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

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

Daniel otm

We get it, Jeremy. You like your work.

This is a tangent, sorry, but since it was mentioned again: I looked up American Military University after it came up the first time (having never heard of it) and it's even weirder than its off-brand name suggests. It's not actually run by the US military at all; it's a private, for-profit, online "university" — one of two run by the hilariously misleading company named American Public University System — that seems to have been set up to prey on people in the military

hahaha

https://thebaffler.com/latest/nowhere-to-live-nowhere-to-die-kallepalli

agreed. Daniel. also HP i hope that was aimed at our new interloper, not me

Haha don't worry table, you've always got new things to say ;)

Posted with love

And I don't think you're smug at all table, I find you to be very sincere and even where I disagree with what you might be posting, i trust you're posting with a good heart. You are a good poster

yeah table actually contributes, valuably, to many threads on many subjects, and always has something interesting to say.

thanks yall, likewise to you both

re: American Miltary Basin Silt College, oof:

According to the College Scorecard, American Public University has an 8-year graduation rate of 22 percent, with a salary after completing ranging from $15,650 (AA in Human Development) to $76,460 (Bachelors in Fire Protection).[42] Of those two years into student loan repayment, 27% were in forbearance, 21% were not making progress, 19% defaulted, 13% were in deferment, 8% were making progress, 6% were delinquent, 3% were paid in full, and 3% were discharged.

so the guy is a shill with a questionable degree!

I'm really in two minds on this shill stuff. Not because it is or isn't true, but because there's a lot of content that flows downstream from shill outlets that isn't necessarily funded itself and may well be truly organic, but still shares the same problem - and direct funding is only part of the picture, other incentive structures like audience capture also exist, and there's genuine belief too not just in regular people but in media figures

And the distinction between "I believe this" and "I only believe this because of incentive x" is blurred

With something like The Duran, I've no idea if they're paid by anyone or not, but like the Grayzone they act as an amplifier. But I think they have a cavalier disregard for the truth regardless of whether they are paid off or not.

With Alkatib, I wasn't saying he was or wasn't a shill, I couldn't really tell. Sometimes these things are obvious, sometimes they're not, and might be obvious to different people at different times

I think the danger with the shill route is that people can say well everyone is a shill if you look closely, "oh you think your guy is squeaky clean, and you're calling me gullible?"

I think media literacy has to go well beyond learning which are good sources and which are bad sources. There is a mixture of people working for every media outlet. Even well-intentioned journalists get things wrong and even accurate information may be missing key pieces of the overall puzzle. There's a big grey area in the centre. Its far better to be able to critically engage with information from 'trustworthy' sources.

Donna Haraway writes about how you need to know about the scientific instruments that e.g. capture images in order to understand what they show: a heat-sensing camera is showing something different from an ordinary camera and you need to know that to interpret the image. Its the same with any news source, except its more difficult to develop an account of those biases.

I appreciate Felicity's discussion of this above - you need to discuss sources with people and get a broader perspective and understand the context that you need to factor in when reading from certain outlets or individuals. It's not helpful to be combative in these discussions and just saying the NYTimes is reliable or not will not enable anyone to navigate the confusing morass of contradictory information. This is especially so regarding events that are traumatising and upsetting to see reported. I don't think anyone of us is truly capable of being impartial on this as we're all going to be affected by our emotional responses. I think you need to reckon with that if you're serious about staying witness to the truth of the situation.

But felicity refuses to understand or acknowledge the biases or factors that go into the reporting that she reads, referring us to “neutral” third parties that are not neutral at all. I am a little confused that when most of us are having a reasonable discussion about sources, you show up and cite the person who has cited Israeli propaganda as entirely truthful in this thread multiple times, and who refuses to see the connection between Zionism and the right-wingers in the US that she supposedly opposes.

Its far better to be able to critically engage with information from 'trustworthy' sources.

