Where is the outrage? Where have all the “humans” gone? Israel slaughtered over 300 innocent civilians in Gaza last night. Most of them women and children.

None of those with #Ukraine, #Canada, #Mexico and #EU flags on their profile raising their voice condemning this outrageous crime.

-----------
The sheikh wandered around the city with a lamp

I’m tired of all the devils and the death, and seeking one human

They said it cannot be found, we have searched, As we said before

That which cannot be found I desire

Rumi
دی شیخ با چراغ همی‌ گشت گرد شهر
کز دیو و دد ملولم و انسانم آرزوست

گفتند یافت می‌ نشود جسته‌ ایم ما گفت
آن که یافت می‌ نشود آنم آرزوست
#poetry #Rumi #Gaza #Inhumanity #Death #politics #Israel #Genocide #WarCrime
@[email protected] @[email protected] @israel @iran

      • 𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠
        87·
        13 hours ago

        They both cited Israel’s given reason for the attack, the response from Hamas, the critique and condemnation from the UN, human rights organizations and several world leaders, as well as an expert opinion explaining that this could mean the end of the ceasefire.

        Both were factual and neutral in their reporting.

        • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
          183·
          13 hours ago

          Did they mention that Israel is blatantly lying about its reason?

          Did they mention that Israel has repeatedly violated the ceasefire?

          Did they identify that Israel is committing genocide?

          Did they avoid calling the government of Gaza “a terrorist organisation”

          Did they avoid calling IDF soldiers taken as prisoners of war “hostages”?

          • 𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠
            82·
            11 hours ago

            Here’s the Guardian article on the condemnation of the attacks: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/18/un-human-rights-chief-voices-horror-at-israel-new-gaza-strikes

            It does include that Israel is accused of genocide by multiple parties and explicitly includes Turkey’s response, which also directly accuses Israel of genocide. The French response calls out the Israeli justification, saying there’s no identifiable military objective.

            They do name Hamas, but not as a terrorist organization.

            Here’s a slightly more recent article that focuses on Israel’s justification and Netanyahu’s comments: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/18/israel-gaza-strikes-deaths-latest-update

            It contains the justification that Israel provided, but also additional context (e.g. the actual terms of the ceasefire) that show a stark contrast between the ceasefire agreement and what Israel is doing now. The article also highlights the human suffering this has caused. It also concludes by showing the disproportionate death toll that Israel has inflicted on Gaza.

            Here’s an opinion article published today from one of the main columnists that is very explicit about the genocide in Gaza: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/19/imagine-silent-terrible-evil-committed-gaza-inaction-censorship

            So maybe let’s not attack media outlets that do actually show what is going on and that are willing to call it what it is?

            I won’t bother with the Dutch state broadcaster because I doubt you speak the language, but with them it’s mostly the same story, though they don’t have opinion articles and the liveblog posts are a bit more concise. But they too have reported on ceasefire violations by Israel and the ICC case for genocide against Israel, and they often have expert opinions that also call out the disproportionate violence from the Israeli side.

            • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
              73·
              11 hours ago

              Here’s the Guardian article on the condemnation of the attacks: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/18/un-human-rights-chief-voices-horror-at-israel-new-gaza-strikes

              Hey, that one’s actually good, only issue being one instance of “Hostages” vs “detainees”

              Here’s a slightly more recent article that focuses on Israel’s justification and Netanyahu’s comments: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/18/israel-gaza-strikes-deaths-latest-update

              This one is pretty damn bad though, spending a disproportionate amount of time uncritically repeating the lies and rhetoric of Israel, it also repeats the lie of Hamas starting the fighting by “attacking Israel” as well as not differentiating between civilian and military casualties on October 7th, before immediately giving a comedicly low death count for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

              Here’s an opinion article published today from one of the main columnists that is very explicit about the genocide in Gaza: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/19/imagine-silent-terrible-evil-committed-gaza-inaction-censorship

              A good editorial, not that it too talks about how bad the media has been.

              So maybe let’s not attack media outlets that do actually show what is going on and that are willing to call it what it is?

              I mean, they’re still extremely hesitant to actually call it what it is, instead resorting to qualified “some say” framing, while also giving equal consideration (or sometimes greater) to obvious lies from Israel. Don’t get me wrong, the guardian is way better than most, but that a relative statement.

              • 𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠
                42·
                10 hours ago

                Hey, that one’s actually good, only issue being one instance of “Hostages” vs “detainees”

                Doesn’t Hamas also call them that? Or perhaps it’s just translated as such.

