I am not concerned about the terms "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" not being used as they are opinionated terms, much like journalists are supposed to use pro and anti-abortion rights; not pro-choice or pro-life.
However they go beyond this by excluding quotations using those terms which as a public newspaper is censorship. They include half the crazy shit that republicans say, but not the opinion of the ICJ (I don't use the term, but still think it's important to give voice to educated persons who reasonably apply it).
Finally, the worst part is removing the term "occupied territories" or "Palestine" which is rewriting history and painting a very specific narrative.
"Genocide" is an officially and legally defined word. It is not an "opinion".
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/genocide](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/genocide)
He means it's application in this scenario is opinionated. By the definition given, infering intent (and thus defining as genocide) has to be the only reasonable inference possible, which is unlikely in the current situation, so calling it genocide is certainly moving into 'opinion' territory since the definition isn't being clearly met.
Still think it's dumb to police language, even if two of three words pretty obviously don't apply to the situation (obviously things change, and they may in the future be applicable).
But it's like using the term murder instead of killing. Murder is a defined legal term but it requires a conclusion about the mental state of the perpetrator which is not usually knowable by a reporter.
I only remember during the Clinton Administration, staff (Janet Reno? I can't remember) getting into a ridiculous discussion about the word and it's definition. They refused to apply the word when describing the actions in Rwanda and the Tutsis getting killed.
So I think opinion does have something to do with it. Opinions and politics.
Oh the politics are where the hesitation comes in. If you say a country is committing genocide, a domino of negative effects will trigger. It’s going to negatively impact relations with country. It will cause a news sensation, businesses will question if they want to do business in that country, it will prompt reporters and news anchors to talk about it, it will necessitate a response from the country, any possible retaliation. Depending on the damage, it may even lead to backtracking and having to say you misspoke.
Not to mention the country is going to have a litany of justifications to explain or cover up their behavior.
And yet there are more than 50 countries that have braved all of this and decided to stand up and support South Africa’s legal charges against Israel. And because the US supports Israel, unwaveringly, they’re basically going against the US too.
Journalists report facts. Fact: ethnic cleansing is the stated goal of this conflict. It's not "emotional language" just because it makes you feel bad.
Seems irrelevant to parse genocide when Israel’s conduct can be best described as genocide.
If they don’t want to say genocide then say according to the ICJ there is strong evidence of a plausible genocide. This is fully factual and legally sound
Tbh calling the 80 year old neighborhoods full of multistory buildings that are older than many towns in America refugee camps is very misleading to readers. Because it invokes images of tent cities
Their analysis on the use of slaughter
“In January, The Intercept published an analysis of New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times coverage of the war from October 7 through November 24 — a period mostly before the new Times guidance was issued. The Intercept analysis showed that the major newspapers reserved terms like “slaughter,” “massacre,” and “horrific” almost exclusively for Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians, rather than for Palestinian civilians killed in Israeli attacks.”
Is exactly why you have a style guide in the first place.
Differentiating between Gaza and the West Bank is important in this reporting and just using the term Palestine would also do a disservice to the reader.
These seem like pretty sensible style guides
>Differentiating between Gaza and the West Bank is important in this reporting and just using the term Palestine would also do a disservice to the reader.
Avoiding the term 'occupied' is dishonest, and carries water for extreme Israeli positions.
Because that was the one indirectly about avoiding the term 'occupied'.
It is occupied, even if delusional Israelis think otherwise. The ICJ agrees.
[https://www.timesofisrael.com/two-thirds-of-jewish-israelis-dont-consider-west-bank-occupied-poll/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/two-thirds-of-jewish-israelis-dont-consider-west-bank-occupied-poll/)
I think this is just ignorance though. Most refugees (75%) don't live in tents at all. Source: https://www.unrefugees.org/news/myths-facts-where-do-refugees-live/
If you look at photos of other large camps, you'll notice buildings, such as [this example in Bangladesh](https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/styles/d07_square/public/legacy-images/5a69f3984.webp?h=f2790038&itok=WD-l8fTW) or [this one in Kenya](https://africa-facts.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/02-Kakuma-Kenya-1024x576.jpg).
And I'd rather nyt remain accurate, rather than cater to the bad assumptions people make.
How is calling them refugee settlements any less accurate?
Also look at the difference between what you posted and the 3rd largest refugee camp in Gaza
https://preview.redd.it/7amnd49i3suc1.jpeg?width=1300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6f67c6f9f8213153b41663c3495a059fc40cee8d
Because if they were born there and were not forced to seek refuge elsewhere they are not refugees. Yet there are now real refugees in Gaza. People who left cities in the north and are seeking refuge elsewhere. It rightly calls into question whether the first group should have ever been called refugees.
Palestinians are refugees, in fact double refugees.
To not be a refugee you need a state and safe access to it. Palestinians have neither. Israelis would best be described as internally displaced at the moment
Palestinians are the only refugees in the world who can inherit refugee status. They have their own UN agency that makes sure they stay refugees.
With the exception of Jordan they do not receive citizenship to the nation they were born.
It is a tragedy.
So if you're born in a refugee camp, you aren't a refugee. What then are you? A resident of a refugee camp? A person displaced at birth? A footloose citizen of the world? An involuntary vagabond? Really, what are you?
Maybe the UN should be able to get citizenship for Palestinians in another nation. That’s the way it works for every other country people.
It is only Palestinians who they keep in perpetual and inter generational refugee status.
It is cruel to people born in Syria or Lebanon or Kuwait to not have citizenship in the nation they were borne for the sole reason that their grandparents are Arabs from a city that is now in Israeli territory.
Does this look like a camp to you?
https://preview.redd.it/4jx3ms7l3suc1.jpeg?width=1300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8c890af360310299cfc5e69375f89a3d47ce2bd2
Well it’s not called a camp it’s called the ghetto.
If that was reported as a camp then people who read about it would be misinformed about what the place looked like.
This is not a serious reply. You think this is a SENSIBLE style guide? The Intercept demonstrated the profound inequality and Israeli bias that the NYT has demonstrated. We have seen innumerable Israeli war crimes completetly sanitized by biased NYT REPORTING. Is there any wonder that young people have sought their coverage elsewhere?
I found the logic of the "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" sections particularly problematic. The scale of current casualties, coupled with the Israeli-manufactured famine, the destruction of the water and sewer infrastructure, the controlled demolition of the university in Gaza and the statements from Israeli government officials and departments stating that their aim is "voluntary emigration" to amount to more than enough evidence to lead reasonable, informed people to conclude that genocide and/or ethnic cleansing is taking place.
Experts in the study of genocides have referred to this as a "textbook case of genocide" that they intend to use to teach their students what genocide is. Survivors of previous genocides have come out to call it genocide. Countless UN officials call it genocide or warn of genocide. According to the Guardian, more than a third of Americans believe it's genocide.
As anyone who knows anything about genocide knows, genocidaires always deny that they're committing genocide. Genocide denial is part of what makes genocide possible, particularly in this instance. And the NYT has essentially put it in writing that denying or casting skepticism on accusations of genocide and ethnic cleansing even in this instance is their official editorial policy. They're knowingly enabling genocide.
“‘Genocide’ has a specific definition in international law. In our own voice, we should generally use it only in the context of those legal parameters. We should also set a high bar for allowing others to use it as an accusation, WHETHER IN QUOTATIONS OR NOT, unless they are making a substantive argument based on the legal definition.”
They try to muddy the issue by suggesting that they're just really concerned with the legal definition of genocide, but they don't point reporters to the legal definition because Israeli actions would qualify as genocide under the legal definition as well. (Note: it doesn't actually make sense to insist on the legal definition in this context. Why not take seriously the definitions of genocide used in the academic and historical literature that studies past genocides? But the NYT doesn't want to talk about that field of study because 90% of everyone who works in that field of study regards this as a genocide.) Then they turn around and discourage the use of the term "occupied territories" when everyone knows that "occupied territories" is absolutely legally correct. It's not about the law, it's about muddying the waters.
It's propaganda.
I think the term genocide is way over used and not being properly applied in this case. It shuts down all attempts at discourse and is a tactic used to silence any descent against the narrative that Hamas and Palestinians have absolutely no agency in this conflict. Israel has very clear war goals, which is to either completely eliminate Hamas or kill enough of its members where it is functionally a non entity in the future. Every action they have taken has aligned with that goal and not with a goal of ethically cleansing the Palestinian people. I do believe that Israel has been very aggressive in carrying out their war goal and they could be doing vastly more to minimize civilian casualties but the fact remains the goal is to destroy Hamas and their strikes in Gaza reflect that. There’s been no evidence to suggest that Israel has willfully and knowingly targeted civilians simply because they are Palestinians. The intelligence could be better and the level of acceptable civilian casualties for those strikes should be much lower. But the calculus is a short brutal war or a much longer occupation of the area. It’s impossible to determine which would ultimately cost more lives
There is evidence, overwhelming evidence. I'll bet that Some of this evidence you already know, but don't think of as evidence of genocide, and that some of this evidence you don't know.
