Israel–United States relations and associated politics

[Victoria Raverna]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: Qatar
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: LIMITED FREEDOM
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

In review, Al Jazeera reports news with minimally loaded wording in their headlines and articles such as this: UN approves team to monitor ceasefire in Yemen’s port city, and Erdogan delays Syria operation, welcomes US troop withdrawal. Both of these articles are properly sourced from credible news agencies. When reporting USA news, there is minimal bias in reporting such as this: Pentagon chief Mattis quits, cites policy differences with Trump. In general, straight news reporting has a minimal bias; however, as a state-funded news agency, Al Jazeera is typically not critical of Qatar.

Al Jazeera also has an opinion page that exhibits significant bias against Israel. In this article, the author uses highly negative emotional words as evidenced by this quote: “Europe is increasingly sharing Israel’s racist approach to border security and adopting its deadly technologies.” This article, however, is properly sourced from credible media outlets. Another article, “How many more ways can Israel sentence Palestinians to death?” also uses loaded language that is negative toward Israel. Further, the opinion page does not favor US President Donald Trump through this article: ‘Barbed wire-plus‘: Borders know no love. In general, opinion pieces are routinely biased against Israel and right-wing ideologies.

[Victoria Raverna]

It seems so convenient for Al Jazeera to have the tapes so readily available.

The funding of the hospital was from Qatar. It is not that surprising that Al Jazeera which is a Qatar news media has video footages from when they built the hospital.

[malchior]

It seems so convenient for Al Jazeera to have the tapes so readily available.

FWIW it's totally normal. Most news agencies archive all their footage indefinitely.

[Victoria Raverna]

https://bnn.network/politics/hamas-call ... al-misuse/

In the face of allegations from Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) spokesperson Daniel Hagari that Palestinian groups are using hospitals as command centers, Hamas has vehemently denied these claims. They argue that Israel is seeking pretexts to legitimize the bombardment of hospitals, destruction of the medical sector, and the displacement of the Palestinian people. To add weight to their denial, Hamas has urged the UN Secretary General to establish an international committee to visit hospitals and verify the absence of such command centers.

[Victoria Raverna]

It seems so convenient for Al Jazeera to have the tapes so readily available.

FWIW it's totally normal. Most news agencies archive all their footage indefinitely.

It is also a relatively new hospital. The hospital was proposed in 2012 and the construction started at 2016 and completed at 2019.

[Blackhawk]

The IDF isn't a reliable source in this, because you don't hear the IDF's statements. You hear the Israeli government's statements.

But...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: Qatar
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: LIMITED FREEDOM
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

In review, Al Jazeera reports news with minimally loaded wording in their headlines and articles such as this: UN approves team to monitor ceasefire in Yemen’s port city, and Erdogan delays Syria operation, welcomes US troop withdrawal. Both of these articles are properly sourced from credible news agencies. When reporting USA news, there is minimal bias in reporting such as this: Pentagon chief Mattis quits, cites policy differences with Trump. In general, straight news reporting has a minimal bias; however, as a state-funded news agency, Al Jazeera is typically not critical of Qatar.

Al Jazeera also has an opinion page that exhibits significant bias against Israel. In this article, the author uses highly negative emotional words as evidenced by this quote: “Europe is increasingly sharing Israel’s racist approach to border security and adopting its deadly technologies.” This article, however, is properly sourced from credible media outlets. Another article, “How many more ways can Israel sentence Palestinians to death?” also uses loaded language that is negative toward Israel. Further, the opinion page does not favor US President Donald Trump through this article: ‘Barbed wire-plus‘: Borders know no love. In general, opinion pieces are routinely biased against Israel and right-wing ideologies.

In other words, they're unbiased except in regards to Qatar and Israel. And yes, it said 'opinion page', but it still shows that where Israel is concerned, they're willing to look the other way when it comes to integrity. And, as things stand, there is active tension between Al Jazeera and Israel, who has, in the past, tried to expel the organization from the country (including a current effort.)

But we're the small minded ones who can't accept disagreement - you're so convinced that you're right that you are guzzling bullshit and calling it chocolate,.

And then you act put out when we don't grab the straw you're offering.

[Victoria Raverna]

I'm not convinced that I'm right. Small minded is because you claimed that people learn not to watch any video that I posted after a few. If you look at what videos that I posted here, there are not all over the top or even pro Palestinian videos.

