candiodari
You keep reminding us about international consensus, well both HRW and Amnesty have accused Hamas, and HRW also Fatah, of kidnapping, torturing and intimidating Journalists in Gaza. There is international consensus that both Hamas and Fatah have also murdered journalists. So your only source of information is more than a little biased. No mention of this. And, of course, no mention that this is the society that you're defending. AND, of course, no mention that this obviously means your information is wrong, and extremely biased towards Palestine, and no discussion of what that means for your claims.
One example is "Mohamed al-durrah". TLDR: Palestinians attacked and killed THOUSANDS of people because Israel shot a kid hiding behind his father. Of course, it was then proven that not only Israel didn't do that, but Hamas ACTUALLY SHOT AND KILLED THE KID AND THE FATHER in order to make that video. The people who attacked and murdered thousands with that as justification killed a father and child in order to CREATE that justification. The explicitly given reason for thousands of murders by Palestinians turned out to be a deliberate false flag attack. How many times has that happened in this conflict? How many of your complaints are similar? How many of these massacres were deliberately caused by Hamas? How many times did Hamas just outright massacre their own people just to blame Israel? Because it's not zero. How many times did they force children to attack? Because it's not zero. How many times did they use women and children as human shields and literally shoot at soldiers hiding behind children? Because it's THOUSANDS OF TIMES MINIMUM. How many UN buildings did they use as military depots? How many schools? How many hospitals? Because there's 3 extremely well documented cases for hospitals alone, and one about the UN headquarters in Gaza. How many hospitals turned out to be military hamas bases, with UN doctors helping Hamas build those military bases inside hospitals? Because there's at least 5 documented cases.
And of course, the big question: how will you prevent this in the future? Because if you can't, obviously shooting at those places is unavoidable (hell, Hamas started their reign in Gaza by committing a massacre in the emergency ward of Al-Shifa hospital. No protests. Nobody thinks there is any problem with what happened, in fact that got them extra support).
And I'd even say ... fine. Fine if they ONLY attack their own people. But asking Israel (or Lebanon, or Jordan, or Egypt, or ... because let's not pretend Palestinians are only attacking Israel) to just endure the attacks is not reasonable.
For the other half, fact is that Palestinians have, time and time again, made it clear: their ONLY goal is to eliminate Israel and it's people. You know, the thing Putin keeps assuring us that if even a single attack of that kind happens, if he even SUSPECTS a single such attack happens, he'll respond with nuclear weapons, not just on the attacking party, on everyone. Of course, zero protests from anyone, hell, I've seen a leftist demonstration SUPPORT this (before Putin, well, he was there, not yet president).
Iran is threatening nuclear attacks if Israel merely defends itself. Yet, again, I have to point out, zero protests on your side. Somehow there's never any complaints from you if Jewish lives are at stake. They just have to let themselves be killed.
And there is the racist one-sidedness of your argument. Palestinians are currently committing constant warcrimes. And you accuse Israel of ignoring the ICJ? Are you serious?
In case you don't know, UNLIKE Israel, Hamas and Palestinians have signed the Rome statute. They are not carrying out the demands of the ICJ (arrest Hamas leaders, stop attacking Israel, return the hostages (they added "alive and dead" this time they demanded it), stop the rockets, disarm). Same with Lebanon, Iran, Hezbollah, ... yet you keep screaming about Israeli violations. One side must follow the law, the other side gets to ignore it.
You "neglect" to mention Palestinians have, for over 20 years, committed constant warcrimes. I'd list the people they have committed warcrimes on, but it goes from LGBTQ people to Kuwaiti, so let's just summarize: "against EVERYONE". You not only don't complain about this, you don't even talk about preventing this going forward. The only warcrimes you complain about are (alleged) warcrimes by Israel, not even proven ones. Yet the constant Palestinian warcrimes, a lot of which are proven (and not disputed by Palestinians), you don't care about.
Then there are the obvious international law violations. Hamas, who are Palestinians, is hiding among civilians, and committing dozens and dozens of these warcrimes every day. You don't care. They keep getting accused of forcing civilians to stand before their fighters. They are holding, raping, torturing, starving and killing hostages. They constantly (in fact, almost exclusively) attack civilians, including their own. You don't care.
Same argument as before. You not only don't mention this, or the fact that the UN has failed (and by that I mean they do NOTHING) to prevent constant warcrimes by these people for 40 years ... you demand they be allowed to continue these warcrimes.
Well, here's my argument:
Obviously you don't care about people committing warcrimes. You've made that ABUNDANTLY clear. So stop complaining about what Israel does. I see your argument as demanding that people are allowed to constantly commit warcrimes, over DECADES. Well, I demand you stop being racist, and simply allow the same on both sides.
You complain about bombardment of civilians. At minimum three Palestinian terrorist organizations you demand they are allowed to bombard Israel, without consequences. Well, I ask for fairness: allow Israel the same, or PREVENT Palestinian warcrimes.
