The Movement for Settlement in Southern Lebanon said the settlement of the area will bring 'true and stable security to northern Israel'

The Movement for Settlement in Southern Lebanon said the settlement of the area will bring ‘true and stable security to northern Israel’

  • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
    271·
    1 month ago

    If you read the first three chapters of that report, you’ll have your answer

    Israel has repeatedly chosen violence over peace. They’ve even assassinated the Principal Peace Negotiator multiple times, in order to continue delaying peace negotiations

      • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
        212·
        1 month ago

        Now you’re calling a Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor Report a ‘biased copypasta’ and completely disregarding the entire report.

          • njm1314@lemmy.worldEnglish
            182·
            1 month ago

            Ooof, I’ve never seen someone use MBFC as a source before. That’s just sad.

          • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
            82·
            1 month ago

            MBFC is a terrible way to consider whether a source is credible or not. But even if you look at the MBFC for Euro-Med, is shows no failed fact checks and a bias for human rights… If you consider that kind of bias worth disregarding, what does that say? You’ve given no genuine reason to ignore the Report.

            • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
              213·
              1 month ago

              Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

              Analysis / Bias

              Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor mainly focuses on human rights violations, especially in conflict zones like Gaza. The organization’s articles often use emotionally loaded language. Headlines like “Int’l committee must investigate Israel’s holding of dead bodies in Gaza​” exemplify this. The cited sources, such as NPR, are often credible but can lean towards perspectives emphasizing violations by certain state actors, potentially omitting broader contextual details, which could lead to a one-sided view of the situation. This selection of stories and framing indicates a significant bias against actions taken by Israel.

              • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
                64·
                1 month ago

                Like I said, MBFC is not a good way to determine if a source is credible. Credibility is about facts and honest reporting, both of which are present in Euro-Med Monitor reporting. Nor do they omit context, the entire first two chapters of the report are about the context of the conflict. The MBFC page even contradicts itself by admitting the sources used by Euro-Med are also credible. Euro-Med and other Human Rights Organizations apply International Law equally to all parties. The amount of violations is obviously disproportionate when one side is committing genocide, that does not mean these organizations are ‘one-sided’ as MBFC wants to believe, they each have multiple reports condemning human rights violations by Hamas and other resistance organizations. You’re refusal to consider these reports when it comes to the human rights violations of Israel shows how one-sided your views of this conflict are.

                  • ayyy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                    62·
                    1 month ago

                    How can you make your own determination if you steadfastly refuse to even consider all the facts?

                  • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    54·
                    1 month ago

                    That’s impossible with your ridiculous premise that bias is somehow inherently bad and also more important to consider than factual reporting.

                    Are Israeli sources like B’TSelem and Breaking the Silence also too biased to you? Works done by Israeli Historians such as Ilan Pappe and Avi Schlaim?

                    The reality of this genocide, the Apartheid, and the daily violence of the Occupation are well documented and readily available.