There was a video from Israel's ex-PM that I got directly from his youtube channel. The one that is about concentration camp was a video about a debate between 3 people who think Gaza isn't a concentration camp vs 1 person that think it is.

Then there was interview of people that talk about the conflict. Also videos about the history of the conflict. Video of an interview with an evacuated American nurse that worked at Gaza.

The video about genocide was a video that discuss about the genocide accusations against both sides by Mehdi Hasan.

One of the video is a video by a Japanese youtuber that visit Hebron at West Bank.

There were several AlJazeera videos to show the view from non western medias.

There are interview of Moore at Al Jazeera which he was pretty neutral and sad about civilian casualties on both sides.

All those are things can be discussed. If you think that videos that I posted were not worth watching at all then that was an example of being small or close minded.

As for hearing from IDF vs Israel government. How can you claim I didn't hear from IDF when it was an IDF spokeman that made those claims.

[Blackhawk]

As for hearing from IDF vs Israel government. How can you claim I didn't hear from IDF when it was an IDF spokeman that made those claims.

Is the IDF independent of the Israeli government?

If the US military makes a statement on a major national issue, are you hearing just from the military and not from the White House?

[Victoria Raverna]

As for hearing from IDF vs Israel government. How can you claim I didn't hear from IDF when it was an IDF spokeman that made those claims.

Is the IDF independent of the Israeli government?

If the US military makes a statement on a major national issue, are you hearing just from the military and not from the White House?

And your point is? IDF is trustworthy and Israeli government isn't?

[Victoria Raverna]

Funny that Piers Morgan is being accused of too pro Palestinians.

[Zarathud]

You can't demand our time or respect. Or seriously insist that I watch anything from that hack Michael Moore, who I've personally found full of sensationalism and bullshit. Or treat Al Jazeera as a reliable source when it comes to conflict between Palestine and Israel. It's much like insisting we watch FOX News clips about Biden.

Calling us small minded because we disagree and find your arguments lacking shows you're unable to present something we might find more credible than some YouTube videos. There's too much propaganda chasing views and attention.

In addition, you sometimes even make our point but overlook it because of the bias introduced by your beliefs and sources.

[Punisher]

So.. I've been following this thread just to see if i can learn to understand wgats goung on (I'm still confused with a bunch of basic questions that I'd rather not post and derail this thread with my brain nonsense).

That being said, I came to post this...
Can't we all just get along?
I understand that something like this can get heated but I'd like to think that we can all atgue and debate without anyone resorting to name calling or making things personal.
I'd rather not see the community fall apart over this.
I'd like to think that we can argue over anything but in the end still temain friends with each other. I'm starting to get concerned that someone is going to go a bit too far and not be able to take ot back.
That is all...

[Victoria Raverna]

You can't demand our time or respect. Or seriously insist that I watch anything from that hack Michael Moore, who I've personally found full of sensationalism and bullshit. Or treat Al Jazeera as a reliable source when it comes to conflict between Palestine and Israel. It's much like insisting we watch FOX News clips about Biden.

Calling us small minded because we disagree and find your arguments lacking shows you're unable to present something we might find more credible than some YouTube videos. There's too much propaganda chasing views and attention.

In addition, you sometimes even make our point but overlook it because of the bias introduced by your beliefs and sources.

I don't demand your time or respect. I thought maybe wrongly that this is a place where we can discuss things. If anything that I posted is bullshit, then maybe explain why it is bullshit. Now I understand for you anything from Al Jazeera is not acceptable which I disagree but I respect your opinion about that. Michael Moore maybe a hack, but in the interview, he stated a very humane opinion but too bad it was Michael Moore and it was on Al Jazeera so they're not worth your time to watch.

As for the small minded thing. I don't call you small minded for disagree with me. The one that I called small minded is anyone (if there are any) that don't want to look at any video that I posted because the decided before viewing the videos that all are too extreme and not credible or full of propaganda, chasing views and attention.

[Victoria Raverna]

So.. I've been following this thread just to see if i can learn to understand wgats goung on (I'm still confused with a bunch of basic questions that I'd rather not post and derail this thread with my brain nonsense).

That being said, I came to post this...
Can't we all just get along?
I understand that something like this can get heated but I'd like to think that we can all atgue and debate without anyone resorting to name calling or making things personal.
I'd rather not see the community fall apart over this.
I'd like to think that we can argue over anything but in the end still temain friends with each other. I'm starting to get concerned that someone is going to go a bit too far and not be able to take ot back.
That is all...