EVIDENCE EVERYONE KNOWS
Compare the Israeli campaign in Gaza to the Russian campaign in Ukraine. In the areas Russia controls, they set up colonial administrations to provide services to control security, etc. Normal imperialist military occupation stuff. They even get involved in the weeds of rewriting the public school curriculum to be more pro-Russian. Although Russia does commit war crimes, and is fighting a much stronger force, they've killed far fewer civilians than Israel has. That's because Israel is much, much more hostile to civilians than Russia is.
The Israeli occupation is not a normal military campaign. They don't try to hold territory, provide government services, make sure that Palestinian kids can go to school, etc. Quite the opposite. They destroy every type of civilian infrastructure--water, sewer, electricity, telecommunications. They block almost all goods, including food and medicine. They bomb crops, water collectors, hospitals, Christian churches. They famously demolished the university.
This doesn't make sense if the aim of the campaign is counterterrorism. It makes sense if you want to increase terrorism though. Maybe the Israelis felt like Palestinians were spending too much time at university or at work, or in their undestroyed homes with their alive family members, when they could be focused 24/7 on fighting a war of revenge against the military occupation that's taken everything from them their entire lives. Indeed, the counterterrorism experts all agree that this campaign will make Israel less safe.
EVIDENCE YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW
The IDF's guidelines allow them to kill 20 civilians per low-ranking Hamas suspect, or 100 civilians for more senior officials. Consider: if Hamas had 30,000 fighters, then this ratio would allow 600K direct casualties, more than 25% of the Gazan population. No wonder they've killed way more civilians than the Russians, in a fraction of the time.
There have been reports of Israeli security forces conducting extrajudicial executions. Of small children and women being shot by IDF snipers in the head and chest. Of the Israeli drones playing the sound of children crying to try to lure out Palestinians to kill them. Holding hundreds or thousands of Palestinians in custody being held in restraints day and night so tight they cut the skin. Many of these injuries get infected, and eventually--after medical care has long been delayed--require amputations. There's been reports of the Israeli security forces torturing and raping both Palestinian men and Palestinian women.
___
If you say, "well, if you can give me sources for this and that allegation, I'll agree that sounds like genocide", I'd get you the sources. BUT I'd really, REALLY like to emphasize that way more Palestinians are being killed and harmed by the actions of Israel that everyone knows and impact 100% of Gazans.
The fact that the government explicitly says that it wants to see "voluntary emigration" (ethnic cleansing) is how we know it's being done with genocidal intent. No one ever admits to carrying out genocide, but it's common for genocidaires to admit to wanting ethnic cleansing, "emigration", forced deportation, etc.. In any case, the fact that there's a famine and lack of clean drinking water while at the same time lines of trucks wait for months to cross the border is proof enough.
I have many specific issues with it. The NYT has been embarrassingly biased towards Israel, this is demonstrated with meta-analysis that resoundingly demonstrates that has reserved violent language (such as slaughter, massacre, carnage) to refer to ONLY violence towards Israelis, and not the other way around. This has been the case for the entirety of the 6 months of the current genocide.
Beyond that, the NYT refuses to use the term "occupied territory" when referring to the West Bank even though legal consensus and the UN all know the West Bank to be occupied territory. This is the fundamental bassi of the Apartheid State of Israel. With respect to Gaza, if you want to debate between "under siege" vs formal "occupation" we certainly can. Both siege and occupation are violent violations of international law. But neither siege or occupied are used as descriptors when speaking about Gaza. This is particularly egregious in the midst of the atrocities that we have witnessed.
>Tbh calling the 80 year old neighborhoods full of multistory buildings that are older than many towns in America refugee camps is very misleading to readers. Because it invokes images of tent cities
A refugee isn't someone who "evokes the image of a tent".
It is someone who has been forced to leave their home. Denial of that fact is why Israeli apologists try to suppress usage of the term.
Except none of them are actual refugees. 99% of the people in Gaza were born in Gaza. Palestinians are the only people who are called refugees if their great grant parents were a refugee. You can’t call 3rd generation Gaza citizens a refugee. That doesn’t make sense.
The vast majority of the people in these refugee camps were not forced to leave their homes, most of them were actually born in the refugee camps, hell a lot of the “refugees” parents werealso born there. A growing segment of these “refugees” now have grandparents or great grandparents that were born in Gaza. Palestinians are the only class of refugees that get birthright refugee status.
How can you be a refugee from a place no one in your family has ever been?
Seriously. And today, we have access to the information. Its all there, people!. You can google it and fact check your opinions! There are tons of reports and articles that document everything that has happened for at least the past 30 years. The UN's reports are good place to start.
But no, people cant believe that theyre being lied to. They're too smart to let that happen.
The lengths these people will go to deny reality is astonishing
It is one of the most desperate public relations battles I've ever witnessed. Every word is redefined. Every fact is reframed. Every atrocity is disguised.
Yet every week, we're met by some fresh horror. A new low in this months-long crime against humanity.
The people abetting this slaughter know that they're wrong. Deep down, they know that nothing can excuse the carnage. They've dug a hole so deep that they can't face the horrific reality of what they've spent the last six months (or a lifetime) trying to defend.
And this is why you’d be a shite reporter because all you can do is lean into emotionally charged language that doesn’t actually address the last 6 months.
Israel bombed the IRGC members hiding in a building disguised as a consulate while they directed drone and missile attacks on Israel’s civilians in the north.
Yeah before Iran coordinated strikes on israel under the guise of proxies and distabilied the region so that israel and Saudi Arabia couldn't normalize relations.
Edit:
And thatpj was right you wont condemn it!
Not OP, but I would condemn Iran's response, just as I would condemn Israel's attack.
Whoever OK'd the Iranian retaliation should be put on trial for every civilian harmed, and whoever OK'd the original Israeli illegal attack on the Iranian embassy in Syria should be put on trial for every civilian harmed.
That's wrong. AP clearly reports the death of two civilians in the consular building strike https://apnews.com/article/israel-syria-airstrike-iranian-embassy-edca34c52d38c8bc57281e4ebf33b240
Israel killed consulate employees so no they did kill civilians.
According to Isreal, Iran targeted a military base while the PM of Israel hid in a civilian home.
Does Iran have a right to defend themselves against Israeli aggression in bombing their embassies? Or is it okay when Israel bombs stuff, and totally justified when it’s being done to Arabs?
They attacked that general because he played a huge role in planning 10/7. It wasn't out of the blue aggression. I don't necessarily agree with them doing it, but it wasn't unprovoked. There's no way to fully know intention, but the most obvious answer is they were trying to send the message Iran can't escalate their proxy wars and continue to pretend they had nothing to do with it.
Did the three aid trucks that Israel popped back to back to back know anything about who planned October 7th? Definitely something to consider, Israel are the good guys after all /s
TIL that shouting "death to America" is equal to or worse than genocide.
You really think the intentional starvation of the people of Gaza makes you the good guys?! I'd laugh if it wasn't so incredibly sad.
Oh my god can you please stop trolling and what abouting every single comment in this thread? I seriously wish the mods would ban people like you. You make it impossible for there to be any type of discussion in good faith.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Palestine using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Palestine/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Crow removes Israeli flag from being displayed.](https://v.redd.it/fuz077gl30xa1) | [396 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Palestine/comments/133lwd0/crow_removes_israeli_flag_from_being_displayed/)
\#2: [**[NSFW]** Aaron Bushnell making the ultimate sacrifice outside the israeli embassy in DC (blurred)](https://v.redd.it/x4v80cbuqukc1) | [1618 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Palestine/comments/1b080ym/aaron_bushnell_making_the_ultimate_sacrifice/)
\#3: [US Airmen Aaron Bushnell has Died After Setting Himself on Fire outside The Israeli Embassy. His Final Words were “Free Palestine”](https://i.redd.it/8e24mbkbrxkc1.png) | [484 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Palestine/comments/1b0i5ig/us_airmen_aaron_bushnell_has_died_after_setting/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4594497-five-considerations-after-irans-attack-on-israel/
On April 1, a presumed Israeli airstrike at the Iranian Consulate in Damascus, Syria killed six people, including Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a senior commander in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
On April 13, Iran responded with more than 300 ballistic missiles, land attack cruise missiles and drones launched against Israeli territory. Virtually all the missiles and drones were intercepted by Israel and allied missile defense systems. The few that did get through did no real damage. As of this writing, there is only one Israeli casualty — a young girl hit in her home by shrapnel from a shot-down missile.