I would say its better to be able to engage with information from untrustworthy sources. Because while you or I may or may not trust a particular source, others do

And one of the dangers of siloing is losing the ability to do that.

xp to table - This is why I put trustworthy in quotes - to bracket the ideal of trustworthiness. I purposefully chose the NYTimes - currently embroiled in a major controversy about the accuracy of its reporting on this topic (and echoing previous controveries e.g. Judith Miller's reporting ahead of the Iraq war). Despite this, I think it would be unreasonable to say that the NYTimes is simply a catalogues of lies - it obviously does contain factual reporting and adheres (except when it doesn't) to process of verification and deduction. On that basis, how do you proceed? This is what I wanted to consider. I think its daily challenge for all of us.

I cited Felicity upthread because I agreed with the sentiment she expressed and found the way she expressed it convincing. I have had many disagreements with Felicity on the topic of Israel/Palestine, on this and other threads. My citation of the sentiment she expressed is not intended as a broader judgement of one or multiple posters itt. That is, I did not intend my post as an implicit disagreement or dismissal of other posters - merely a suggestion for how the question of 'trustworthiness' could be reframed.

Agree with anvil's more succinctly phrased argument.

I mean, I read the Times every day— I luckily don’t have to pay for it, because of institutional access. I skim other papers, and I look at the locals. Al-Jazeera English, Middle East Eye, and Electronic Intifada— all are part of my pretty regular diet.

At a certain point, the Times is enough bullshit and ruling class gaslighting to get me through.

I talk about this stuff pretty often, and have been railing against the Times since I was a teenager getting in screaming matches with my dad after 9/11.

I understand your point— I just think that the terms that we’re using need to be reassessed, because part of the issue that we’re dealing with here is that there are no trustworthy sources of information , a situation that is partly the fault of major news outlets playing the role that Chomsky and etc diagnose.

In any case: https://newyorkwarcrimes.com/

plax and anvil, point taken. I simply think that my personal assessment of the Times is much more dim than yours, but I still read it every day because I need to know how events are being framed by the “paper of record.” In that sense, I totally agree that it is important to read untrustworthy sources with a critical eye, and I am glad that I do so… tho my blood pressure might not agree

plax and anvil, point taken. I simply think that my personal assessment of the Times is much more dim than yours

I don't really have an assessment of it, I'm not sure if I've ever read it, its paywalled I think?

My two cents is that that critical reading is not something we can easily do alone, and that this critical task has to be a collective one. I think there's a germ of something very optimistic an enabling there but I would struggle to articulate this point well.

i doubt that your view of the times could be much dimmer than mine - i do tend to think of it as a catalogue of lies!

I agree, plax, but again, the issue becomes the fact that people approach critical reading with their own biases and experiences, so that part of what critical reading is about is also about critically assessing the self. This kind of self-reflective thinking is difficult to do, and even more difficult to convince others to engage with, at least from my experience. I admit that I also steer away from it, but can honestly say that I have some insight into why and how I feel about the situation in Israel-Palestine, and part of that is about what I would call a desire for liberation and truth, and part of it is related to deep psychological issues which I don’t need to go into here. Others bring their own issues, both personal and political, to their reading.

A lot of this stuff about bias is telling me you find it v hard to navigate the noise. It's OK because there is a lot of it out there, and that won't go away. These are the times we live in.

All writers, fact checkers, editors, readers have a bias. And we are all readers.

I'd rather find people on twitter who don't pretend to have a bias and are coming to whatever position openly, and they can analyse the events from that standpoint. The analyse bit is key.

The Guardian try to pretend they are coming at things as witnesses when they are clearly not. And I only read that stuff because random users on twitter are actually doing the fact-checking and pointing out the bias in the reporting.

And when I put what I do out in here there of course shouldn't be much doubt as to my positions, as I have little doubt on where most people here stand. Ofc we should be fact checking one another and where we are coming from, too.

This is a part of processing these atrocities. And as plax says, trying to be a witness to what is happening.

xyzzz, I don’t really have much trouble navigating the noise

Like, I know where I stand, I just find it endlessly frustrating that there aren’t many outlets that reflect that stance without, let’s say, being obvious propaganda arms of a repressive government