I thought we can do that (discuss stuffs without getting personal) but looks like I was wrong.

[Victoria Raverna]

I think I got angry with Blackhawk's comment which was my fault. I didn't realize that what I thought was just sharing interesting videos that I watched about the conflict made people thought that I'm this unreasonable extremist here that have to be cancelled or ignored.

I apologize if I offend anyone with my opinions or by the videos that I posted.

I think I'll go back to discuss things with strangers on Facebook instead of here. I don't know them so it doesn't matter if they think I'm a terrorist fan or an anti-semite there.

[El Guapo]

So.. I've been following this thread just to see if i can learn to understand wgats goung on (I'm still confused with a bunch of basic questions that I'd rather not post and derail this thread with my brain nonsense).

That being said, I came to post this...
Can't we all just get along?
I understand that something like this can get heated but I'd like to think that we can all atgue and debate without anyone resorting to name calling or making things personal.
I'd rather not see the community fall apart over this.
I'd like to think that we can argue over anything but in the end still temain friends with each other. I'm starting to get concerned that someone is going to go a bit too far and not be able to take ot back.
That is all...

I thought we can do that (discuss stuffs without getting personal) but looks like I was wrong.

It gets tough sometimes. Honestly I'm a little surprised at the blowup over an Al Jazeera video, since like I said they have their biases, and I expect that they're more likely to assume the worst from Israel, interpret things in an anti-Israel way, but they're not propaganda and I don't think sharing an Al Jazeera video is over the line at all.

Personally I was more annoyed by the "Is Gaza a Concentration Camp?" debate video since I thought the subject was both unnecessarily inflammatory and not a particularly useful discussion, so I mostly stayed out of that.

One minor suggestion is when posting videos it is helpful to add a sentence or two about what it is. Helpful context, and I'm way more likely to watch a video if I have some sense of what it is / what it covers.

[Kraken]

I don't watch your videos because I don't want to spend 3+ minutes on one post. It's hard enough to keep up with this thread as it is. It's nothing personal; I skip most other people's videos, too, unless they seem unusually interesting or feature beautiful women.

I respect Al Jazeera's solid news reporting overall but didn't know about their bias against Israel, so I learned that much.

[Kurth]

I think you've maybe got a picture of me that doesn't match reality.

Hello, irony.

Thanks for that.

[malchior]

I don't watch your videos because I don't want to spend 3+ minutes on one post. It's hard enough to keep up with this thread as it is. It's nothing personal; I skip most other people's videos, too, unless they seem unusually interesting or feature beautiful women.

I respect Al Jazeera's solid news reporting overall but didn't know about their bias against Israel, so I learned that much.

It's fairly subtle and honestly the flipped coin on most US coverage. If you watch MSNBC or CNN or Fox they parade a bunch of Israeli aligned politicians through to give their points of view. And I'll caveat that it's not uniform. Morning Joe has Richard Haas on every few days. Haas basically is aligned 95% with me on the mistakes Israel is making. Still it's relatively rare to hear any direct criticism of Israel in that way in the US media space.

Al Jazeera on the other hand will parade through a bunch of pro-Palestinian or pro-Arab voices through. It's useful for that very reason! You just have to be able to read the bias the right way.

[Blackhawk]

As for hearing from IDF vs Israel government. How can you claim I didn't hear from IDF when it was an IDF spokeman that made those claims.

Is the IDF independent of the Israeli government?

If the US military makes a statement on a major national issue, are you hearing just from the military and not from the White House?

And your point is? IDF is trustworthy and Israeli government isn't?

No, my point is that they're the same. The IDF is an appendage of the Israeli government, and they have lost, in my view, the benefit of the doubt.

[Victoria Raverna]

I don't watch your videos because I don't want to spend 3+ minutes on one post. It's hard enough to keep up with this thread as it is. It's nothing personal; I skip most other people's videos, too, unless they seem unusually interesting or feature beautiful women.

I respect Al Jazeera's solid news reporting overall but didn't know about their bias against Israel, so I learned that much.

I posted link to youtube video because I thought it is easier for people to watch than follow link to article because most of the time you can just play the video instead of have to go to another site to read. Also some of the news sites are behind paywall so it is hard for people to read them.

