A 33-year-old Dutch woman has been killed in an explosion in Gaza. Islam al-Ashqar was visiting relatives at the Nusairat refugee camp in central Gaza and was one of 22 Dutch nationals the ministry was trying to help leave. Israel bombed the local evening market in the camp on Saturday night.
This happened two days ago and began being reported on yesterday, yet only Dutch sources are really commenting on it. And even those Dutch media sources seem to really be burying the lede on the fact that she was killed by an Israeli bombing run. Many of the articles are putting that fact at the end and equivocating it with “According to the Associated Press”.
Most of the headlines just say she died “in an explosion”, giving the implication Hamas was responsible.
I really don’t think anyone reads that Hamas bombed her. You’ll also see news will always say alleged, according to, etc until absolutely verified. That’s proper journalism.
“I really don’t think anyone reads that Hamas bombed her.”
I’ve got someone now doing that exact equivocation in the reply just above yours.
Where?
Hyperreality up above.
Will considering the hospital explosion appears to be a missile fired by Hamas instead of one by Israel, of which everyone initially reported, I think due process would be to be weary of any unverified report.
Or maybe the media learned not to point fingers until there’s better evidence after that whole hospital debacle where everyone picked up the story without verifying the details.
Except that the IDF acknowledges that they bombed the refugee camp market on Saturday. That’s not in question right now. The only hanging question is whether she was killed in that or died in some other way at the exact same time, according to the above article.
Original Dutch article cited in the English article above, translated with deepl:
So let’s go over your comments here:
Dutch media sources seem to really be burying the lede on the fact that she was killed by an Israeli bombing run. … that fact at the end
Not a verified fact.
and equivocating it with “According to the Associated Press”. … Most of the headlines just say she died “in an explosion”, giving the implication Hamas was responsible.
Not equivocating or implying anything. Engaging in good journalism. They weren’t there. They didn’t see it with their own eyes. They’re simply reporting on what they’ve been told. IDF says this. Hamas says that. Nothing more. That’s just your bias speaking.
If the IDF makes a claim, reporters shouldn’t report it as a fact. If Hamas makes a claim, they shouldn’t report it as a fact.
the IDF acknowledges that they bombed the refugee camp market on Saturday
Article says the IDF has not yet responded to inquiries. It is as yet unclear in which explosion the victim died.
What was the whole hospital “debacle?” Like I know the facts, there was a hospital that was hit by some kind of weapon. But the intention, and the who, is not exactly clear. So what are those two very important facts that the media got wrong?
I can’t remember the exact timeline of events, but early on it was reported and assumed to be IDF, while others claimed it wasn’t. Reports got walked back until there were more details, and now it’s generally agreed that it was probably a Hamas rocket that exploded or something.
So I think the press may just be a little more careful with how they portray things when there is only one source or they are reporting on what other news organizations are saying. You know - like they should be doing anyway.
To be fair the IDF have bombed many times more hospitals than Hamas ever could.
In Gaza, so that means the Israelis killed her with their bombs. They’re out of control those religious fucks
I really wish Israel would allow foreign nationals to leave Gaza.
I really wish Israel would stop fucking bombing civilians. Full fucking stop.
I think you accidentally a word.
Thanks. Fixed it.
Yeah, that would be cool too.
27 people upvoted you supporting Israel bombing civilians?
My mind inserted “stop” without me realizing.
You were correct.
Now 10. Reading compensation is apparently difficult
I had a typo. Fixed it. They comprehended the intent right (I hope)
I see what you did there
Typo, my dude. Sorry.
Lmao that makes more sense
deleted by creator
How is this newsworthy? One death of a Dutch person is grounds for an entire news article? When are the articles for everyone else killed in the crossfire / while engaged in conflict going to come.It sounds like a fallacy but where and why are we drawing this line?Edit: the original NOS article is not out of place, I just read it and its pretty typical. Why the secondary reporting? My issue is with “dutchnews.nl”