You complain about firing into civilians. Palestinians have fired into civilians on about 700 separate occasions in the last 20 years (in fact, if you count ... it's already more than 100 years), and you demand nothing be done about this. Well, I ask for fairness: allow Israel the same.
Frankly, you are making one huge pro-warcrime argument, and badly mask it by pointing to the obvious fact that warcrimes have victims.
And, lastly, there's the strategic argument. The VERY BASIS of international law is that borders aren't allowed to move. That is the central basic thing the UN, and the "international order" is founded on. Even if a country can conquer another, they aren't allowed to. Not even if they're bigger and they can do it. Not if a holy book "justifies it". Not if there's "historical justification" (as if such a thing even exists). Not even if they have economic reasons to do so. Not ... Never. Palestinians refuse to abide by this, and somehow you fail to see what will happen if that is allowed. Obviously, the result will be 1000 wars starting across the globe, as there are 1000 situations where one country feels justified conquering another.
Sorry "islamist". Which is to say, he uses violence, massacres and even torture to achieve his political aspirations.
The first thing he did when elected was cancel elections, give himself unlimited power.
Ironically that was part of his downfall. Islamists believe there is only 1 islam. So did Morsi. And tried to ally Egypt to Iran. Tried to ally Egypt to the Syrian uprising (to ISIS, in other words). Islamic extremists in all these places, as it turns out, suddenly and violently disagreed with islam's "only one islam" fantasy, did not want to compromise and preferred to (physically) attack his government, with a few dozen dead as result. He lost control of that situation.
And then it turns out the Egyptian army, government did not like their president cooperating with islamists elsewhere, including Hamas, who were attacking and killing people left and right, with Morsi's support. Also he got terrorists inside Egypt, the "muslim brotherhood" to torture and kill his political opponents.
No offense, but Egypt, Egypt's people and the world dodged a SERIOUS bullet when this guy got deposed. A civil war would have been the minimum consequence of him remaining in power.
This makes them even more of a trap. The rents will go up. And yet, even more jobs will leave those places. And then you haven't saved up, because the amounts were tiny
You must hate the UN then, or at least UNRWA. Either that, or you're a racist.
You must hate Qatar then.
You must hate Iran then.
You must hate Hezbollah then, too.
You must hate Syria then, too.
Shall I keep going? I mean, I realize you're a racist and you only ever are going to say what Jews do and did wrong, but it's funny to just keep exposing your blatant doublespeak. And I get that "just lie" propaganda technique works on idiots, but I think this is probably not the right forum to count on that one working. I could point out who came up with your "just lie" technique, or at least popularized it ...
When it comes to people who pay money to keep this situation going, there is A LOT of blame to go around.
And of course, that money is the real cause of the conflict from the very beginning. Now Hamas picked up on the business model. A steady stream of dead Palestinians, preferably kids, and fantasies of massacring Jews, in arabic (because western people frown on that sort of thing, and just refuse to believe just how racist the entire middle east is, despite how obvious it is) for 10 digits of US currency yearly, mostly direct from the US government (plus what we don't know about).
Hamas has already shown how they deal with their long term problems because it keeps getting harder to have Jews kill Palestinians, and there is less and less willingness of Palestinians to sacrifice themselves ... Take some statistics and you'll see this is happening. They switched to the rockets, of course, with UN help, but even that is failing badly.
So when hamas' need for money is high and Jews are unwilling to kill the Palestinians Hamas throws at them, or Palestinians warn them, or they decide that Jews are offering help ... and they take it (like the North Gaza aid convoy). Well, then Hamas just fires into the crowd, or drives a car bomb into their own people.
Also, the comprehensive test ban treaty is based on mathematical research. Yes, seriously. Who did that research? The US, and they shared it, which changed the calculus of nuclear weapons and allowed the treaty to happen. In fact, a US mathematician is famous for ignoring the US president in an actual meeting with him while doing this research.
Nuclear nonproliferation is a pure US project, that, if we're being honest, does not even really have the support of the US's closest allies. All countries WANT nuclear weapons, and while they cooperate with nonproliferation, they maintain nuclear weapons. That EVEN goes for France and the UK. Hell, even fucking Belgium tried (and, one might add, only stopped once they were absolutely sure they could do it). And, let's face facts: Belgium, along with 100 other countries will try to acquire nuclear weapons again if the US guarantees are violated. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, for example. Likely, at least Japan and China are maintaining programs that at the drop of a hat, in months, can produce working nuclear weapons. And I'd be AMAZED if both of those countries aren't, at minimum, further along than Iran is. Hell, my money is that at least those two have working nuclear weapons ready. Untested, but ready. Frankly, I'd be amazed if Belgium and even Canada don't have the core of a nuclear weapon ready stashed away ready somewhere (because both countries have the infrastructure needed to produce Nuclear weapons, and they have that infrastructure IN OPERATION (for other reasons, and yes, both countries have valid reasons). Yes they say they're not using it for weapons, but the idea that they're not at minimum "at the ready" is completely absurd to me)
What did the UN do?
