I'm a Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It(www.nytimes.com)
69 pointsby lyu072824 days ago8 comments
  • i_love_retros2 days ago
    This explains everything: https://www.trackaipac.com/
  • casey2a day ago
    What about Latin Americans in the US?
  • DaveZale4 days ago
    What is this Israeli "self-censorship" claim? BS. Haaretz publishes plenty about the atrocities in progress. Far more than the American media dares to publish.

    The editorial scrutiny here is minimal at best.

    • nabla94 days ago
      Last year Israel's military censor banned 1,635 articles and partially redacted another 6,265

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Israel

      Pressure, intimidation, and censorship: Israeli journalists have faced growing repression in the past year https://rsf.org/en/pressure-intimidation-and-censorship-isra...

      • DaveZale4 days ago
        okay! I agree. But Haaertz does a better job than the US media does. Gotta give them that.

        It's wartime, so censorship is publicly asknowledged there.

        I might add that journalists in Gaza are often killed.

        • FireBeyond4 days ago
          The Israeli Military Censor has nothing to do with there being a "war" now. They've been censoring news in Israel since the late 1970s.
    • ciconia4 days ago
      Haaretz is the only mainstream media to report regularly on Palestinian casualties. It has a readership of less than 5% [1].

      [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_Israel

    • frollogaston4 days ago
      Haaretz is currently boycotted by the Israeli govt since Nov 2024, though not the same as a ban.
      • DaveZale3 days ago
        aljazeera banned. I was reading it daily during the attacks on Iran. They had updates every few minutes. Nothing I saw was not factual, AFAIK.

        bbc reports occasionally on the Gaza situation. Like this

        https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg4rwrkdlzxo

        What happened to the US media? It all seems to be recipes, dating advice, wellness tips on the front pages.

        I am in the US but get my news from elsewhere. It is not an option anymore;-)

        • transfer923 days ago
          BBC is not perfect either: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0k7n6kd8yxo

          "In February the BBC apologised over "serious flaws" in the making of the programme about children's lives in Gaza, after it was revealed its 13-year-old narrator was the son of a Hamas minister."

          • NomDePlum3 days ago
            There was no correction on what was actually said though. It's a terrible state of affairs when who someone is related to, is of more concern than the horrific and constant terrors they and other children have had inflicted upon them by Israel for nearly 2 years.
            • dlubarov3 days ago
              There were some fairly questionable translations, like translating "Yahud" (Jews) to "Israel" or "Israeli forces". To me that's more of a red flag than any Hamas affiliation.
            • DaveZale3 days ago
              agree. Typical propaganda approach, harp on some minor point to change the discussion. Some say Neta created Hamas to weaken another organization at the time. The whole history of what's been happening there is very complicated and nuanced. The motto of their intel org reads, "by way of deception, though shalt do war" so it's not surprising that truth seems artificially scarce.
            • frollogaston3 days ago
              Because they couldn't independently verify or revise, and Israel can't be trusted either. It's ridiculous how so many BBC articles are like "source: Hamas." This documentary reveal wasn't even surprising, I thought it went without saying.
              • NomDePlum3 days ago
                That's not correct. There was no findings that it wasn't factually true.
                • frollogaston3 days ago
                  Who checked that? If nobody, then of course there were no findings.
        • frollogaston3 days ago
          US media definitely reports on this too
    • 4 days ago
      undefined
  • jokoon3 days ago
    [flagged]
    • CjHuber3 days ago
      I honestly don‘t understand how someone can frame October 7 as genocidal. Gaza was a pressure cooker due to Israel’s inhumane treatment and something like this was to be expected, and I my opinion this was provoked to justify the collective punishment and weakening of not just hamas but the entire Palestinian population.

      For years Netanyahu openly admitted he was “bolstering Hamas” with Qatari cash to sabotage a Palestinian state [1]

      All in all, Israel’s historical pattern of leveraging crises for territorial or political gain makes it reasonable to suspect that they were less interested in preventing October 7 than in exploiting it

      [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/20/benjam...

      • poulpy1233 days ago
        > how someone can frame October 7 as genocidal.

        it's totally insane to frame a killing as despicable as it is like here as genocidal.

  • andrewinardeer4 days ago
    [flagged]
  • like_any_other4 days ago
    [flagged]
    • DaveZale4 days ago
      please explain.

      Gaza has been destroyed. So which country do you refer to? The whole of Israel was formerly Palestine.

      And the nyt article infers that the creation of Israel was a reaction to a previous genocide. That is false. It was plotted since the 19th century.

      • like_any_other3 days ago
        I'm referring to the right itself, separate from any country or nation.
      • tguvot4 days ago
        [flagged]
        • linehedonist4 days ago
          [flagged]
          • tguvot4 days ago
            it was as earnest as statement that all of it "formerly Palestine". it was mandatory area that included also transjordan.
          • dlubarov4 days ago
            "The whole of Israel was formerly Palestine" was rather ambiguous. If the poster meant "The whole of Israel was formerly Mandatory Palestine", then okay that's accurate, but it seemed like the idea was to draw a connection to what we now call the Palestinian people or the State of Palestine. Mandatory Palestine was a very different entity which governed a more diverse group of people.
        • DaveZale4 days ago
          never forget!

          Isn't that the rallying cry?

          You know how to search. Find the map. Know the history.

          https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/12s6lq5/this_map_o... from Natgeo

          Israeli soldiers are killing not only others but themselves. We have to know the truth, otherwise we're all just lost at sea without a compass, or even a map.

          • tguvot4 days ago
            first comment on your link: What's important to remember is that at this point (as in prior to 1948) both Jews and Arabs were referred to as Palestinians since it was the common name for the region

            besides this i am not sure what exactly this map supposed to show. 30 years before that this area was called "province syria palestina" and was part of ottoman empire for hundreds of years

            • nick_4 days ago
              Quick question: what are Arabs who live in Israel called?
              • tguvot4 days ago
                i recently read paper on their self identification. Rather recent. iirc split is something like:

                - Israeli Arabs : 30%-40%

                - Palestinian Arabs: 30%-40%

                - Palestinians: 10%-15%

                - Christian Arabs: 5%-10%

                - Etc : 5%

                Guy that I spent two years with in same room was self identifying as "Arab, Orthodox Christian, Communist".

                Those who live in west bank have more permutations of identities, with some of them mostly identifying with their clan or religion

  • lifestyleguru3 days ago
    [flagged]
    • derelicta3 days ago
      As you should. But the Gaza genocide does not stem from a religious conflict. It comes from a war of conquest led and engineered by the West to protect its last colony. It would be more like if Americans had decided to wipe out the Vietnamese and replace the inhabitants of Vietnam with Westerners.