dual citizen because hey Israel is where my people are from why wouldn’t I want to but I was much younger and as I grew up I felt felt drive to do so. At first it was because I’m a pacifist and refused to join any military. Now I’m of age I can dodge that but I see what the country is doing and how could I in good conscience want to be a part of that?
So I’ll be a Jew and I’ll speak out against tyranny as I have and thus I speak out against the actions of the Israeli military and government. I’m not a fan of how Hamas acted before the start of this genocide but no matter how much I didn’t like that I can’t say Israel’s response is in any way justifiable. This is a slaughter of innocents and that is not Judaism as I know it. This is not what God would want us to do.
I think it’s not so difficult to understand the appeal, of course for those deeply religious who long back to Zion, but also to those who just long for a home country. I know old secular Jews who, before all this bullshit, was considering moving to Tel Aviv for their retirement because it felt more like home to them then the US, despite being American all their lives and despite being politically progressive and very much not on the Bibi side of things.
It’s a complicated situation now - on one hand I think it’s crucial that Jews should not feel the need to be apologetic or to constantly have to emphasize that they don’t represent a government they have nothing to do with. If that becomes the standard we’re already lost. On the other hand, people might need to hear it in order to understand Netanyahu is not some supreme leader of the unified Jews of the world, as too many people seem eager to believe.
Netanyahu is not some supreme leader of the unified Jews of the world
No, but he represents the political will and direction of politics in Israel. Far right parties dominate the political landscape in Israel, and Israeli political interests and money (which, ironically, is often coming from the US) is used to influence politics in the US, like passage of anti-BDS laws in nearly every state in the US.
It’s less trustworthy as a source because they’re using loaded terms in the article. The headline calls it a “sick video”, labels it as “propagandist”. Those are terms intended to provoke a reaction: ‘sick’ is an attempt to prime your reaction if you watch the video, ‘propagandistic’ is intended to make you distrust the intent behind the video.
An impartial journalist would’ve used different language or added sources. If I was writing the article, I would’ve called it a ‘new video’ or perhaps a ‘newly-released video’. I wouldn’t have used ‘propagandistic’ at all; the speculation on the intent behind it is adequately covered a few paragraphs later. If you were intent on calling it propagandistic, that wording should be credited to a specific person, preferably an Israeli government spokesperson or a high-ranking official.
Using loaded words should only ever be done in clearly labeled opinion columns or letters to the editor (although honestly, I’m against their presence even there); if used in a news article, they should only be used when quoting a person.
Objectively, I know that loaded words are going to be impossible to avoid: even describing someone as a ‘Hamas fighter’ vs a ‘Hamas terrorist’ is fraught, and don’t get me started on why civilians held by Hamas are ‘hostages’ while civilians held by Israel are ‘prisoners’. But simple, obvious terms designed to tell the reader how to feel about the news should absolutely be avoided.
Unreliable =/= false. Even heavily biased outlets usually get their facts straight, but editorial choices like whom to quote, how to frame events, and what stories to cover can absolutely give a wrong impression. Especially if the audience isn’t paying close attention.
You can take a fact like “two hostages were killed in an Israeli airstrike” and frame it as “look how indiscriminate the IDF bombings are” or “look how cowardly Hamas is”. Those are two very different stories, but neither are “false”.
Genuine fake news is pretty rare, unless the source is a random link from Xtwitter. Go fact check what you consider a heavily biased source and I think you’ll be surprised.
If their objective is “balanced journalism […] objective, non-partisan”, then they should stop using loaded terms in their news articles. Until that happens, I’ll consider them less reliable as a source.
Rattled your chain did it?
Noa Argamani, who was kidnapped from the Supernova Music Festival, said two other hostages were killed in Israeli airstrikes
In a Hostage video.
It’d be less credible if the IDF wasn’t shooting half naked hostages asking for help and waving white flags.
Accidents hardly seem less likely.
And, quite frankly, they’re probably better off as bombing collateral damage than a Hamas hostage Israel won’t trade for anyways.
Hamas hostage Israel won’t trade for anyways.
However, the Israelis already did trade for hostages. But not for those that live rent free in some folks minds.
I see, I see.
So Israel just wanted these ones dead then.
That or they ran out of Palestinian women and children to trade.
Wonder why they had them in the first place?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-west-bank/the-israel-hamas-prisoner-swap
Well Hostage blaming is one way to go I guess.
I think you’ll find I’m actually Bibi blaming, because he wanted this all to happen to cement his fascist rule, and he doesn’t care how many people die to do it.
He doesn’t want all the hostages, he needs excuses, just like how Bush refused the Taliban turning over Osama Bin Laden for a ceasefire.
Bibi will be out the door when the shooting stops.
The Taliban never had bin Laden to hand over.
There are 22 comments in the counter until the link but I only see one.
The only positive here is she is still alive.
Removed by mod
This is a disgusting attempt to excuse terrorism and victim-blame innocent hostages.
Removed by mod
Military service is compulsory in Israel. You might as well call all Vietnam veterans terrorists and revel in their capture. Absolutely sickening take.
You can take the 30 days in prison instead, and many do. If you know that military service involves being an occupying force (as opposed to just dicking around with guns like in other countries), the moral choice is to do the 30 days.
I have so much more respect for anyone who burned their draft card than anyone who has ever served in any military in human history.
Congrats on that smug sense of superiority. Maybe this is not the place for it.
Lol excellent point. I’m glad you sensed the inherent superiority of my position. But I’ll go ahead and spew anti fascism anywhere I like thanks.
Spew all you like but remember who defends your right to do it.
Oh fuck we went too edgy turn back turn back!
Removed by mod
There’s no good guys here
Removed by mod
All Noa Argamani did was begged for her life.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Not everyone can opt to spend a year in prison to avoid military service. That’s some champagne socialist shit.
Flee the country then? Pretending that agreeing to become a murderer for hire / geunie pig / cannon fodder is somehow more agreeable because of long term financial impacts is straight out of a lucky duck comic.
Tell me more about your fully paid liberal arts degree.
Removed, rule 6, antisemitism. 24 hour ban.
No part of what they said was antisemitic.
It was anti Israeli, please don’t conflate the two.
“They can reject serving in the IDF for spending one year in jail.
I think I’d rather spend my time in jail than be a terrorist. But hey, I have morals. Not a lot of Israelis have them.”
That is what they said and they don’t even come close to mentioning jews
This reaction is exactly what Israel wants. For anti-zionist and anti-israeli views to be equated to anti-semitism, and to be censored as such.
So you have no proof. Guess your justification just doesn’t work.
Citation
Citation
Her blood is impure, that makes her one of The Oppressors who Deserves It. /s
Removed by mod
If you’re going to whaddabout like this, then what about the US and Canada? They are occupied territories. But instead of a timeline of almost 1 century, it’s a timeline of a few centuries. Where do we draw the line? Or should the US and Canada be giving back their territory?
You’re blaming a victim here based on the circumstances of her birth.
Or hey, when we’re in that territory, should white Americans be personally responsible for slavery? Any problems a white American experiences should be written off, and have them described with “(who is an oppressor)”?
Your comment is in terribly poor taste.
Or should the US and Canada be giving back their territory?
They should be doing more than they’re doing for Native Americans now, that’s for sure.
The problem is with these kinds of ‘great thinkers’ is that their answer is inevitably “Yes” to all of those questions, because their entire worldview is based off the premise that certain people and groups are inherently bad and other people and groups are inherently good.
