Israeli army executes an elderly Palestinian after using him in propaganda campaign about its ‘safe corridor’ in Gaza
Israeli army executes an elderly Palestinian after using him in propaganda campaign about its ‘safe corridor’ in Gaza
Geneva – The Israeli army’s execution of an elderly Palestinian after using him in a propaganda campaign promoting its “safe corridor” in Gaza was strongly condemned in a statement released by Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor today.
The rights organisation expressed outrage over Israel’s incorporating the man into its attempt to cover up horrific crimes against displaced Palestinians fleeing Israeli violence in the northern Gaza Strip.
Israel’s army released a photo of one of its soldiers talking to Bashir Hajji, a 79-year-old resident of Gaza City's Zaytoun neighborhood, as he travelled on Salah al-Din Road, the main route to the southern Gaza Valley. The soldier in the photo appears to be helping and protecting displaced Palestinian civilians, said Euro-Med Monitor, yet Hajji was subjected to a field execution on the morning of Friday 10 November.
The elderly man’s granddaughter, Hala Hajji, told the Euro-Med Monitor team that her grandfather was brutally executed while crossing the “safe corridor” when members of the Israeli army intentionally shot him in the head and back. She also confirmed that he is in the photo that was put out by Israel—exposing the Israeli army's dangerous practice of flagrantly fabricating stories.
Euro-Med Monitor stated that it has previously documented dozens of cases where the Israeli army executed displaced Palestinians by live bullets and, in some cases, by artillery shells. Those displaced were attempting to flee to the south of Wadi Gaza at the Israeli army’s request.
Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor renewed its calls for the United Nations and the International Criminal Court to open an urgent independent investigation into the execution crimes to which displaced Palestinians have been and are still being subjected to, to hold those who ordered such crimes accountable, and to achieve justice for the victims.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Next time, maybe try coming up with some actual arguments rather than parroting other people's, though. That might make you sound at least a bit less stupid.
Or at least try to think about what the sentences you're copying even mean, because that's exactly what they implied.
Btw, that's not what bigotry is.
Oh the irony.
I don't need to at this point, you're not going to listen anyway so at this point fucking with you is entertaining.
You haven't been right about anything yet, why start now huh?
Why would I listen to your arguments when they sound like something a preschooler would come up with? I am generally quite open-minded, it is not impossible to change my mind on a lot of things. It doesn't really feel like you're trying, though. You seem to have given up actually trying to make a point quite a while ago.
I can tell you something I know I am right about: nobody here is unbiased. Not you, not me, not the guy that posted this. It's pretty much impossible to actually be objective in this conflict. However, it takes no more than a few minutes of looking at the website of this "news" organization (it really isn't) to find out that most of their "news" articles on this conflict are unfounded accusations against Isreael with no source other than "someone told us". You'd have to be insane to actually believe everything they say. There's a reason no serious news outlet uses them as a source.
Ok. Let's end this what exactly the frick is your issue with me.
State it directly and we'll deal with it because I'm tired of your childish horseshit.
Say what you want or fuck off.
I believe your issue is that you're taking this discussion personally. I really don't care about you. You aren't that important, sorry.
I'm taking it personally?
You're entire argument is that we can't trust a Palestinian on the ground in Palestine simply because they're Palestinian, not because they've said anything false misleading or incorrect but simply because you feel like they could be biased. You don't even see how fucking biased you are proving yourself to be by claiming they're biased without a single shread of evidence.
Fuck off back to under your bridge bud.
You are taking it personally, as proven by your childish insults.
If you had taken some time to think about what I said instead of getting angry, you would have perhaps noticed that I never said that we couldn't trust anyone from Palestine. Rather that this article cites no credible and verifiable sources and that their ties to Palestine are a possible explanation for why they might not be completely objective in their reporting.
Though I wonder, do you always believe wartime propaganda without any independent verification? Would, say, a Russian article about Ukrainian warcrimes be 100% believable to you? After all, just because they're Russian, doesn't mean anything they said is false, misleading or incorrect. You might just be biased against them.
Bro you've spent the last 5 comments calling me ignorant, it's a bit late to play offended.
That's quite literally what you said.
Depends on the context. But I doubt any of them can be objective about a war their own country is involved in.
https://lemmy.world/comment/5356569
I specifically said take everything with a grain of salt but you can't discount someone entirely because of their nationality as you've said before.
I'm not offended, I just find it funny that you're insisting you aren't getting angry while getting angry.
Anyways, there is a big difference between doubting someone can be completely objective and not believing a word they say. You don't have to be objective to be correct. Though in this specific case, I see no reason to trust the author, since there are no credible sources.
I'm not angry, I'm annoyed because you're trying to be annoying. No need to gaslight on top of that.
That's not what you've said. I'll add more quotes if you need that evidenced to you. Similarly, you mean the thing that I said directly before that comment? Noo.... Pay attention, there's a reason I redirected you multiple multiple times to read the comments in which you are responding.
none: I mean they’re biased; that’s normal. The thing is: Does that bias get in the way of the factuality of their reporting? Given that they have a pretty long track record, there needs to be a source that proves they’re unreliable.
You: Idk and I don’t really care enough to research it, I just wanted to point out that that article makes it quite easy to find reasons for why they would be biased.
Jesus Christ as I've said before if you would just read you wouldn't be popping off on tangents that make no damn sense contextually.
Do I really need to repeat myself? What I said in the comment you referenced is completely correct. No, being biased does not necessarily mean you are wrong, as I also already explained. Though I don't really know what you're even trying to achieve here, since you are ignoring everything I say anyways.
I can imagine that someone disagreeing with one is annoying if one thinks their opinions are the objective truth. Unfortunately, that's not how it works.