I know Al Jazeera like most middle east based or Indonesian based media are biased against Israel but Al Jazeera is still a real news site that report real news. They might use wording that is biased against Israel but they're not likely to make up fake news to slam Israel.

As for the tunnels, I don't know if there are Hamas tunnels under those hospitals. I just find it is hard to believe that Hamas leave an open entrance to their tunnels like that when they can build it inside the hospital where there are going to be more hidden. The Al Jazeera video showed the footage during the building of the hospital that showed those are not connected to any tunnels.

And on the other side, Mer-C which is the organization that collected donation to build the Indonesian hospital in Gaza. There were accusations that they were supportive of muslim terrorist/militias in Indonesia so it is not be surprising for me if they helped Hamas in Gaza maybe at least with some funding from the donation they collected.

[Victoria Raverna]

She got censured.

[Blackhawk]

That being said, I came to post this...
Can't we all just get along?

I would like that, but it isn't always that simple. There are times where something cannot go unquestioned in the name of keeping the peace. Maybe I'm too idealistic, but there are some things that I feel have to be called out.

With that said, OO generally does a good job of calling out behaviors, actions, and statements rather than the nature of the person themselves. We routinely trounce each other in here, then turn around and laugh with the same person in a gaming or EBG thread.

With a very few exceptions in this, nobody has made it about the individual, just about the positions they're taking.

[Zarathud]

I've been harsher to Rip when he posted his conservative talking point garbage back in the day. I've never liked manufactured OUTRAGE!

I'm also unsympathetic to aggressors in military conflicts. It's been one month since Hamas attacked Israeli civilians without provocation or warning. Hamas is allegedly hiding in tunnels underneath civilian infrastructure, with those hostages. Any realistic read of the situation would acknowledge that the IDF and Israel are under incredible pressure to achieve some result against Hamas.

They're attacking all probable targets and using maximum pressure on Hamas in retaliation. There are many reasonable criticisms that can be made about Netanyahu's tactics and the long-term consequences of his government's actions. Or Hamas' decision to start this war they cannot win, and which has led to great suffering among Palestinians. But what's happening should surprise no one.

I would even argue that Hamas intended for people like VR to "raise awareness" of the "Palestinian situation" by making those posts on social media.

[Victoria Raverna]

I would even argue that Hamas intended for people like VR to "raise awareness" of the "Palestinian situation" by making those posts on social media.

And do you think people like me should "raise awareness" of the situation? Or do you think people like me just spreading propaganda?

[Blackhawk]

I would even argue that Hamas intended for people like VR to "raise awareness" of the "Palestinian situation" by making those posts on social media.

And do you think people like me should "raise awareness" of the situation? Or do you think people like me just spreading propaganda?

I don't know about Zarathud, but I'd say yes. Both are correct. There's a line, a matter of degree.

Most of us here, including myself, have been raising awareness of Israel's excesses and the Palestinian peoples' situation right alongside condemning Hamas.

And yet, those of us who are on the side of the civilian populations - who generally agree with you on the overall situation - are saying that you go too far in your messaging.

You seem to be bringing an all-or-nothing, black-and-white view to a complex situation with horrific excesses and innocent victims on both sides.

[LordMortis]

She got censured.

She's my congressperson. I don't agree with a preponderance of what she's been selling since elected but I support this sentiment and don't see a circumstance where I attempt to primary her. In spite of all of the bile the GOP raises from me, I am still not a democrat but I also don't see the future when my vote in the democratic primaries aren't more important than my vote in general where I vote to keep the GOP out of power.

If the election were today, there is no small chance Biden will lose Michigan, I suspect. I dunno what he needs to do "win" the Gaza atrocities but where we're at ain't it. My arm will still be twisted to vote for him, but I am not the average voter.

Also I can't speak for the nation at large, but among non tunnelvisioned conservatives here, the deaths of children are the main thing we see hear about here as we see non ending urban rubble. It's overshadowing the horrors of Hamas.

[hepcat]

I haven’t been watching the entire thing as I’m taking a Dandelion Break, but isn’t the censure mostly about her use of the phrase “From the river to the sea”, which is a slogan used by Hamas and other Palestinians when calling for genocide against Jews? I really thought that should have been something she’d understand the history of and thus would have avoided. Uttering it in a speech really did come across (to me) as either deliberate or completely tone deaf.