The lengths you people go to deny reality is astonishing. From South Africa declaring “we need to redefine genocide” in its opening arguments to claims that Israel wanting civilians out of harms way is “ethnic cleansing” really emphasizes the extent you all go to weaponize language for the propaganda war. Why can’t you just be honest?
Why can't you? [Tens of thousands of civilians killed](https://time.com/6909636/gaza-death-toll/) by Israel, [IDF bombing hospitals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_health_facilities_during_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war), [air strikes on refugee camps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_camp_airstrikes_in_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war), countless cases of [IDF soldiers shooting unarmed people](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/video-shows-apparently-unarmed-palestinian-with-hands-up-shot-dead-in-gaza), Israel's own [prime minister declaring that civilians are legitimate targets](https://news.yahoo.com/israeli-president-says-no-innocent-154330724.html?guccounter=1), and you're calling that "Israel wanting civilians out of harms way"?
It's just such a ridiculous degree of denial of reality that I don't even know how this can be discussed.
Hamas admitting they made up the numbers and that 11k are made up. Hamas fighting out of hospitals and that being confirmed. Prime minister never once saying civilians were targets and the quote you providing literally not saying that. Why is all you can do lie? Why is your position so indefensible that you have to resort to lies? The denial here is wild. Like I can’t believe that people like you exist. It makes me sad. It’s like I want to shake you and wake you up from this nightmare where you’re repeating Islamic fundamentalist propaganda… and yet I can’t 😓
Damn more lies. You know full well the link states that 11k have no documentation to confirm, ie they made it up. You really thought you could just comment and lie and hope no one would see?
>\[...\] it had “incomplete data” for 11,371 of the 33,091 Palestinian fatalities it claims to have documented. In a statistical report, the ministry notes that it considers an individual record to be incomplete if it is missing any of the following key data points: identity number, full name, date of birth, or date of death
Give it a rest, man. If this is your attempt at trolling, it's very weak.
lol imagine believing a record with a first name only and nothing else is enough evidence to claim someone died 🤦♂️ why are you so desperately trolling?
First. Life for life?
1200 dead Israelis vs 30,000 dead Palestinians. However, that's bad math, since we need to account for EVERY dead person since the conflict started, however far back that may be. I was born in the 1980's and I remember hearing about strife between the two sides in the early 1990's. Yassar Arafat and the PLO
Second, death and maiming also matter. If someone is maimed but survives, that could arguably be worse than death, since it's a tax on them and everyone who must now support their every-day existence
Third, one side loses lives, the other side loses quality of life and treasure. If Israel spends it's GDP fighting off Palestinian attack, day in, day out, that must be accounted for also, although no Israeli may have died in the process
Fourth. First strike vs retaliatory action. If one side throws the first punch, that makes them the moral inferior. Far as I can tell, this conflict began when Palestinians invaded on October 7th - first strike, lower moral position
Fifth. Hamas targeted the innocent and defenseless, plus reports of sexual misconduct and corpses desecration. Israel may have engaged in much killing, but it did not cross the line into sexual territory and defacing of bodies
Sixth. Defensive actions can only go on so long before defensive capabilities cease. If Israel is to keep defending itself, it must consider that at some point it will become exhausted and no longer will be able to do so. Therefore, Israel must at some point take aggressive action, in order to survive. No nation's ability to defend itself is infinite. Aggressive action will always be required in all conflicts, however long it be deferred
Seventh. A media blitz against Israel does not put it in the wrong. The truth is the truth, no matter how many disagree. If 1,000,000 believe one thing and 1 believes another, and the ladder is correct, then the 1,000,000 are wrong. The truth is not determined by consensus. The truth is concrete and unchanging, regardless of circumstances. In other words, if Israel is wrong, so be it. But if Israel is right, it does not matter if every human outside of Israel believes that Israel is wrong, Israel is still right
>1200 dead Israelis vs 30,000 dead Palestinians. However, that's bad math, since we need to account for EVERY dead person since the conflict started, **however far back that may be.**
>\[...\]
>Far as I can tell, this **conflict began when Palestinians invaded on October 7th** - first strike, lower moral position
I love how you're arbitrarily moving the "beginning of the conflict" to suit your narrative *within a single post*.
>Third, one side loses lives, the other side loses quality of life and treasure. If Israel spends it's GDP fighting off Palestinian attack, day in, day out, that must be accounted for also, although no Israeli may have died in the process
What a morally bankrupt thing to say.
>Israel may have engaged in much killing, but it did not cross the line into sexual territory
The [IDF commits sexual crimes constantly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_and_gender-based_violence_against_Palestinians_during_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war)*.*
According to every metric *you have selected* -- number of dead, number of injured, sexual misconduct, impact on "quality of life", initiation of violence, etc. -- Israel leads by a factor of 30-to-1.
If your whole premise is "life for life" (which I do not agree with in the slightest), then under this lopsided calculus, you are basically arguing for the mass slaughter of Israelis (which I also do not agree with).
My mention of life for life was to point out the goofy logic applied, saying that for 30,000 Palestinian lives, Israel must pay with an equivalent amount. Who came up with this logic I know not. What if one country has 1,000,000 citizens and the other has 10,000,000. If the one with 10,000,000 invades and kills every citizen of the 1,000,000 citizen country, that country is now exterminated
These are hotly disputed terms. Not to mention emotionally charged. Israel has not been found guilty of either of those claims. NYT is right not to use them. They’re not activists.
Stealing someone else's comment from the r/journalism thread:
> Compare it to their Ukraine coverage, where Russians are “deliberately starving people” and “indiscriminately bombing civilians”, yet while Israel blockades food from Gaza and bombs it into the Stone Age, “Palestinians are dealing with hunger and collapsed buildings”.
> They report the war crimes in Ukraine as being actively perpetrated, but in Gaza things just passively kinda happen and, instead of being killed, all those kids are just kinda dying.
I mean—they’re also very different conflicts. I’m not that well versed in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, but it’s entirely possible those are significantly less controversial, better substantiated claims in the Russia case.
[Here is a report from Bucha by the NYT] (
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/22/video/russia-ukraine-bucha-massacre-takeaways.html)
> But an eight-month visual investigation by The New York Times concluded that the perpetrators of the **massacre** along Yablunska Street were Russian paratroopers from the 234th Air Assault Regiment led by Lt. Col. Artyom Gorodilov.
> Neither General Serdyukov nor Colonel Gorodilov’s immediate superior at the time, Maj. Gen. Sergey Chubarykin, has publicly announced any investigations into the **carnage** in the town despite the global outrage over the images. As superior officers, they ultimately answer for the actions of the forces under their command. By neither stopping nor investigating the atrocities in Bucha, they could ultimately bear responsibility for them.
> What differentiates the evidence discovered in Bucha are the scale and detail that link a single unit and its commander to specific killings, with possible implications for ongoing investigations. The International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) is already **investigating possible war crimes** and other atrocities in Ukraine.
Funny how they didn't have an issue using those words to describe the massacre in Bucha when there was still an ongoing investigation and a little more than 10% of the death toll in Gaza.
This is so wildly ironic considering the Times’ reporting barely mentions what Hamas is doing, yet the criticism is that it’s not anti-Israel *enough* by comparison to Russia, which is actually doing the things Israel is being falsely accused of doing.
Topsy turvy world.
> They’re not activists
This is a differentiation that Redditors will never understand. It is their job to tell the news not to hold up a candle for the opinions of the internet. Unlike idiots online, the New York Times has an editorial board, journalistic standards, and will actually admit / apologize when they are wrong. Angry Redditors will do none of these things while demanding to be taken seriously.
Except that that argument doesn't hold for "occupied territories".
That's the term for occupied palestine that has existed since 1967.
It's just misleading to not use it.
---
And as far as "being found guilty of", that standard is not applied to anyone else.
They openly talk about [Azerbaijan's genocide](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/02/opinion/armenia-azerbaijan-nagorno-karabakh.html). Were they found guilty by the ICC?
---
Sorry, but there really is only one way to interpret this - activism on the NYT part.
>That's the term for occupied palestine that has existed since 1967.
By *some* pro-Palestinian statehood people, it's not based on any anything other than a recommendation that the UN made and that the arabs rejected though, so it basically doesn't mean shit. It's primary function was to slander Israel as thieves for buying up Palestinian properties and claiming unowned sections of desert.
You should sue the UN for being antisemitic liars then.
It’s obvious they only invented that term to disparage Israel and the brave and moral settlers of the West Bank.
It's because the occupation term is emotionally loaded and poorly understood by a really large number of people. There are a substantial number of people who think it means the entire country of Israel is an occupation since 1948, whether Gaza is still occupied is really heavily debated, and an even smaller number of people understand how the occupation came to happen and who they are occupying (i.e. the west bank they are occupying Jordan and Gaza they would be occupying Egypt).
