Israel, Palestine & the Levant rolling events: Oct 23 on

Quite incredible, guess there is nothing left to say beyond executions in hospitals and drones blowing up civilians.

I know that I am not interested in media bias.

This is pretty good.

Worth discussing more, if you don't mind though I'll move it to the "as it relates to other countries" thread, Alfred

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/podcasts/2024-02-28/ty-article-podcast/netanyahus-overconfidence-and-arrogance-led-to-oct-7-former-pm-olmert/0000018d-f07b-dd8a-a5af-f87ffc090000

I've started listening to the Haaretz podcast. Former PM Olmert's description of the far right agenda is pretty nightmarish and should give everyone serious pause, even a lot of the people who consider themselves "pro-Israel." I knew some of this already but it was admittedly hard to maintain focus on it in light of atrocities in Gaza. I think a lot of people who think of themselves as relatively more liberal or centrist but "pro-Israel are able to compartmentalize people like Smotrich and Ben Gvir as "extremists" and "not the mainstream." And that's half true, but Israel's parliamentary form of government combined with the cynicism of Bibi and the relative apathy or distraction of a lot of people to the left of Bibi mean that Smotrich and Ben Gvir have been able to leverage their minority support into disproportionate power.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GJXhBsQWgAErIWu.png:small

A video on the Israeli nationalists— Zionist fascists, in less polite but more accurate terms— who are blocking aid into Gaza.

Journalist Jeremy Loffredo goes inside the grassroots Israeli campaign to block desperately needed aid to the besieged Gaza Strip and elicits the shockingly candid views of the Jewish Israeli nationalists manning the barricades.

Setting out on a bus caravan through illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank, Loffredo arrives at the Kerem Shalom crossing to Gaza, filming Israeli citizens as they physically block trucks loaded with flour and other essential goods. There, a reservist who served in the military assault on Gaza confesses to an array of war crimes, including blowing up the offices of UN centers dedicated to providing food to the local population.

Loffredo then joins nationalists on a march toward Gaza, where they hope to establish new settlements after the population is violently driven out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqRzfb2oMaM

It seems hyperbolic to call those small protests a "blockade." Israeli police have not allowed them to actually prevent aid from going in through the crossing. GrayZone tends to be deliberately inflammatory and unreliable - they are the main promoter of the debunked theory that it was actually the Israeli military who killed most of the October 7 victims.

But we're supposed to take Haaretz podcasts at their word, got it.

I mean, yeah, Blumenthal is a nut, but it's not like the Times or WaPo or any other warcriming newspaper in the US is going to do good reporting on this topic, and Israeli sources can't be trusted either.

So who is blocking aid from going in? If it isn't these settlers, then it's...the Israeli military?

Sorry if that was a little harsh, man alive.

I think that part of it is that I am honestly struggling with how to find reliable, good information about what is happening in Gaza right now. What I see from Palestinian accounts, and what I hear from left-leaning media, is that the Israeli state and settlers (as in the video above) are preventing a lot of food aid from getting through. What I read of more center and right media seems to blame Hamas for the starvation crisis, dismiss it entirely, or cheer it on.

One of the things that has been most frustrating about this as it's gone on is that there is simply not a good way of knowing exactly what is happening, except that the asymmetrical nature of the situation is obvious, blatant, and not being addressed by the US in a way that is substantive. Hell, the US Congress just passed a bill that banned funding to the UNRWA, provides Israel with another 3.8 billion in funding, and limits aid to the Palestinian Authority if "the Palestinians" initiate or support an International Criminal Court investigation against Israel "for alleged crimes against Palestinians."

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the moral failings in this situation seem clear to me, on all sides— but finding out accurate and detailed information about what is happening on the ground is so tainted by bias and rhetoric that I find it hard to trust *any* news source entirely.

No that's totally fair. I have an allergic reaction to GrayZone. Clearly the people in the video are real people and I guess on some level they are representative of a mentality that exists and has some sway in Israeli politics. I just don't think that aid is being completely blocked by those protests, and in fact the police and IDF have broken them up. However there is no question that Israel's policies with respect to slowing down aid have been morally abhorrent.

