Israeli Government Imposes Sanctions on Haaretz, Cuts All Ties and Pulls Advertising
Israeli Government Imposes Sanctions on Haaretz, Cuts All Ties and Pulls Advertising
***
Israel's government approved on Sunday a proposal by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi that mandates any government-funded body refrain from communicating with Haaretz or placing advertisements in the paper. The proposal was approved by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The decision, according to the government's explanation, is a reaction to "many articles that have hurt the legitimacy of the state of Israel and its right to self defense, and particularly the remarks made in London by Haaretz publisher, Amos Schocken, that support terrorism and call for imposing sanctions on the government."
The proposal did not appear on the government's agenda published ahead of the weekly cabinet meeting. The Attorney General's office, unaware of the intention to bring the proposal to a vote, did not review it at all and did not present its opinion, as customary. The resolution was presented to ministers during the discussion without any legal opinion.
In a speech at the Haaretz conference in London last month, Schocken said "the Netanyahu government doesn't care about imposing a cruel apartheid regime on the Palestinian population. It dismisses the costs of both sides for defending the settlements while fighting the Palestinian freedom fighters, that Israel calls terrorists."
You're viewing part of a thread.
Hamas targets were military targets. More than 33% killed were active IDF soldiers.
The music festival next to a military base was not even supposed to be there. And there were many armed IDF soldiers at the festival (human shields anyone?)
If Hamas wanted civilian casualties they would have pushed into Israeli cities instead of raiding the heavily guarded military bases around the Gaza envelope.
For a more detailed explanation, an Israeli person made this great video https://youtu.be/Pt_1k7nSv1M
Hamas targets were military targets. More than 33% killed were active IDF soldiers.
"Only two-thirds of the people killed were civilians!" is quite the defense. Impressive.
The US had a civilian casualty rate of 12/13 in Iraq.
The IDF with 70% women and children killed would have a higher civilian casualty rate than Hamas even if literally every single man they killed was an active duty Hamas fighter.
OK, and? You're seriously trying to defend 66% civilian casualties because 70%+ is worse?
Now compare that to the IDF...
I am. Killing civilians is bad, and I don't care who does it. Only on Lemmy do we see galaxy-brains decrying Palestinian deaths while brushing off 66% civilian casualties on the Israeli side.
They planned to and did attack plenty of kibbutzes, slaughtering and kidnapping all civilian inhabitants they could
Their plans were clearly to capture and ransom them. Even Israeli witnesses testify to that, as well as to the fact that the IDF did the vast majority of damage.
You can find reports from journalists that saw were shown security and bodycam footage, that describe something very different. Freedom fighters taking lots of joy in killing civilians, young and old
But I know the story on Hexbear that those were all just Mossad plants
edit: here
A few more recent sources, including some Israeli ones:
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231021-israel-settler-israel-forces-killed-hostages-not-hamas/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rTQcjyhPOIk
I'm more than aware that a lot of Israeli civilians killed by friendly fire. But your claim that the IDF "did the vast majority of damage" is exactly the hexbear fantasy I'm talking about.
Their plans were clearly to capture and ransom them
You're lying to yourself, and others. You might think it's for the better, but it's not. It's lies like these, on both sides, that lead to a worse world and more killings. It's not too late for you to change.
Hamas militants flagging down a car as it drove slowly along a rural road. The gunmen open fire, hitting the vehicle, which swerved and halted, revealing two people slumped in the front seats.
a father and his two sons, aged approximately seven and nine, running in their underwear to what appeared to be a bomb shelter. A Hamas attacker threw a grenade, killing the man. The boys emerge bloodied and run. “Dad’s dead, it wasn’t a prank,” one shouts. “I know, I saw it,” replies his brother, later screaming: “Why am I alive?”
In another scene Hamas attackers entered a house and spoke to a girl hiding under a table. “After some talking back and forth they shoot and kill her,” tweeted Jotam Confino, one of the correspondents at the screening. “Hard to say how old she is but looks like 7-9 years old.”
I don't think it's hard to imagine how tanks, artillery, and apache helicopters would do more damage than rifles and a handful of RPGs.
You just have to look at the incinerated cars and bodies from the festival to see how much damage the helicopters did there.
How many of the casualties do you think were caused by the IDF?
There's no way anyone can know that without a full and transparent investigation being done, which Israel did not allow to happen.
That said, there are many indicators that they did a significant amount of damage.
One example:
All the burned bodies and cars from the festival that were somehow burned by Hamas (with molotovs?), and
definitely notby Apache helicopters equipped with hellfire missiles. Oh... except for the handful of bodies that turned out to be Hamas fighters. THOSE ones were killed and burned by hellfire missiles, but the Israeli bodies were burned by Hamas. And so were their cars of course. Let's not worry about why the cars were trucked off far away, shredded, and compacted before being buried. Definitely has nothing to do with making it harder to investigate what actually happened to them.Much of this info has been available for over a year now.
Sure I know there were a lot of friendly fire incidents.
But you said that the IDF "did the vast (capitalized) majority of damage".
Now you seem to have dialed that down quite a bit to "a significant amount of damage" and with the disclaimer "there's no way to know that". So that makes you wonder why you're making these changes when asked to support your previous argument?
That's my belief versus the mostly confirmed accounts that are based on limited evidence.
Describing it as factual was my mistake, but I did so because of how incredibly likely I think it is.
All that may be true, but when the plan went to shit, they still attacked, killed, and took hostage many civilians.
I recommend watching the video I linked to get a better understanding of what really happened.