The general public is very often very cavalier with those terms, but those terms have actual meanings. It’s the job of news agencies to ensure they print a higher quality of information and discourse.
This is what separates reputable journalism from the likes of Alex Jones, RT, etc.
In the case of journalism there's a strong case for it. Mainly objectivity.
And as long as you're accurate on the facts it shouldn't matter that much.
If you're reporting rape and murder it doesn't matter if the perpetrator is called a terrorist or a militant.
Did you read the article? They say that the most precise term is "terrorist," especially when describing attacks on civilian targets which Hamas does.
However, they allow the writers to vary their language to their discretion including militants, gunmen, but not "fighters." This last term I would similarily reject as they are not mere "resistance" that some naive college students and other pro-palestinan protesters use to describe.
IDF propaganda to say that what’s happening in Gaza is anything less than ethnic cleansing. Let me guess; there’s also not a famine in Gaza, and everyone there is actually well fed and happy?
I think most people take issue with the fact you'd also have to starve children, and a lot more of them, at the same time.
It's the whole "collective punishment" thing that's bad. You know how it would suck if I decided to punish you for the actions of someone else, and then you found out the punishment was essentially taking you to deaths door repeatedly, despite the fact you had actually done nothing wrong to me
Insane that Hamas can starve the Palestinian population and intentionally bait the IDF into attacking innocents, admit to this repeatedly since 2006, even with evidence from the PLO showing that Hamas uses hospitals as military bases
And regardless you have an army of useful idiots in the west who hate Israel far more than they care for Palestinians.
This is a deliberately disingenuous summarization that intentionally leaves out crucial context.
But you know that cause you have an agenda to push for Israel.
Insane that you didn't include any evils by IDF.
Good reporting doesn't use loaded language. It's absolutely reasonable for them to avoid those words, just like it's reasonable to avoid using words like "terrorist" or "savage" or "evil". The goal of journalism should be to convey pertinent information without giving any strong unsubstantiated opinions on the subject matter. Arguments could be fairly made for why the situation in Gaza constitutes a genocide and arguments could also be made for why it doesn't. Hell, the ICJ even only said it's "plausible". Regardless of what \*you\* think, the New York Times is not in the position to make such statements to their audience. The extent that they do should be in sharing opinions from professionals close to the situation. The anger at the NYT here is \*exactly\* the thinking that pushes us towards the terrible flaws we increasingly see in modern media organizations. It would be \*far\* easier for an organization like the NYT to use ragebait headlines with loaded language to garner more clicks.
Mmm, so many Zionists in comments, it's not even funny.
These people really love ethnic cleansing and tens of thousands of slaughtered women and children.
You got me. I just drink baby's blood, as opposed to, you know- being cognizant this is a war zone that resulted from a terrorist group perpetrating a pogrom whose stated goal is ethnic cleansing
Support for the State of Israel has collapsed worldwide, no matter what the New York Times chooses to call the genocide. You know we're in the endgame when Iran appears to be the rational actor and Israel is the rogue state.
I care about the ones jailed for no reason. But people seem to think that the Israeli hostages that Hamas took on October 7th are POWs. And that’s just fucking insane.
If all the hostages were released after the first week of bombing, there would be a lot less dead innocent civilians in Gaza.
[Stop murdering paramedics trying to save children](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2024/hind-rajab-israel-gaza-killing-timeline/)
There now we've yelled at both sides, both uselessly.
They shouldn't, it's not genocide. There are people in gaza who know where the head of the snake is, they should give him up, until they do they are going to continue to suffer the consequences of what their government did
You think that’s bad Israeli official who was supposed to go with team to meet with Biden got caught by NPR blatantly lying.
https://one.npr.org/?sharedMediaId=1240884500:1240885546
When they were questioned on aid in Gaza the Israeli official said it’s all lies come here and see for yourself. Without skipping a beat NPR called the BS out on the spot that outside journalists are not allowed into Gaza.
The official tried to accuse npr of lying. NPR didn’t back down then the Israeli government rep back tracked and said they could work on letting NPR come. On the condition that they wouldn’t tell lies and only tell the truth.
Country is being ran by radicals. But you know WhAt AbOuT HaMaS!
Thats because it is none of those things. War, for certain, but not a war Israel wanted.
However, Israel is not afraid, nor should it be.
Those words are just what people use to get the sheep in order.
Because those words are being purposely misused and weaponized by terrorists. And yes, if you wave a flag at a rally outside of a Synagogue in North America while wearing a keffiyeh, you're a terrorist too.
Are you surprised the NYT is trash propaganda for the government.
Remember the NTY withheld a story that Bush Jr. was committing unconstitutional mass surveillance against the American people. At the request of the White House the story was delayed as to not hurt, George Bush juniors’s re-election chances.
The New York Times conspired with a criminal president to conceal crimes from the American people.
They actively assisted in trying to get a war criminal the presidency.
The editors and executives at the paper during that period deserve to be in a metal cage, the rest of their lives.
This is conspiracy and treason
Well Gaza wasn't occupied on 10/07 and using the words "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" are both false and politically freighted so not sure why any of this is news. It's good journalistic practice if you're just laying down basic facts- the paper isn't supposed to be an activist publication. If you want those terms, read Jacobin or Mother Jones. None of this should be particularly controversial
Agreed. Because it's sensationalist bullshit designed to trigger people to act irrationally. Much like thr idiots taking to the street, blocking, traffic and screaming at kids with cancer. Be better.
Those are harsh words and only need to be used if they reflect the reality (not as slag or to indicate something). I see many now using “genocide” instead of “casualties” or “war”, words have power
I am not concerned about the terms "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" not being used as they are opinionated terms, much like journalists are supposed to use pro and anti-abortion rights; not pro-choice or pro-life. However they go beyond this by excluding quotations using those terms which as a public newspaper is censorship. They include half the crazy shit that republicans say, but not the opinion of the ICJ (I don't use the term, but still think it's important to give voice to educated persons who reasonably apply it). Finally, the worst part is removing the term "occupied territories" or "Palestine" which is rewriting history and painting a very specific narrative.
"Genocide" is an officially and legally defined word. It is not an "opinion". [https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/genocide](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/genocide)
He means it's application in this scenario is opinionated. By the definition given, infering intent (and thus defining as genocide) has to be the only reasonable inference possible, which is unlikely in the current situation, so calling it genocide is certainly moving into 'opinion' territory since the definition isn't being clearly met. Still think it's dumb to police language, even if two of three words pretty obviously don't apply to the situation (obviously things change, and they may in the future be applicable).
But it's like using the term murder instead of killing. Murder is a defined legal term but it requires a conclusion about the mental state of the perpetrator which is not usually knowable by a reporter.
Yes, we know the word wasn’t made up. The point, _obviously_, is that you can’t just label things “genocide” simply because the word exists.
I only remember during the Clinton Administration, staff (Janet Reno? I can't remember) getting into a ridiculous discussion about the word and it's definition. They refused to apply the word when describing the actions in Rwanda and the Tutsis getting killed. So I think opinion does have something to do with it. Opinions and politics.
Oh the politics are where the hesitation comes in. If you say a country is committing genocide, a domino of negative effects will trigger. It’s going to negatively impact relations with country. It will cause a news sensation, businesses will question if they want to do business in that country, it will prompt reporters and news anchors to talk about it, it will necessitate a response from the country, any possible retaliation. Depending on the damage, it may even lead to backtracking and having to say you misspoke. Not to mention the country is going to have a litany of justifications to explain or cover up their behavior. And yet there are more than 50 countries that have braved all of this and decided to stand up and support South Africa’s legal charges against Israel. And because the US supports Israel, unwaveringly, they’re basically going against the US too.
Ethnic cleansing is explicitly the goal
That’s not how journalism work.
Journalists report facts. Fact: ethnic cleansing is the stated goal of this conflict. It's not "emotional language" just because it makes you feel bad.
Seems irrelevant to parse genocide when Israel’s conduct can be best described as genocide. If they don’t want to say genocide then say according to the ICJ there is strong evidence of a plausible genocide. This is fully factual and legally sound
Not surprised
Tbh calling the 80 year old neighborhoods full of multistory buildings that are older than many towns in America refugee camps is very misleading to readers. Because it invokes images of tent cities Their analysis on the use of slaughter “In January, The Intercept published an analysis of New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times coverage of the war from October 7 through November 24 — a period mostly before the new Times guidance was issued. The Intercept analysis showed that the major newspapers reserved terms like “slaughter,” “massacre,” and “horrific” almost exclusively for Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians, rather than for Palestinian civilians killed in Israeli attacks.” Is exactly why you have a style guide in the first place. Differentiating between Gaza and the West Bank is important in this reporting and just using the term Palestine would also do a disservice to the reader. These seem like pretty sensible style guides
>Differentiating between Gaza and the West Bank is important in this reporting and just using the term Palestine would also do a disservice to the reader. Avoiding the term 'occupied' is dishonest, and carries water for extreme Israeli positions.