Also, the Haaretz podcasts I posted were interviews, they were not presented as truth or as reporting but as the perspectives of two people - a former prime minister who is extremely critical of Netanyahu and Israeli policy toward Gaza, and an American Jewish playwright who is active in Jewish Voice for Peace, and the headline of his interview was his opinion that Israel is engaging in ethnic cleansing in Gaza. I'm not suggesting anyone take them at face value, they're just the perspectives of two people who are relevant to the situation.

But I do think Haaretz's reporting is relatively reliable on the whole (and is considered as such by many ardent pro-Palestine activists), and while you may not like all of the perspectives published, they also regularly publish people like Gideon Levy and Amira Haas. Headlines on the current op-ed webpage include "The Mass Killing in Gaza Will Poison Israeli Souls Forever" "Israel's Cruelty Is Concealed by Its Decentralization" and "Smotrich's Plan to Subjugate the Palestinians Goes Ahead." It's not an "anti-zionist" paper per se, but it has repeatedly done good investigative work into Israeli war crimes, prison conditions, etc. So I would encourage you to consider it as one source among many to be worth looking at, even if you don't agree with some of the spin/thrust of the paper.

Totally, I have seen some good op-eds published in Haaretz, and that’s why I felt shitty about my comment— it just wasn’t fair. I get the allergic reaction to GrayZone, it’s simply that even in
cases where it is clear that their reports are from Russian or Chinese agents, there are also times when the critique of western hegemony isn’t being done by others in such an involved way. Same with the Intercept, tbh!

The Intercept is at least a notch above GrayZone for me - I don't always agree with the way they frame things or report things, but I think their reporters are generally legit and do serious work.

What gave The Guardian balls?

As Gaza is destroyed, Israel is killing dozens of children in the West Bank https://t.co/mrhbvrD6km

— The Guardian (@guardian) March 23, 2024

at some point reality sets in for all but the most morally recalcitrant

I don't think its that fair to put the Intercept and Grayzone in the same bracket, Grayzone have increasingly run into some of the same problems with befell Q anon. Intercept make plenty of mistakes but I don't think its quite as central to what they do

BREAKING: During the negotiations in Qatar over the weekend, Israel agreed to release 700 Palestinian prisoners, among them 100 who serve life sentences for killing Israelis, in return for the release of 40 hostages held by Hamas in Gaza, two Israeli officials tell me

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) March 24, 2024

I don't think it's fair to put the Intercept and Grayzone in the same bracket. Grayzone do investigative reporting and get attacked for it by the mainstream press (including the Intercept), and then weeks later when it's safer to do so the Intercept pick up and launder the story so it's safe for liberals to read.

GrayZone is a propaganda outlet for the governments of Russia and China.

A propaganda outlet for the governments of Russia and China, you say.

Russia and China.

Russia AND China.

Both of them together - gosh, the Grayzone must be really, really bad!

As someone who reads actual propaganda outlets for the governments of Russia and China, it seems unlikely that the Grayzone is one of them. (But then again I would say that, wouldn't I?)

Grayzone do investigative reporting and get attacked for it by the mainstream press (including the Intercept), and then weeks later when it's safer to do so the Intercept pick up and launder the story so it's safe for liberals to read. If you are not following Grayzone and Electronic Intifada you are missing a critical perspective on events in Gaza and the West Bank. Some of their guests and contributors have since been assassinated by Israel. I feel lucky to have the chance to briefly hear and read those voices before they were snuffed out.

I don't meant to derail the thread though, as you were.

Maybe you're right, but coming in with these being your only two posts on this forum doesn't help the case

I used to post here years ago under a different name, in the music section - can't log in under that name any more.

Anyway, I don't meant to disturb the vibe, I eavesdrop because (a) I used to come here 20 or so years ago and (b) because generally I enjoy / think it's important to hear perspectives I don't agree with.

fwiw I read Electronic Intifada

it shows

For what it’s worth the running dog Yankee imperialist Washington Post reported on the “protestors” more than a month ago. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/02/10/gaza-aid-blockade-protest-kerem-shalom/

I'm not saying there haven't been protests trying to block aid, just that (1) as far as I know there is not an ongoing "blockade" by protestors right now, and (2) gray zone is a peddler of conspiracy theories, atrocity denial, pro-authoritarianism, and other garbage regardless of who they are funded by

it's impossible to trust or forgive grayzone for their syria coverage and its consequences (on syrians and on the humanity of the anglo-european left) and by all accounts they have only been getting worse on other issues too - they are basically a propaganda outlet for the fascist international at this point

so the grayzone is apparently a propaganda outlet for the governments of Russia AND China... AND Syria... AND something called "the fascist international"(!?)