                This one is pretty damn bad though, spending a disproportionate amount of time uncritically repeating the lies and rhetoric of Israel, it also repeats the lie of Hamas starting the fighting by “attacking Israel” as well as not differentiating between civilian and military casualties on October 7th, before immediately giving a comedicly low death count for Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

                The entire point of that article is to report on what Israel is saying. So I’m not sure how that can be disproportionate if it exclusively talks about what it says in the headline. I think it makes sense for a media outlet to also report what Israel says, even if it can be disproven (and the Guardian does add that context). The Guardian here objectively reports on what Israel says, which I think is an important function of a news outlet. The Guardian also mentions that the “eruption of violence” started on October 7th, and I’m pretty sure that’s objectively true as well. Before that there was a very uneasy “peace” with plenty of violence to go around, but nothing to the scale of what we saw on Octobee 7th and beyond. Note how the language used doesn’t explicitly blame Hamas for the entire conflict.

                The “comedically low death count” is the count as reported by the Gaza health ministry. Of course more people have indirectly died as a result of the war, but that’s a different statistic. Not sure what you want the Guardian to do here, unless you think Hamas is also fudging the numbers or something(?)

                • Bloomcole@lemmy.ml
                  53·
                  10 hours ago

                  The “comedically low death count” is the count as reported by the Gaza health ministry.

                  Doesn’t even know the Palestinian Authority are fully controled by the genociders.

                • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
                  54·
                  10 hours ago

                  Doesn’t Hamas also call them that? Or perhaps it’s just translated as such.

                  Would be news to me, and that kind of double standard in language has been used a lot (see “kidnapped from his tank”).

                  The entire point of that article is to report on what Israel is saying.

                  Yes? That’s exactly my point. Do they have articles who’s whole point is to report on what Palestine is saying? Yemen? Russia?

                  So I’m not sure how that can be disproportionate if it exclusively talks about what it says in the headline

                  They choose their own headlines.

                  I think it makes sense for a media outlet to also report what Israel says

                  I don’t.

                  The Guardian also mentions that the “eruption of violence” started on October 7th, and I’m pretty sure that’s objectively true as well

                  You going to read the rest of that sentence? The part that goes “…when thousands of Hamas-led gunmen attacked Israeli communities around the Gaza Strip, killing 1,200 people and abducting 251 hostages.”

                  and I’m pretty sure that’s objectively true as well

                  It’s also objectively true that Israel is a fascist, genocidal ethnostate, you won’t see them saying that though.

                  The “comedically low death count” is the count as reported by the Gaza health ministry.

                  1. That death count is the direct munitions deaths that the barely functionally health ministry has been able to confirm. It is the depths of willfully misleading to imply that thats the actual estimated total death count. And you can tell that it’s misleading, because it misled you.

                  2. Even that count is much higher than the number Guardian gave now, they’re using old numbers.

                  but that’s a different statistic.

                  Actually no, that’s the statistic The Guardian is falsely claiming it is.

                  Not sure what you want the Guardian to do here

                  For a start, they should include that the estimates for total deaths had already passed the two hundred thousand mark half a year ago.

          • 𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠
            41·
            11 hours ago

            "But can the Guardian categorically say it stood up as a genocide unfolded and did everything in its power to report accurately? Certainly not. If Haaretz, a newspaper in a country with military censorship of the media, can have editorials openly using words like ethnic cleansing, what’s stopping the Guardian?”

            Nothing. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/19/imagine-silent-terrible-evil-committed-gaza-inaction-censorship

            Israel’s genocide was only on pause: for Palestinians woken on Monday night by a vicious wave of airstrikes, the resumption was no less shocking. More than 400 people – many of them children – were slaughtered in a matter of hours, in an assault that reportedly received the “green light” from Donald Trump. This mayhem was swiftly followed by evacuation orders – that is, forced displacement – raising the possibility of renewed ground operations. Israel’s excuse? A confected claim that Hamas hasn’t observed the terms of January’s so-called ceasefire agreement – the terms of which Israel itself has broken over and over again.

            I read the Guardian enough to know that it tries to do two things:

            A) Provide a neutral, unbiased presentation of facts and statements from all parties. This does include statements from Israeli officials that are false, but they are usually also provided with the context that shows they are false. It also includes reporting on investigations into the genocide, as well as statements from parties that accuse Israel of genocide.

            B) Provide opinion pieces that explain what they think about the war, which in my experience is definitely negative towards Israel (which makes sense), see the linked piece that directly accuses Israel of genocide as an example.

            I don’t think moving goalposts to reframe a media outlet that is clearly very critical of Israel as having a pro-Israeli bias is a productive use of time and energy.