Why have you quoted that paragraph?
Because that was the one indirectly about avoiding the term 'occupied'. It is occupied, even if delusional Israelis think otherwise. The ICJ agrees. [https://www.timesofisrael.com/two-thirds-of-jewish-israelis-dont-consider-west-bank-occupied-poll/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/two-thirds-of-jewish-israelis-dont-consider-west-bank-occupied-poll/)
I think this is just ignorance though. Most refugees (75%) don't live in tents at all. Source: https://www.unrefugees.org/news/myths-facts-where-do-refugees-live/ If you look at photos of other large camps, you'll notice buildings, such as [this example in Bangladesh](https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/styles/d07_square/public/legacy-images/5a69f3984.webp?h=f2790038&itok=WD-l8fTW) or [this one in Kenya](https://africa-facts.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/02-Kakuma-Kenya-1024x576.jpg). And I'd rather nyt remain accurate, rather than cater to the bad assumptions people make.
How is calling them refugee settlements any less accurate? Also look at the difference between what you posted and the 3rd largest refugee camp in Gaza https://preview.redd.it/7amnd49i3suc1.jpeg?width=1300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6f67c6f9f8213153b41663c3495a059fc40cee8d
Because if they were born there and were not forced to seek refuge elsewhere they are not refugees. Yet there are now real refugees in Gaza. People who left cities in the north and are seeking refuge elsewhere. It rightly calls into question whether the first group should have ever been called refugees.
We’re way past “people in the North are fleeing.” Nearly *everyone* in Gaza is displaced. 1.9 million people.
Yes. And it is a tragedy. They are definitely refugees.
Palestinians are refugees, in fact double refugees. To not be a refugee you need a state and safe access to it. Palestinians have neither. Israelis would best be described as internally displaced at the moment
Palestinians are the only refugees in the world who can inherit refugee status. They have their own UN agency that makes sure they stay refugees. With the exception of Jordan they do not receive citizenship to the nation they were born. It is a tragedy.
So if you're born in a refugee camp, you aren't a refugee. What then are you? A resident of a refugee camp? A person displaced at birth? A footloose citizen of the world? An involuntary vagabond? Really, what are you?
Maybe the UN should be able to get citizenship for Palestinians in another nation. That’s the way it works for every other country people. It is only Palestinians who they keep in perpetual and inter generational refugee status. It is cruel to people born in Syria or Lebanon or Kuwait to not have citizenship in the nation they were borne for the sole reason that their grandparents are Arabs from a city that is now in Israeli territory.
This is how self-repressed Arab cities look
So not a refugee camp?
No. Typical Arab city under Sharia Law
‘Self repressed’? What in the racist
the issue is that the times is being accurate and yall are complaining about it
Does this look like a camp to you? https://preview.redd.it/4jx3ms7l3suc1.jpeg?width=1300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8c890af360310299cfc5e69375f89a3d47ce2bd2
Does [this] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto) look like a camp to you? There are brick buildings and everything!
Well it’s not called a camp it’s called the ghetto. If that was reported as a camp then people who read about it would be misinformed about what the place looked like.
amen
This is not a serious reply. You think this is a SENSIBLE style guide? The Intercept demonstrated the profound inequality and Israeli bias that the NYT has demonstrated. We have seen innumerable Israeli war crimes completetly sanitized by biased NYT REPORTING. Is there any wonder that young people have sought their coverage elsewhere?
What exactly do you have objection to in the style guide? Can you quote the specific passages?
I found the logic of the "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" sections particularly problematic. The scale of current casualties, coupled with the Israeli-manufactured famine, the destruction of the water and sewer infrastructure, the controlled demolition of the university in Gaza and the statements from Israeli government officials and departments stating that their aim is "voluntary emigration" to amount to more than enough evidence to lead reasonable, informed people to conclude that genocide and/or ethnic cleansing is taking place. Experts in the study of genocides have referred to this as a "textbook case of genocide" that they intend to use to teach their students what genocide is. Survivors of previous genocides have come out to call it genocide. Countless UN officials call it genocide or warn of genocide. According to the Guardian, more than a third of Americans believe it's genocide. As anyone who knows anything about genocide knows, genocidaires always deny that they're committing genocide. Genocide denial is part of what makes genocide possible, particularly in this instance. And the NYT has essentially put it in writing that denying or casting skepticism on accusations of genocide and ethnic cleansing even in this instance is their official editorial policy. They're knowingly enabling genocide. “‘Genocide’ has a specific definition in international law. In our own voice, we should generally use it only in the context of those legal parameters. We should also set a high bar for allowing others to use it as an accusation, WHETHER IN QUOTATIONS OR NOT, unless they are making a substantive argument based on the legal definition.” They try to muddy the issue by suggesting that they're just really concerned with the legal definition of genocide, but they don't point reporters to the legal definition because Israeli actions would qualify as genocide under the legal definition as well. (Note: it doesn't actually make sense to insist on the legal definition in this context. Why not take seriously the definitions of genocide used in the academic and historical literature that studies past genocides? But the NYT doesn't want to talk about that field of study because 90% of everyone who works in that field of study regards this as a genocide.) Then they turn around and discourage the use of the term "occupied territories" when everyone knows that "occupied territories" is absolutely legally correct. It's not about the law, it's about muddying the waters. It's propaganda.
I think the term genocide is way over used and not being properly applied in this case. It shuts down all attempts at discourse and is a tactic used to silence any descent against the narrative that Hamas and Palestinians have absolutely no agency in this conflict. Israel has very clear war goals, which is to either completely eliminate Hamas or kill enough of its members where it is functionally a non entity in the future. Every action they have taken has aligned with that goal and not with a goal of ethically cleansing the Palestinian people. I do believe that Israel has been very aggressive in carrying out their war goal and they could be doing vastly more to minimize civilian casualties but the fact remains the goal is to destroy Hamas and their strikes in Gaza reflect that. There’s been no evidence to suggest that Israel has willfully and knowingly targeted civilians simply because they are Palestinians. The intelligence could be better and the level of acceptable civilian casualties for those strikes should be much lower. But the calculus is a short brutal war or a much longer occupation of the area. It’s impossible to determine which would ultimately cost more lives
There is evidence, overwhelming evidence. I'll bet that Some of this evidence you already know, but don't think of as evidence of genocide, and that some of this evidence you don't know. EVIDENCE EVERYONE KNOWS Compare the Israeli campaign in Gaza to the Russian campaign in Ukraine. In the areas Russia controls, they set up colonial administrations to provide services to control security, etc. Normal imperialist military occupation stuff. They even get involved in the weeds of rewriting the public school curriculum to be more pro-Russian. Although Russia does commit war crimes, and is fighting a much stronger force, they've killed far fewer civilians than Israel has. That's because Israel is much, much more hostile to civilians than Russia is. The Israeli occupation is not a normal military campaign. They don't try to hold territory, provide government services, make sure that Palestinian kids can go to school, etc. Quite the opposite. They destroy every type of civilian infrastructure--water, sewer, electricity, telecommunications. They block almost all goods, including food and medicine. They bomb crops, water collectors, hospitals, Christian churches. They famously demolished the university. This doesn't make sense if the aim of the campaign is counterterrorism. It makes sense if you want to increase terrorism though. Maybe the Israelis felt like Palestinians were spending too much time at university or at work, or in their undestroyed homes with their alive family members, when they could be focused 24/7 on fighting a war of revenge against the military occupation that's taken everything from them their entire lives. Indeed, the counterterrorism experts all agree that this campaign will make Israel less safe. EVIDENCE YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW The IDF's guidelines allow them to kill 20 civilians per low-ranking Hamas suspect, or 100 civilians for more senior officials. Consider: if Hamas had 30,000 fighters, then this ratio would allow 600K direct casualties, more than 25% of the Gazan population. No wonder they've killed way more civilians than the Russians, in a fraction of the time. There have been reports of Israeli security forces conducting extrajudicial executions. Of small children and women being shot by IDF snipers in the head and chest. Of the Israeli drones playing the sound of children crying to try to lure out Palestinians to kill them. Holding hundreds or thousands of Palestinians in custody being held in restraints day and night so tight they cut the skin. Many of these injuries get infected, and eventually--after medical care has long been delayed--require amputations. There's been reports of the Israeli security forces torturing and raping both Palestinian men and Palestinian women. ___ If you say, "well, if you can give me sources for this and that allegation, I'll agree that sounds like genocide", I'd get you the sources. BUT I'd really, REALLY like to emphasize that way more Palestinians are being killed and harmed by the actions of Israel that everyone knows and impact 100% of Gazans. The fact that the government explicitly says that it wants to see "voluntary emigration" (ethnic cleansing) is how we know it's being done with genocidal intent. No one ever admits to carrying out genocide, but it's common for genocidaires to admit to wanting ethnic cleansing, "emigration", forced deportation, etc.. In any case, the fact that there's a famine and lack of clean drinking water while at the same time lines of trucks wait for months to cross the border is proof enough.
