Not that your claim was hard to believe, but because I like being well-sourced, I looked it up and you’re correct:
Most prefer to be identified as Palestinian citizens of Israel.[8][9][10] International media outlets often use the term “Arab-Israeli” or “Israeli-Arab” to distinguish Israel’s Arab citizens from the Palestinian Arabs residing in the Israeli-occupied territories.[11]
Seems like international media should find a better label for them.
I originally found it on Al Jazeera’s live coverage, which is difficult to link to. I only later found a second source, which I used. I never came across Haaretz’s coverage. I probably would have still chosen Times of Israel because “Israeli evil” coverage is less common from them than from Haaretz; I would imagine more Zionists read Times of Israel than Haaretz or they’d already care about Palestinian lives.
Brauchst du mehr Lebensraum?
Edit: sorry, I misunderstood your post. You’re not calling Al Jazeera lying press, you’re noticing the similarities between Nazi propaganda and Israeli propaganda.
Removed by mod
Another source, with some quotes from Zionist Americans:
Al Jazeera’s live coverage a few minutes ago posted an update saying:
The closure order was signed after a legal opinion and intelligence assessment “determined that the offices were being used to incite terror, to support terrorist activities and that the channel’s broadcasts endanger the security and public order in both the area and the State of Israel as a whole,” a military statement said.
In some sense it is true that the broadcasts endanger the state of Israel: in the sense that accurately showing the atrocities Israel commits weakens global support for European and American colonization of the Middle East.
That headline is biased. It makes it sound like Israel is conducting a legitimate investigation that will have legitimate consequences. But the actual news is that Israeli soldiers are throwing bodies of their victims off roofs.
Additional source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8rd5z17px4o
Additional source on Israeli claims about their 2022 murder of Shireen Abu Aqla: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-62793579
Sure, the slow genocide will be slower of course. It’s hardly worth bothering to google something that obvious. Still genocide though. Israelis are using violence to kill and/or displace Palestinian residents of the West Bank. They’ll take it all, eventually.
I’m sorry, it’s hard to tell if someone is sincere or Just Asking Questions. In this case, the options are a slow genocide (West Bank) or a fast genocide (Gaza), so the short term numbers alone paint a misleading picture of the relative merits of each strategy. Israel’s gonna remove the brown people either way.
Is your suggestion to let the Israelis take your land more slowly, so they don’t kill as many of your children?
By the way, 60,000 of them are Americans.
Per the IHRA definition of antisemitism, observing similarities between the actions of Israel and the Nazis is antisemitic:
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
This is the preposterous interpretation adopted by the United States, other countries, and many institutions. The extremist Zionists who continue illegally expanding their land grab in the West Bank during their genocide in Gaza have successfully made legitimate political discourse “antisemitic”.
What exactly aged like milk here? She’s right - there are multiple factors, and the disillusionment of a large portion of Americans is probably a bigger factor than Comey, Russians, etc which likely moved things onto slightly (which was enough to get him the last bit past 270 electoral votes). But without the disillusionment the other things wouldn’t have remotely mattered. That the disillusioned are in many cases ignorant racists doesn’t invalidate the fact they they lost faith in both Democrats and Republicans.
Or maybe Israel is afraid anyone who spends enough time in Gaza will realize Israel are baddies too. Or maybe they expanded the Hannibal Directive to include post-capture hostages as well.
Source that they’re pets and not cattle? My farmer friend had a pet cow; they didn’t eat that cow. They ate other cows.
They employ 30,000 people. It’s only natural that after decade of abuse, at least a few will use force against the blockading super-power that periodically kills their children at random.
And Israel made allegations against 19, only 9 of whom the UN found good evidence for so there’s a better than 50-50 chance a given “Hamas” UNRWA employee is perfectly innocent. Most “western democracies” wouldn’t take a 50-50 shot at killing civilians but Israel’s so called “precision strikes” demonstrate they’re perfectly happy to murder arbitrary numbers of children in the process of killing a maybe-terrorist.
That’s fine, but I think you’ll be able to reach/influence more people with intentional source selection.
In this example, if Iran claims the UN said that, I’d still go and confirm it (which I did). If Al Jazeera or Reuters says he said it, I don’t feel the need to double check; I know they won’t flat out lie. Someone lazier than I was here might just remember this story as a “maybe” if they didn’t bother checking the source themselves.
Then use Al Jazeera. But if Trump Media tells me it’s rainy in the Pacific Northwest I’m going to have doubts, and if Iran says Israel’s doing Israel things… I’m going to have doubts.
While there’s nothing about the story that’s hard to believe given Israel’s love for genocide and harming anyone who cares about the humanity of Palestinians, can we get a source that isn’t literally Iran?
Edited to add:
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/09/09/middleeast/israel-gaza-united-nations-convoy-intl-latam
Yes. My powers are limited, so I do what little I can.