Last week “The New York Times published news of an explosion at a hospital in Gaza City, leading its coverage with claims by Hamas government officials that an Israeli airstrike was the cause and that hundreds of people were dead or injured.
I've been following the conflict in Palestine for some decades now, having been educated by my father back in the late 70's after enquiring about Yasser Arafat. I was surprised by his dishevelled appearance given pretty much every person who appeared on TV in those days did so in a suit. Most still do of course! My dad pointed at an Israeli in a suit & said, "that terrorist in the suit has stolen the land of this scruffy terrorist & now they're basically fighting over it..." Some people might like to make the issue's in Palestine appear complicated but it's not complicated at all. It's a modern day colonial-style land theft/occupation going on while we watch.
But this thing with the hospital strike as basically anomalous. It's usually the other way around. The majority of msm are in Israel's corner & almost always have been.
I'd be interested in how the NYT dealt with the forty decapitated babies thing. This was obviously either mistaken reportage or deliberate propaganda. There were never any decapitated babies. Well, maybe one & let's be honest, one decapitated baby is more than enough thanks very much. But I wonder if the NYT reported on the decapitated babies & if so, how eager they were to prominently retract their report..? There have been plentiful retractions or row-backs on the forty decapitated babies story!
The BBC has recently been criticised for refusing to describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Although I decry war-crimes regardless of who perpetrates, I personally am in Hamas corner, but even I accept the terrorist credentials of the organisation. I do not now, never have & never would condone terrorism, but I do seek to discuss & understand it & to promote further understanding of terrorism amongst others. But that Hamas & other Islamist Palestinian liberation organisations resort to terrorism is close to indisputable. Some don't, but most do. That's an unpalatable fact but it's a fact.
It's also my opinion that what we get from terrorists is simply "unofficial terrorism". Carpet bombing Dresden with Thermite incendiaries was "official terrorism", as is carpet bombing Gaza right now! It's terrorism, but it's being performed by governments & militaries. When our own governments engage in war, particularly wars based on deceit, either 9/11-style false-flaggery or Iraqi WMD media bs, they simply engage in "official terrorism". I fail to see any obvious difference between actually targeting civilians for political ends (ie terrorism) or bombing the shit out of them just because they are in the way. I see no difference, personally. For anyone under the bombs, it does not matter whether it's an Islamist ruck sack or an Israeli missile. The results on the ground are the same. Terror is terror is terror.
When the media/gov fail to report on the anomalies associated with false-flags & hoaxed terrorism, they do the terrorists job for them by promoting false by frightening narratives, for example, that Muslims or Asians with large ruck sacks should be watched carefully when travelling on London's tube trains...
My research into the July 7 attacks on London in 2005 suggests they may have been a combination of false-flags &/or outright hoax. The bus attack at street level, for example, appears on closer examination to be a hoax. The three other attacks on 7/7 were in the underground where it's dark & smoky at the best of times, so if the street level, daylight attack on the bus was a hoax, why presume the three underground blasts were any more genuine? It's obviously even easier to hoax a terrorist attack on the London underground that it is to do so at street level! And when you have the authorities & the media on-side, the apparent anomalies, the evidence of deceit, is easily covered up & ends up being exposed & discussed by the easily discredited. Like me.
Anyway, before I digress further, in my experience over the decades watching the msm on Israel/Palestine, I've had a strong impression, specially since 9/11, of a pro-Israeli bias. Although I've gone off on several tangents here, that's really about the only point I sought to make. The media bias is usually & has almost always been mostly pro-Israel.
I never believe anything MSM reports about Israel - they lie and manipulate to put the Arabs in a good light!
I am not so sure about any reports re:Gaza except it does seem clear bombs are hitting residential areas. Many casualties. 😢
I've been following the conflict in Palestine for some decades now, having been educated by my father back in the late 70's after enquiring about Yasser Arafat. I was surprised by his dishevelled appearance given pretty much every person who appeared on TV in those days did so in a suit. Most still do of course! My dad pointed at an Israeli in a suit & said, "that terrorist in the suit has stolen the land of this scruffy terrorist & now they're basically fighting over it..." Some people might like to make the issue's in Palestine appear complicated but it's not complicated at all. It's a modern day colonial-style land theft/occupation going on while we watch.
But this thing with the hospital strike as basically anomalous. It's usually the other way around. The majority of msm are in Israel's corner & almost always have been.
I'd be interested in how the NYT dealt with the forty decapitated babies thing. This was obviously either mistaken reportage or deliberate propaganda. There were never any decapitated babies. Well, maybe one & let's be honest, one decapitated baby is more than enough thanks very much. But I wonder if the NYT reported on the decapitated babies & if so, how eager they were to prominently retract their report..? There have been plentiful retractions or row-backs on the forty decapitated babies story!
The BBC has recently been criticised for refusing to describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Although I decry war-crimes regardless of who perpetrates, I personally am in Hamas corner, but even I accept the terrorist credentials of the organisation. I do not now, never have & never would condone terrorism, but I do seek to discuss & understand it & to promote further understanding of terrorism amongst others. But that Hamas & other Islamist Palestinian liberation organisations resort to terrorism is close to indisputable. Some don't, but most do. That's an unpalatable fact but it's a fact.
It's also my opinion that what we get from terrorists is simply "unofficial terrorism". Carpet bombing Dresden with Thermite incendiaries was "official terrorism", as is carpet bombing Gaza right now! It's terrorism, but it's being performed by governments & militaries. When our own governments engage in war, particularly wars based on deceit, either 9/11-style false-flaggery or Iraqi WMD media bs, they simply engage in "official terrorism". I fail to see any obvious difference between actually targeting civilians for political ends (ie terrorism) or bombing the shit out of them just because they are in the way. I see no difference, personally. For anyone under the bombs, it does not matter whether it's an Islamist ruck sack or an Israeli missile. The results on the ground are the same. Terror is terror is terror.
When the media/gov fail to report on the anomalies associated with false-flags & hoaxed terrorism, they do the terrorists job for them by promoting false by frightening narratives, for example, that Muslims or Asians with large ruck sacks should be watched carefully when travelling on London's tube trains...
My research into the July 7 attacks on London in 2005 suggests they may have been a combination of false-flags &/or outright hoax. The bus attack at street level, for example, appears on closer examination to be a hoax. The three other attacks on 7/7 were in the underground where it's dark & smoky at the best of times, so if the street level, daylight attack on the bus was a hoax, why presume the three underground blasts were any more genuine? It's obviously even easier to hoax a terrorist attack on the London underground that it is to do so at street level! And when you have the authorities & the media on-side, the apparent anomalies, the evidence of deceit, is easily covered up & ends up being exposed & discussed by the easily discredited. Like me.
Anyway, before I digress further, in my experience over the decades watching the msm on Israel/Palestine, I've had a strong impression, specially since 9/11, of a pro-Israeli bias. Although I've gone off on several tangents here, that's really about the only point I sought to make. The media bias is usually & has almost always been mostly pro-Israel.