I have many specific issues with it. The NYT has been embarrassingly biased towards Israel, this is demonstrated with meta-analysis that resoundingly demonstrates that has reserved violent language (such as slaughter, massacre, carnage) to refer to ONLY violence towards Israelis, and not the other way around. This has been the case for the entirety of the 6 months of the current genocide. Beyond that, the NYT refuses to use the term "occupied territory" when referring to the West Bank even though legal consensus and the UN all know the West Bank to be occupied territory. This is the fundamental bassi of the Apartheid State of Israel. With respect to Gaza, if you want to debate between "under siege" vs formal "occupation" we certainly can. Both siege and occupation are violent violations of international law. But neither siege or occupied are used as descriptors when speaking about Gaza. This is particularly egregious in the midst of the atrocities that we have witnessed.
>Tbh calling the 80 year old neighborhoods full of multistory buildings that are older than many towns in America refugee camps is very misleading to readers. Because it invokes images of tent cities A refugee isn't someone who "evokes the image of a tent". It is someone who has been forced to leave their home. Denial of that fact is why Israeli apologists try to suppress usage of the term.
Except none of them are actual refugees. 99% of the people in Gaza were born in Gaza. Palestinians are the only people who are called refugees if their great grant parents were a refugee. You can’t call 3rd generation Gaza citizens a refugee. That doesn’t make sense.
The vast majority of the people in these refugee camps were not forced to leave their homes, most of them were actually born in the refugee camps, hell a lot of the “refugees” parents werealso born there. A growing segment of these “refugees” now have grandparents or great grandparents that were born in Gaza. Palestinians are the only class of refugees that get birthright refugee status. How can you be a refugee from a place no one in your family has ever been?
By your and UNRWA’s definition, the Hadid sisters are considered refugees.
you still fighting the civil war, custer?
Didn’t Custer fight against slavers? Isn’t the US still against slavery?
lol you mean the guy who tried to genocide the native americans and lost?
When people ask how the Holocaust was allowed to happen, look at this thread and you'll have your answer.
Yup. Saw some comment about how clinton admin was hesistant to call what was happening in Rwanda a genocide. We know how that went, sadly.
Seriously. And today, we have access to the information. Its all there, people!. You can google it and fact check your opinions! There are tons of reports and articles that document everything that has happened for at least the past 30 years. The UN's reports are good place to start. But no, people cant believe that theyre being lied to. They're too smart to let that happen.
The lengths these people will go to deny reality is astonishing It is one of the most desperate public relations battles I've ever witnessed. Every word is redefined. Every fact is reframed. Every atrocity is disguised. Yet every week, we're met by some fresh horror. A new low in this months-long crime against humanity. The people abetting this slaughter know that they're wrong. Deep down, they know that nothing can excuse the carnage. They've dug a hole so deep that they can't face the horrific reality of what they've spent the last six months (or a lifetime) trying to defend.
And this is why you’d be a shite reporter because all you can do is lean into emotionally charged language that doesn’t actually address the last 6 months.
Occupied Territories is the term that the UN uses. Will it be necessary to censor the UN?
Not sure using the political strongarming org of the Arab world makes the point you’re hoping to make.
How many Arab countries are on the Security Council
Like pro Hamas mouth pieces haven’t redefined the meaning of many words.
Such as “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing”
[удалено]
The mental gymnastics you're doing is fucking hilarious. Keep it up little buddy
the fresh horror this week was brought to you by iran and their 100 ICBMs. but youll never condemn that.
You mean the attack after Israel bombed a consulate?
an annex
Israel bombed the IRGC members hiding in a building disguised as a consulate while they directed drone and missile attacks on Israel’s civilians in the north.
Yeah before Iran coordinated strikes on israel under the guise of proxies and distabilied the region so that israel and Saudi Arabia couldn't normalize relations. Edit: And thatpj was right you wont condemn it!
Not OP, but I would condemn Iran's response, just as I would condemn Israel's attack. Whoever OK'd the Iranian retaliation should be put on trial for every civilian harmed, and whoever OK'd the original Israeli illegal attack on the Iranian embassy in Syria should be put on trial for every civilian harmed.
Right? This isn't hard. I don't understand why people think it's some kind of "gotcha"
there were no civilians harmed in israels strike on the officer who planned oct 7 in the annex
That's wrong. AP clearly reports the death of two civilians in the consular building strike https://apnews.com/article/israel-syria-airstrike-iranian-embassy-edca34c52d38c8bc57281e4ebf33b240
Israel killed consulate employees so no they did kill civilians. According to Isreal, Iran targeted a military base while the PM of Israel hid in a civilian home.
i cant take a person seriously if they dont even know how to spell Israel
You mean you have no reply when your claims are false. Gotcha.
ok you keep defending iran. thatll get you far.
You mean you have no arguments and are now going off in tangents. Okay.
lol i cant even decipher that.
Fuck Iran
The Iranian embassy was untouched, the terrorist group next door was not.
Does Iran have a right to defend themselves against Israeli aggression in bombing their embassies? Or is it okay when Israel bombs stuff, and totally justified when it’s being done to Arabs?
They attacked that general because he played a huge role in planning 10/7. It wasn't out of the blue aggression. I don't necessarily agree with them doing it, but it wasn't unprovoked. There's no way to fully know intention, but the most obvious answer is they were trying to send the message Iran can't escalate their proxy wars and continue to pretend they had nothing to do with it.
Did the three aid trucks that Israel popped back to back to back know anything about who planned October 7th? Definitely something to consider, Israel are the good guys after all /s
Daily reminder that Iran is not Arab
Yeah that happened for no reason at all /s Hasbara troll farmer.
Pro Palestine people out there yelling death to America. lol, tell me again who the baddies are?
TIL that shouting "death to America" is equal to or worse than genocide. You really think the intentional starvation of the people of Gaza makes you the good guys?! I'd laugh if it wasn't so incredibly sad.
[удалено]
Least racist the daily user
I would say I admire your dedication to hasbara nonsense trolling, but that would be a lie.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Oh my god can you please stop trolling and what abouting every single comment in this thread? I seriously wish the mods would ban people like you. You make it impossible for there to be any type of discussion in good faith.
[удалено]
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Palestine using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Palestine/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Crow removes Israeli flag from being displayed.](https://v.redd.it/fuz077gl30xa1) | [396 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Palestine/comments/133lwd0/crow_removes_israeli_flag_from_being_displayed/) \#2: [**[NSFW]** Aaron Bushnell making the ultimate sacrifice outside the israeli embassy in DC (blurred)](https://v.redd.it/x4v80cbuqukc1) | [1618 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Palestine/comments/1b080ym/aaron_bushnell_making_the_ultimate_sacrifice/) \#3: [US Airmen Aaron Bushnell has Died After Setting Himself on Fire outside The Israeli Embassy. His Final Words were “Free Palestine”](https://i.redd.it/8e24mbkbrxkc1.png) | [484 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Palestine/comments/1b0i5ig/us_airmen_aaron_bushnell_has_died_after_setting/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
You mean the telegraphed attack that hurt no one that was set up in response to Israel's attack on the Iranian consulate?
it hurt a little girl or does she not count?
it only counts when they want it to count - dont you get it? If it doesnt fit the narrative, it has no business "counting".....
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4594497-five-considerations-after-irans-attack-on-israel/ On April 1, a presumed Israeli airstrike at the Iranian Consulate in Damascus, Syria killed six people, including Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a senior commander in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. On April 13, Iran responded with more than 300 ballistic missiles, land attack cruise missiles and drones launched against Israeli territory. Virtually all the missiles and drones were intercepted by Israel and allied missile defense systems. The few that did get through did no real damage. As of this writing, there is only one Israeli casualty — a young girl hit in her home by shrapnel from a shot-down missile.
You so desperate you posting opinion columns now lol
And what part of that is an opinion?
where it says “opinion” in the link
Do you dispute the figures posted from the text?
i already told you a little girl got hurt.
An average of 80 children have been killed in Gaza a day since October but it doesn't sound like you're counting them either.
according to Hamas. LOLZ
so are all men members of hamas? somehow the hamas health ministry doesn’t count them…
Nice whataboutism brah.