[Victoria Raverna]

I haven’t been watching the entire thing as I’m taking a Dandelion Break, but isn’t the censure mostly about her use of the phrase “From the river to the sea”, which is a slogan used by Hamas and other Palestinians when calling for genocide against Jews? I really thought that should have been something she’d understand the history of and thus would have avoided. Uttering it in a speech really did come across (to me) as either deliberate or completely tone deaf.

I think the phrase has different meaning according to who said it. Hamas probably meant genocide against Jews but for some Palestinians it is just meant freedom for Palestinians.

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-fr ... ib-2023-11

[Victoria Raverna]

An update about the death of Paul Kessler. Still not clear if there is a crime or not:

[LordMortis]

I haven’t been watching the entire thing as I’m taking a Dandelion Break, but isn’t the censure mostly about her use of the phrase “From the river to the sea”, which is a slogan used by Hamas and other Palestinians when calling for genocide against Jews? I really thought that should have been something she’d understand the history of and thus would have avoided. Uttering it in a speech really did come across (to me) as either deliberate or completely tone deaf.

I honestly didn't hear her say that. If so, then it's deserved. To the Internet!!!!


https://michiganadvance.com/2023/11/06/ ... o-the-sea/

Yeah, that's an issue. And if she can't see that, then she also needs to step back.

[Unagi]

I think I got angry with Blackhawk's comment which was my fault. I didn't realize that what I thought was just sharing interesting videos that I watched about the conflict made people thought that I'm this unreasonable extremist here that have to be cancelled or ignored.

I apologize if I offend anyone with my opinions or by the videos that I posted.

I think I'll go back to discuss things with strangers on Facebook instead of here. I don't know them so it doesn't matter if they think I'm a terrorist fan or an anti-semite there.

I’ll only offer this: it matters there too.

If you feel you have valid points to make, you should want to be understood and listened to, and not just help people dismiss you as some stereotype they have all figured out ahead of time.

If a term is loaded, don’t use it - it doesn’t help your cause, and it prevents you from actually being listened to at all in many cases.

[malchior]

I haven’t been watching the entire thing as I’m taking a Dandelion Break, but isn’t the censure mostly about her use of the phrase “From the river to the sea”, which is a slogan used by Hamas and other Palestinians when calling for genocide against Jews? I really thought that should have been something she’d understand the history of and thus would have avoided. Uttering it in a speech really did come across (to me) as either deliberate or completely tone deaf.

Totally tone deaf but also 25 members of the House had been censured before her. Earlier this year it was Schiff for...nothing. And by non-crazy people? Gosar in 2021 for posting the video showing violence against AOC. And in modern times before that (back to late 70s)? 6 folks. And those people committed major ethics violations such as abusing campaign funds, sex scandal with underage pages, bribery, etc.

Does she deserve bad press? Absolutely. Did her leadership publicly rebuke her? They sure did. That probably should have been enough considering how sensitive matters are but we're not much for nuance anymore. This is a bad look and underscores why we aren't trusted by many players in the middle east.

[Victoria Raverna]

I haven’t been watching the entire thing as I’m taking a Dandelion Break, but isn’t the censure mostly about her use of the phrase “From the river to the sea”, which is a slogan used by Hamas and other Palestinians when calling for genocide against Jews? I really thought that should have been something she’d understand the history of and thus would have avoided. Uttering it in a speech really did come across (to me) as either deliberate or completely tone deaf.

I honestly didn't hear her say that. If so, then it's deserved. To the Internet!!!!


https://michiganadvance.com/2023/11/06/ ... o-the-sea/

Yeah, that's an issue. And if she can't see that, then she also needs to step back.

And apparently Likud also used the phrase according to the article I linked earlier.

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-fr ... ib-2023-11

It's also worth noting that Palestinians aren't the only ones who have used a version of the phrase — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's political party, Likud, used the phrase in its original party platform.

"Between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty," reads the document, which also argued that a Palestinian state "endangers the existence of the State of Israel."

And as recently as 2015, a deputy foreign minister argued that the international community must recognize that "this entire land is ours. All of it, from the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River, and we are not here to apologize for this."

More quote for the article:

Some Jewish people believe that the slogan is antisemitic and even genocidal, arguing that it implies the dismantling of the state of Israel as a Jewish ethnostate.

They point to the fact that anti-Israel groups such as Hamas have employed the phrase to mean just that.

