341–350 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isreal has funded Hamas directly too. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q...
Is that claim in the part behind the paywall? The furthest the freely accessible part goes is to say Israel "encouraged" Qatari payments to Hamas.
from what I can see it never mentioned Israel directly giving money to Hamas. But encouraging payments seems close enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Israel isn't planning on agreeing to a ceasefire anytime soon A permanent one, no. But that wasn't ever on the table. A multi-week ceasefire is absolutely still on the table in exchange for hostages.
"We might agree to a cease-fire for a little bit, but I guarantee you will invade you soon anyway" is not exactly what I'd call good faith language. What's even the point of a cease-fire if you don't at least offer the possibility of something long-term? It's a completely absurd thing to say. This has long been the problem, with the Israeli government never offering any perspective or hope on a long-term solution.
To get aid to civilians. To let fighters regroup and restock. To open a window for negotiating a permanent ceasefire.
I can't think of an example of a permanent cease fire being immediately agreed without surrender or withdrawal.
Just a point about Al Jazeera that is worth mentioning. There are two Al Jazeeras. One which is presented to Western audiences and one which is presented to Middle-Eastern audiences. The media and articles are politically aligned in each region. Don't assume what you read in the US/UK/wherever is the same as over there. In the case of Israel, the Middle-Eastern unit were literally showing videos demanding further upr…
> Haarez has good coverage. For now. They are likely to be the next outlet banned. The government has been openly threatening them for a year or so now. https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-23/ty-article/is...
They will not be banned. There is zero evidence for this. There is a big difference between banning what can only be described as a fake news outlet controlled by the adversary government of Qatar vs. banning the most important or second most important independent newspaper in the country. When _that_ happens then the completely unjustified outrage in many comments here will be justified as that would indeed be an un…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't say it's validating, just not necessarily invalidating. Regardless, a news organizing funded by a monarchy not exactly known for its human and civilian rights mostly like has an agenda beyond "honest journalism".
Their journalist were trained at BBC. It is funny that BBC exactly fits your definition :-) BTW both have very high standards and make excellent journalism. I'd like to see examples of bad Al Jazeera journalism instead of just attacks to Qatar monarchy.
And journalism can be technically right while still showing a very one sided view.
Not that I'm pro ban, just saying that there's a good reason to be vigilant when it comes to their news coverage and make sure it's not you're only source.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems very reductive to just say that as if it is a fact. 90% of the claims I've seen about the IDF end up being just nonsense. I did pay very close attention to what happened with Shireen Abu-Akleh and I think that was definitely not dealt with in a satisfactory way.
"not dealt with in a satisfactory way" is exactly the justification that IDF has used after many similar circumstances. Let's say they just don't care, since there are no repercussions.
I think that's a fair statement, but also a far cry from "killing journalists for sport". These kind of exaggerated claims aren't helpful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know of any outright censorship of it, but all US journalists who worked for it were no longer allowed to after the outbreak of the war. If money is speech under citizens united, then pay for journalism would seem like it could possibly be protected under the same standard, though I think election funding is still allowed to be banned from foreign states even if they use super-PACs.
> all US journalists who worked for it were no longer allowed to after the outbreak of the war Again, source?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those are interviews with Hamas spokespeople. It isnt the opinion of al Jazeera being presented. There's nothing more shocking than the stuff Ben Gvir (security minister of Israel) does or says. The second interview even references his calls to burn women and children as, yknow, a bad thing. "memri" doesnt seem to consider that valid context, that is probably because it is a state propaganda outfit acting on behalf o…
It's not an interview if a spokesman is allowed to say whatever they like without being challenged. It's not an interview if you broadcast a pre-recorded speech without comment. Ben Gvir is awful, but that doesn't change the fact that Al Jazeera's Arabic service is not impartial and is not acting as a legitimate journalistic outlet.
This describes most interviews I've seen with Israeli government officials in the American press, although it's starting to change over the last few months.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why would you allow that to continue in your country? We have a constitution that protects our rights, and among them a right to make up our minds on the basis of an uncensored discourse. That's the other, implicit half of the first amendment: the right to listen to what others want to tell you.
Can you openly call for the murder of in the US under the protection of the first amendment ?