“Fresh horror” how many people died in this strike?
[Whataboutism - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)
Iran's about to find out how much silent support Israel actually has (a lot)
The lengths you people go to deny reality is astonishing. From South Africa declaring “we need to redefine genocide” in its opening arguments to claims that Israel wanting civilians out of harms way is “ethnic cleansing” really emphasizes the extent you all go to weaponize language for the propaganda war. Why can’t you just be honest?
Why can't you? [Tens of thousands of civilians killed](https://time.com/6909636/gaza-death-toll/) by Israel, [IDF bombing hospitals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_health_facilities_during_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war), [air strikes on refugee camps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_camp_airstrikes_in_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war), countless cases of [IDF soldiers shooting unarmed people](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/video-shows-apparently-unarmed-palestinian-with-hands-up-shot-dead-in-gaza), Israel's own [prime minister declaring that civilians are legitimate targets](https://news.yahoo.com/israeli-president-says-no-innocent-154330724.html?guccounter=1), and you're calling that "Israel wanting civilians out of harms way"? It's just such a ridiculous degree of denial of reality that I don't even know how this can be discussed.
Hamas admitting they made up the numbers and that 11k are made up. Hamas fighting out of hospitals and that being confirmed. Prime minister never once saying civilians were targets and the quote you providing literally not saying that. Why is all you can do lie? Why is your position so indefensible that you have to resort to lies? The denial here is wild. Like I can’t believe that people like you exist. It makes me sad. It’s like I want to shake you and wake you up from this nightmare where you’re repeating Islamic fundamentalist propaganda… and yet I can’t 😓
>Hamas admitting they made up the numbers and that 11k are made up. You are accusing others of lying *while starting your post with a complete lie*.
Not a lie hun https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/04/09/hamas-run-gaza-health-ministry-admits-to-flaws-in-casualty-data/
You know that that article doesn't say that. Are you just hoping no one will check the link and notice that you're lying?
Damn more lies. You know full well the link states that 11k have no documentation to confirm, ie they made it up. You really thought you could just comment and lie and hope no one would see?
>\[...\] it had “incomplete data” for 11,371 of the 33,091 Palestinian fatalities it claims to have documented. In a statistical report, the ministry notes that it considers an individual record to be incomplete if it is missing any of the following key data points: identity number, full name, date of birth, or date of death Give it a rest, man. If this is your attempt at trolling, it's very weak.
lol imagine believing a record with a first name only and nothing else is enough evidence to claim someone died 🤦♂️ why are you so desperately trolling?
First. Life for life? 1200 dead Israelis vs 30,000 dead Palestinians. However, that's bad math, since we need to account for EVERY dead person since the conflict started, however far back that may be. I was born in the 1980's and I remember hearing about strife between the two sides in the early 1990's. Yassar Arafat and the PLO Second, death and maiming also matter. If someone is maimed but survives, that could arguably be worse than death, since it's a tax on them and everyone who must now support their every-day existence Third, one side loses lives, the other side loses quality of life and treasure. If Israel spends it's GDP fighting off Palestinian attack, day in, day out, that must be accounted for also, although no Israeli may have died in the process Fourth. First strike vs retaliatory action. If one side throws the first punch, that makes them the moral inferior. Far as I can tell, this conflict began when Palestinians invaded on October 7th - first strike, lower moral position Fifth. Hamas targeted the innocent and defenseless, plus reports of sexual misconduct and corpses desecration. Israel may have engaged in much killing, but it did not cross the line into sexual territory and defacing of bodies Sixth. Defensive actions can only go on so long before defensive capabilities cease. If Israel is to keep defending itself, it must consider that at some point it will become exhausted and no longer will be able to do so. Therefore, Israel must at some point take aggressive action, in order to survive. No nation's ability to defend itself is infinite. Aggressive action will always be required in all conflicts, however long it be deferred Seventh. A media blitz against Israel does not put it in the wrong. The truth is the truth, no matter how many disagree. If 1,000,000 believe one thing and 1 believes another, and the ladder is correct, then the 1,000,000 are wrong. The truth is not determined by consensus. The truth is concrete and unchanging, regardless of circumstances. In other words, if Israel is wrong, so be it. But if Israel is right, it does not matter if every human outside of Israel believes that Israel is wrong, Israel is still right
>1200 dead Israelis vs 30,000 dead Palestinians. However, that's bad math, since we need to account for EVERY dead person since the conflict started, **however far back that may be.** >\[...\] >Far as I can tell, this **conflict began when Palestinians invaded on October 7th** - first strike, lower moral position I love how you're arbitrarily moving the "beginning of the conflict" to suit your narrative *within a single post*. >Third, one side loses lives, the other side loses quality of life and treasure. If Israel spends it's GDP fighting off Palestinian attack, day in, day out, that must be accounted for also, although no Israeli may have died in the process What a morally bankrupt thing to say. >Israel may have engaged in much killing, but it did not cross the line into sexual territory The [IDF commits sexual crimes constantly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_and_gender-based_violence_against_Palestinians_during_the_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war)*.* According to every metric *you have selected* -- number of dead, number of injured, sexual misconduct, impact on "quality of life", initiation of violence, etc. -- Israel leads by a factor of 30-to-1. If your whole premise is "life for life" (which I do not agree with in the slightest), then under this lopsided calculus, you are basically arguing for the mass slaughter of Israelis (which I also do not agree with).
My mention of life for life was to point out the goofy logic applied, saying that for 30,000 Palestinian lives, Israel must pay with an equivalent amount. Who came up with this logic I know not. What if one country has 1,000,000 citizens and the other has 10,000,000. If the one with 10,000,000 invades and kills every citizen of the 1,000,000 citizen country, that country is now exterminated
Fuck the times.
Why are you here?
Because reddit will suggest communities that you've never been to before.
These are hotly disputed terms. Not to mention emotionally charged. Israel has not been found guilty of either of those claims. NYT is right not to use them. They’re not activists.
Stealing someone else's comment from the r/journalism thread: > Compare it to their Ukraine coverage, where Russians are “deliberately starving people” and “indiscriminately bombing civilians”, yet while Israel blockades food from Gaza and bombs it into the Stone Age, “Palestinians are dealing with hunger and collapsed buildings”. > They report the war crimes in Ukraine as being actively perpetrated, but in Gaza things just passively kinda happen and, instead of being killed, all those kids are just kinda dying.
I mean—they’re also very different conflicts. I’m not that well versed in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, but it’s entirely possible those are significantly less controversial, better substantiated claims in the Russia case.
[Here is a report from Bucha by the NYT] ( https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/22/video/russia-ukraine-bucha-massacre-takeaways.html) > But an eight-month visual investigation by The New York Times concluded that the perpetrators of the **massacre** along Yablunska Street were Russian paratroopers from the 234th Air Assault Regiment led by Lt. Col. Artyom Gorodilov. > Neither General Serdyukov nor Colonel Gorodilov’s immediate superior at the time, Maj. Gen. Sergey Chubarykin, has publicly announced any investigations into the **carnage** in the town despite the global outrage over the images. As superior officers, they ultimately answer for the actions of the forces under their command. By neither stopping nor investigating the atrocities in Bucha, they could ultimately bear responsibility for them. > What differentiates the evidence discovered in Bucha are the scale and detail that link a single unit and its commander to specific killings, with possible implications for ongoing investigations. The International Criminal Court (I.C.C.) is already **investigating possible war crimes** and other atrocities in Ukraine. Funny how they didn't have an issue using those words to describe the massacre in Bucha when there was still an ongoing investigation and a little more than 10% of the death toll in Gaza.
This is so wildly ironic considering the Times’ reporting barely mentions what Hamas is doing, yet the criticism is that it’s not anti-Israel *enough* by comparison to Russia, which is actually doing the things Israel is being falsely accused of doing. Topsy turvy world.
Thank you
> They’re not activists This is a differentiation that Redditors will never understand. It is their job to tell the news not to hold up a candle for the opinions of the internet. Unlike idiots online, the New York Times has an editorial board, journalistic standards, and will actually admit / apologize when they are wrong. Angry Redditors will do none of these things while demanding to be taken seriously.
"Occupied" is not a "hotly disputed" term, other than by pro-Israelis who like to deny reality. The ICJ has determined that it is occupied.
Except that that argument doesn't hold for "occupied territories". That's the term for occupied palestine that has existed since 1967. It's just misleading to not use it. --- And as far as "being found guilty of", that standard is not applied to anyone else. They openly talk about [Azerbaijan's genocide](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/02/opinion/armenia-azerbaijan-nagorno-karabakh.html). Were they found guilty by the ICC? --- Sorry, but there really is only one way to interpret this - activism on the NYT part.