"It is fundamentally a call for a Palestinian state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, territory that includes the State of Israel, which would mean the dismantling of the Jewish state," says the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish civil-rights organization with a strong pro-Israel bent. "It is an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland."

Similarly, the American Jewish Committee argues that there is "nothing antisemitic about advocating for Palestinians to have their own state" but that "calling for the elimination of the Jewish state," as it says the slogan does, is antisemitic.

Despite the slogan's origins, its meaning for many Palestinians has grown broader over time into something less about the eradication of Israel than the rights of Palestinians.

The Palestinian American scholar and activist Yousef Munayyer wrote in Jewish Currents in 2021 that the phrase — particularly when invoked by activists — alludes to Palestinians' shared political struggles across Israel and the Palestinian territories, including discrimination in Israel proper, military occupation in the West Bank, and conditions in Gaza that have been likened to an "open-air prison."

"The phrase 'from the river to the sea' captures this future as no other can, because it encompasses the entire space in which Palestinian rights are denied," Munayyer wrote. "It is in this space that Palestinians seek to live freely."

Munayyer argues that when Palestinians use the phrase, they are pushing for a "state in which Palestinians can live in their homeland as free and equal citizens, neither dominated by others nor dominating them."

The slogan has also gained steam as the prospect of a two-state solution has grown ever slimmer, particularly as Israelis continue to construct settlements deep within the West Bank and as international human-rights organizations increasingly describe Israel as an apartheid state.

[LordMortis]

It's also worth noting that Palestinians aren't the only ones who have used a version of the phrase — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's political party, Likud, used the phrase in its original party platform.

"Between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty," reads the document, which also argued that a Palestinian state "endangers the existence of the State of Israel."

And as recently as 2015, a deputy foreign minister argued that the international community must recognize that "this entire land is ours. All of it, from the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River, and we are not here to apologize for this."

This does not make me feel better about the statement and the refusal to see a problem with it, even as quite frankly, I was unfamiliar with the cry until a month ago. Quite the contrary. It seems to be generically known as an open cry for a hegemonic ethnostate at the expense of the innocent. It matters not if the rallying cry comes from Israelis or Palestinians. It's troublesome for me to hear. I guess, from where I sit, it's hard to even use the word patriot because of the way it's been so deeply and successfully co-opted by such violently hateful people. Taking a full phrase, like say "Make America Great Again" Unthinkable. And our civil strife isn't murdering civilians at institutional level en masse.

[hepcat]

+1

Her job relies on knowing this kind of easily researched shit. If she wasn't aware of its meaning to a LARGE number of people, she's a moron. If she was, she's worse than a moron. It wouldn't have hurt to leave that statement out entirely.

[Victoria Raverna]

On one side, it is now interpret as a call for freedom. To the other side, it is a call of genocide.

Why we have to take one side's interpretation over the other side? Also why it is okay to accuse pro Palestinians as calling for genocide. I thought genocide require intent?

[Zarathud]

Kidnapping civilians and incorporating the annihilation of your opponent into your governing principles leaves no room for interpretation. This “both sides” crap is just propaganda.

I don’t use the n-word even though black rappers use it. Because words matter, and politicians should know better. (And for the record, I believe they should have resulted not only in the censure of former President Trump but also his impeachment.)

[Victoria Raverna]

Kidnapping civilians and incorporating the annihilation of your opponent into your governing principles leaves no room for interpretation. This “both sides” crap is just propaganda.

I don’t use the n-word even though black rappers use it. Because words matter, and politicians should know better. (And for the record, I believe they should have resulted not only in the censure of former President Trump but also his impeachment.)

Hamas are Palestinians but not all Palestinians are Hamas.

[malchior]

Kidnapping civilians and incorporating the annihilation of your opponent into your governing principles leaves no room for interpretation. This “both sides” crap is just propaganda.

It's not necessarily "both sides". Part of the trouble is there some body of liberals trying to distinguish between Hamas and the civilians by co-opting phrases. I don't think it's wise but that is what is happening.

I don’t use the n-word even though black rappers use it. Because words matter, and politicians should know better. (And for the record, I believe they should have resulted not only in the censure of former President Trump but also his impeachment.)

And this is where I agree. She shouldn't use the phrase as a representative of a wider body of people. And if she felt she had to then at the very least she should have acknowledged and been far more precise and say to some it is a statement of genocide and that they disagree over the meaning. But she didn't and left her intent open to this sort of interpretation.