(I didn't know what that last one is, so I looked it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_Montreux_Fascist_conference - is this what the Grayzone represent?)

and yet they are the conspiracy theorists?

clunk clunk clunk

thank you for your input mr grayzone

I'm not a fan of the grayzone at all and find them to have been quite careless on a number of issues ranging from Syria to Bucha, but at the same time I think there's limited utility in calling people shills regardless of whether it may or may not be true (I also thought similar regarding the person Felicity brought up earlier too).

I think its better to try engage on the points where possible rather than go down this road. Like its better to say "this person got this wrong here" more than "this person works for Big Pharma, Big Russia, Big Israel, Big France" even if its true

I thought that it was funny the Grayzone thought this was gotcha though:

https://thegrayzone.com/2023/03/20/kremlin-intermediary-tucker-carlson-putin/

Hey Politico, you reported that a "US-Based Kremlin Intermediary" was trying to set Tucker Carlson with a Putin interview.
But it was actually ME, a Grayzone journalist, who was doing it.

in less important news, the US finally abstained on a UN ceasefire resolution: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/25/un-gaza-ceasefire-vote

I'm not a fan of the grayzone at all and find them to have been quite careless on a number of issues ranging from Syria to Bucha, but at the same time I think there's limited utility in calling people shills regardless of whether it may or may not be true (I also thought similar regarding the person Felicity brought up earlier too).

I think its better to try engage on the points where possible rather than go down this road. Like its better to say "this person got this wrong here" more than "this person works for Big Pharma, Big Russia, Big Israel, Big France" even if its true

Surely the whole point of lobbying groups and govts using this kind of operation is to muddy up the discourse sufficiently so that time is spent "engaging on the points" via arguing over misinformation or bad faith arguments . Going for "this person is wrong about x" rather than "this person is directly financed by y" dignifies the source so that one then feels obliged to have a conversation every time it reports something.

Obviously saying "this person is directly financed by y" is only effective depending on a) how suspicious the person you're talking to is about y and b) how likely they are to trust/believe you. But your strategy seems designed to keep yourself arguing with obvious falsehoods forever.

(this is not about grayzone, about whom I know next to nothing)

Most people here are not wrong about x. Though I do wish people didn't feel obligated to have a conversation every time it reports something.

Ha

These are good points Daniel, I'm on the fence. It depends on the context. And there is a third option, which is just not to engage at all, and any of these 3 approaches might be the correct one at different times.

Going back to the two people Felicity brought up previously that were called shills, I thought the first was really obviously a shill, but I didn't think the second was obvious at all (and I'm still not sure that they are). There seemed to be enough with the second person linked to engage with.

I think you have to try and assume good intent where possible (not in a media figure or source but in a person referencing it). If someone at the bus stop is referencing points made by Big Media figures paid by Big America or Big Russia, they're not seeing any of that

Trump is right that “they” are laughing at us but he is incorrect about who the “they” are and why they are laughing: Israel annexes largest chunk of west bank since 1993 as Blinken visits

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/03/22/israel-largest-west-bank-settlement-blinken-visit/

so the grayzone is apparently a propaganda outlet for the governments of Russia AND China... AND Syria... AND something called "the fascist international"(!?)

(I didn't know what that last one is, so I looked it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_Montreux_Fascist_conference - is this what the Grayzone represent?)

and yet they are the conspiracy theorists?

― jcopriario, Monday, March 25, 2024 9:43 AM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

IDK. But how is their health benefits package?

xp to anvil

I think the first was is a Twitter account that was reporting the small number of protests against Hamas, that people doubted was a real person. The doubters showed their work and explained their reasoning, and we discovered a bit more about where they got their information and why they felt that way.

The second was Ahmed Fouad Alkatib. There were some characterizations of his alleged job that proved to be factually incorrect or exaggerated. The sources were cited and discussed.