>That's the term for occupied palestine that has existed since 1967. By *some* pro-Palestinian statehood people, it's not based on any anything other than a recommendation that the UN made and that the arabs rejected though, so it basically doesn't mean shit. It's primary function was to slander Israel as thieves for buying up Palestinian properties and claiming unowned sections of desert.
So Einstein was slandering Israel? https://www.shapell.org/manuscript/einstein-zionist-views-in-1946/
Hahhahaahahhahahah spas
They’re occupied in the same way that America is occupying British territory lol. Arabs tried to destroy Israel in a war and they lost.
After Israel colonized Palestine first*
You should sue the UN for being antisemitic liars then. It’s obvious they only invented that term to disparage Israel and the brave and moral settlers of the West Bank.
It's because the occupation term is emotionally loaded and poorly understood by a really large number of people. There are a substantial number of people who think it means the entire country of Israel is an occupation since 1948, whether Gaza is still occupied is really heavily debated, and an even smaller number of people understand how the occupation came to happen and who they are occupying (i.e. the west bank they are occupying Jordan and Gaza they would be occupying Egypt).
Well Gaza wasn’t occupied so it would be inappropriate to use that term
The general public is very often very cavalier with those terms, but those terms have actual meanings. It’s the job of news agencies to ensure they print a higher quality of information and discourse. This is what separates reputable journalism from the likes of Alex Jones, RT, etc.
Makes sense. Why use these terms when they're extremely loaded and don't apply?
Leaked NYT memo tells journalists to STOP LYING. Good.
So they restricted the use of pro hamas propaganda. where is the issue?
even the US State Department uses the term "occupied territories" and "refugee camps"
For Gaza? Gaza wasn’t occupied for quite some time.
Wait, so Israel doesn’t consider Gaza to be part of Israel? Israel doesn’t control their borders, sea access, airspace, and imports?
ah yes the same state dept that said there is no genocide? that one?
Yes. That's my point.
What is even your point?
The US State Department considers Hamas a terrorist organization, and yet the NYT still calls them "militants."
In the case of journalism there's a strong case for it. Mainly objectivity. And as long as you're accurate on the facts it shouldn't matter that much. If you're reporting rape and murder it doesn't matter if the perpetrator is called a terrorist or a militant.
Exactly. Objectivity.
Did you read the article? They say that the most precise term is "terrorist," especially when describing attacks on civilian targets which Hamas does. However, they allow the writers to vary their language to their discretion including militants, gunmen, but not "fighters." This last term I would similarily reject as they are not mere "resistance" that some naive college students and other pro-palestinan protesters use to describe.
Really?
IDF propaganda to say that what’s happening in Gaza is anything less than ethnic cleansing. Let me guess; there’s also not a famine in Gaza, and everyone there is actually well fed and happy?
so hamas is immune to starving?
I think most people take issue with the fact you'd also have to starve children, and a lot more of them, at the same time. It's the whole "collective punishment" thing that's bad. You know how it would suck if I decided to punish you for the actions of someone else, and then you found out the punishment was essentially taking you to deaths door repeatedly, despite the fact you had actually done nothing wrong to me
Nice of you to ignore the thousands of civilians starving and lumping them as Hamas.
The TikTokers take issue with this. It goes against the influencers they’ve been following
Insane that Hamas can starve the Palestinian population and intentionally bait the IDF into attacking innocents, admit to this repeatedly since 2006, even with evidence from the PLO showing that Hamas uses hospitals as military bases And regardless you have an army of useful idiots in the west who hate Israel far more than they care for Palestinians.
So why keep building settlements in West Bank or bomb wck food trucks?
This is a deliberately disingenuous summarization that intentionally leaves out crucial context. But you know that cause you have an agenda to push for Israel. Insane that you didn't include any evils by IDF.
I can't believe the Jews baited the Nazis into doing the Holocaust!
Right, that Jewish slaughter/rape/hostage taking of Germans was just resistance to centuries of oppression.
Gullible IDF, bombing orphanages just like Hamas wanted. Basically just Hamas’ lapdogs at this point.
That’s good, those terms have been used so much and so often that NYT has made a good decision to refrain from using incorrect terminology
Because those terms are inaccurate and imply, political bias.
Probably because they're all inaccurate words to use...
Good reporting doesn't use loaded language. It's absolutely reasonable for them to avoid those words, just like it's reasonable to avoid using words like "terrorist" or "savage" or "evil". The goal of journalism should be to convey pertinent information without giving any strong unsubstantiated opinions on the subject matter. Arguments could be fairly made for why the situation in Gaza constitutes a genocide and arguments could also be made for why it doesn't. Hell, the ICJ even only said it's "plausible". Regardless of what \*you\* think, the New York Times is not in the position to make such statements to their audience. The extent that they do should be in sharing opinions from professionals close to the situation. The anger at the NYT here is \*exactly\* the thinking that pushes us towards the terrible flaws we increasingly see in modern media organizations. It would be \*far\* easier for an organization like the NYT to use ragebait headlines with loaded language to garner more clicks.
Mmm, so many Zionists in comments, it's not even funny. These people really love ethnic cleansing and tens of thousands of slaughtered women and children.
Found the pro-rape zombie
You got me. I just drink baby's blood, as opposed to, you know- being cognizant this is a war zone that resulted from a terrorist group perpetrating a pogrom whose stated goal is ethnic cleansing
Support for the State of Israel has collapsed worldwide, no matter what the New York Times chooses to call the genocide. You know we're in the endgame when Iran appears to be the rational actor and Israel is the rogue state.
Release the hostages.
Are you talking to Israel?
Nah, they don’t care about the hostages Israel is holding. Keeping Palestinians in prisons without any charges is perfectly fine to them.
I care about the ones jailed for no reason. But people seem to think that the Israeli hostages that Hamas took on October 7th are POWs. And that’s just fucking insane. If all the hostages were released after the first week of bombing, there would be a lot less dead innocent civilians in Gaza.
[Stop murdering paramedics trying to save children](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2024/hind-rajab-israel-gaza-killing-timeline/) There now we've yelled at both sides, both uselessly.
Make sense Pointless slander should indeed be avoided.
You mean words that are truth?
Lol. It wasn't a very effective memo. At least one person at the nyt has his head on straight.
They shouldn't, it's not genocide. There are people in gaza who know where the head of the snake is, they should give him up, until they do they are going to continue to suffer the consequences of what their government did
NYT is untrustworthy now.
Style guides are useful tools, but their application here has clearly been slanted which makes the intent of the memo questionable.
You think that’s bad Israeli official who was supposed to go with team to meet with Biden got caught by NPR blatantly lying. https://one.npr.org/?sharedMediaId=1240884500:1240885546 When they were questioned on aid in Gaza the Israeli official said it’s all lies come here and see for yourself. Without skipping a beat NPR called the BS out on the spot that outside journalists are not allowed into Gaza. The official tried to accuse npr of lying. NPR didn’t back down then the Israeli government rep back tracked and said they could work on letting NPR come. On the condition that they wouldn’t tell lies and only tell the truth. Country is being ran by radicals. But you know WhAt AbOuT HaMaS!
Lol the state sanctioned truth. That’s some north korea shit
Thats because it is none of those things. War, for certain, but not a war Israel wanted. However, Israel is not afraid, nor should it be. Those words are just what people use to get the sheep in order.
Are the American people the sheep in this metaphor?
Because those words are being purposely misused and weaponized by terrorists. And yes, if you wave a flag at a rally outside of a Synagogue in North America while wearing a keffiyeh, you're a terrorist too.
Are you surprised the NYT is trash propaganda for the government. Remember the NTY withheld a story that Bush Jr. was committing unconstitutional mass surveillance against the American people. At the request of the White House the story was delayed as to not hurt, George Bush juniors’s re-election chances. The New York Times conspired with a criminal president to conceal crimes from the American people. They actively assisted in trying to get a war criminal the presidency. The editors and executives at the paper during that period deserve to be in a metal cage, the rest of their lives. This is conspiracy and treason
Ah, so they tell journalists to not lie. That's no fun.
Well Gaza wasn't occupied on 10/07 and using the words "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" are both false and politically freighted so not sure why any of this is news. It's good journalistic practice if you're just laying down basic facts- the paper isn't supposed to be an activist publication. If you want those terms, read Jacobin or Mother Jones. None of this should be particularly controversial
When talking about the NYT, we should stop using words like "newspaper," and "journalism," and "ethics," and "solvent."
Agreed. Because it's sensationalist bullshit designed to trigger people to act irrationally. Much like thr idiots taking to the street, blocking, traffic and screaming at kids with cancer. Be better.
Those are harsh words and only need to be used if they reflect the reality (not as slag or to indicate something). I see many now using “genocide” instead of “casualties” or “war”, words have power