Either way, it was fine. It's ok to be wrong and it's ok to question bias or accuracy. I do agree that the remedy for bad speech is more speech. People can go down a list of conspiracy theories that Grayzone allegedly got wrong and check Wikipedia or citations for themselves, and that's preferable imo than being told not to listen to or read them at all (and I don't think anyone's done that). There is always a diehard cohort that can't be persuaded no matter how much evidence is presented, and that's not the audience for this kind of discourse. The audience are people that are persuaded by facts or critical thinking or logic and want to engage with the best versions of arguments that may clash with their preexisting ideas.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israel-bans-unrwa-from-delivering-aid-to-northern-gaza/ar-BB1ktkP0?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=591890c23a984b419b8499042fada7e1&ei=18

To the extent there are any issues with UNRWA at all, they can be investigated later and need to be put on hold. All the help possible is needed to get aid into Gaza. I urge anyone who is met with anti-UNRWA rhetoric to remind the person you're talking to that the priority right now is preventing starvation.

Ahmed Fouad Alkatib is absolutely a shill, there is legit no debate about that anywhere except inside of your head, felicity. If someone is writing articles for AIPAC-funded think tanks, appearing on AIPAC-funded podcasts, and is a graduate of "American Military University," it's pretty clear that they are a shill for US and Israeli hegemony.

I agree with Daniel's point to a degree, but also think then that we need to actually include more mainstream outlets like the NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ and others when we talk about these things. Yes, GrayZone is certainly in the pocket of Russia and China, in one way or another. And the Times is in the pocket of US government. So then the question becomes: which one do you choose? As someone who doesn't really believe a damn thing that any government says or does, especially western and/or authoritarian governments, I feel a little bereft of any proper analysis in the news media. It's maddening!

don't forget the fascist international - a very important source of Grayzone funding no doubt.

I think it is actually useful to try to read and understand the propaganda of the official enemies of our ruling classes (not that I am saying this is what the Grayzone is, in fact they had quite an interesting discussion and critique of the Russian line on the Moscow attacks in this evening's livestream, as well as an interview with Jeremy Leffredo re his piece you cited above).

Just as an example, if you subscribe to Johnson's Russia List then you get a daily newsletter with extracts of sources from the West, from Russia, from India, China etc. etc. compiled by an apparently well read and openminded academic but presented without commentary. It's quite insightful to see what each side is saying and how they cover the same events. I am not aware of a similar resource for Gaza (well in fact I was sort of using this thread for that...)

Not exactly what you're talking about, but I have mentioned Zachary Foster's Palestine Nexus site and email blasts before.

https://palestinenexus.com/

GrayZone is batshit, unreliable, and pro-authoritarian. I really don't care who signs their checks. They are a shit source.

thanks, looks interesting, I have subscribed.

Yeah, everything I’ve heard from folks who know point out that Grayzone is much sketchier now than it once was, based on changed funding sources.

Two sources I’ve gotten recommendations on checking out are Middle East Eye and Al-Jazeera English, with the explicit recognition that AJE is state-funded media, but they’ll cover shit that American major outlets won’t

Yeah, MEE launder Grayzone material for liberals too! That way you can read it but not catch cooties ;-)

Here is the Palestinian Ambassador to the UK citing their work:

This is a settler from New York who, alongside 500 other families, is openly declaring her and their intention to settle the Gaza Strip. These fanatical, colonial, genocidal supremacists are dominant influences in both the Israeli government and among the Israeli public. Israel… pic.twitter.com/cFV5Y0chYC

— Husam Zomlot (@hzomlot) March 23, 2024

I agree with Daniel's point to a degree, but also think then that we need to actually include more mainstream outlets like the NYTimes, WaPo, WSJ and others when we talk about these things. Yes, GrayZone is certainly in the pocket of Russia and China, in one way or another. And the Times is in the pocket of US government. So then the question becomes: which one do you choose? As someone who doesn't really believe a damn thing that any government says or does, especially western and/or authoritarian governments, I feel a little bereft of any proper analysis in the news media. It's maddening!

I am certainly not interested in defending the mainstream outlets you cited, have read my Chomsky, etc. but am nonetheless skeptical of flattening things to the degree where the obvious bias and toadying of these outlets is placed as the same thing as, say, AIPAC financed think tanks, because that's what those think tanks want.The current media landscape is atrocious yes, but it can always get worse.

We get it mate, you're right and everyone else is wrong. Either make a new point, or stop with your toxic smugness every post. Not needed