The UN tried to solve the Nepal situation. Nepal doesn't exist anymore.
The UN tried to solve the DRC situation. It didn't work, and hundreds of thousands to millions were massacred as a result.
The UN tried to solve the Iran/ISIS/Lebanon/Syria/... conflicts. Eventually the only thing that was solved was the US using it's remaining military force in Iraq to destroy ISIS. The other conflicts are still simmering. Nothing was solved by the UN.
The UN tried to solve the Yemen situation. Nothing was solved.
The UN tried to solve Somalia. The people they tried to protect are no longer there (and most are dead).
The UN tried to solve the Israel situation. You are constantly complaining about what happened, which can be summarized as Israel successfully protected itself with US aid.
The UN, the same people, but under the name "League of Nations" tried to prevent WW2. Germany and the US still claim their actions CAUSED WW2. I'm not sure it's 100% true, but they make a pretty good case.
Besides, it wouldn't even matter, since the UN itself is a US and Israeli project. It would fall apart, even now, without the US.
Oh and you neglect to mention "the other MAD", that also is provided by the US: the guarantee that if one country attacks another, the attacked country will receive at minimum humanitarian aid, likely military aid from the US, and sometimes direct military intervention by the US. This MAD is also a critical component of post-war peace, because many countries would win military conflicts against at least some their neighbors, and where it doesn't work (e.g. Russia) ... we see constant wars.
Your case that countries worldwide are depending and trusting the UN to protect them from military conflict is absurd.
And yet, you have ZERO demands on Palestinians following international law, or Iranians, or ... You also have ZERO options for how to make them, in fact when attempting to discuss how to respond to violations of international law, you keep refocusing on past guilt of Israel in this or that event.
This, despite the fact that Palestinians and Iranians have actually signed the international treaties that they will respect international law, including the Rome Statute, which means Palestinians, to respect international law, now have to destroy Hamas, and deliver it's leaders to the authorities. They also signed that they would not take hostages, and now should deliver the hostages without any conditions. So enforcement is a valid thing to ask about, isn't it?
> It is a fallacy to assume that governments are driven by hatred and are unable to control their state’s response to unethical acts.
Again, how does this apply to Palestinians? And, how will you enforce their behavior to change?
> You also knew that this massacre was but the latest in a series of massacres committed by Israel
Hamas also decided to react to the latest peace proposal with an attempted massacre, that was only stopped through the military capabilities of Israel. Again such "details" don't matter to you.
> even if one of the states remains an apartheid ethnocracy; denying civil rights to Palestinians
I'll point out that Palestine is no better. Neither the PA nor Hamas. It is an apartheid state. It has separate laws for different religions, denying civil rights to everyone.
Likewise you don't seem to care that Israel is actually pretty nice to Palestinians. Yes, really. Jordan did worse. Kuwait did worse. Syria did FAR worse to Palestinians. Lebanon didn't and Egypt didn't but that wasn't for lack of trying (and like in Israel, these responses were to Palestinians attacking).
Frankly, I wonder why you demand Israel do better than Jordan or Kuwait (who both just threw all Palestinians out forcibly, not caring they had nowhere to go. They emptied entire cities of people, forcing them to leave the country, mostly on foot through the desert). Since you're not complaining about these, clearly find this acceptable treatment of Palestinians, except when Israel does it.
Which brings the question "what is it about Israel that makes you hate them so much?". We all know the answer.
> By your logic, Israel must also end for the massacres to stop.
No. Israel really, really wants a two-state solution. For the reasons stated: it is economically completely untenable and unrealistic for the Palestinians. Palestinians economy is a business model: promises of killing Jews and a steady stream of dead Palestinians in trade for close to 11 figures dollars yearly.
You neglected to mention that if a two-state solution happens, those 11 figures disappear. What is to replace them? I would note that especially WB is a desert. You need 10 figures just to keep it livable for humans.
Despite that, Israel is not using this excuse.
Specifically international law protections do not apply to civilians, unless they stay away from both involvement in military clashes and stay away from the clashes themselves. This even goes for the even more protected classes like doctors or even the red cross.
The only real violations of international law apply to an army purposefully going, unprovoked, into a civilian area and starting to shoot everyone. Hamas does that, as they've proven on many occasions (including their own civilians), Israel doesn't. And no serious organization is even disputing that.
Funny you mention the Oslo accords. After all, hamas was created to prevent the formation of a Palestinian state through that accord, by massacring Palestinians, and when that didn't do enough, Israeli. That's not conspiracy, that's fact.
(That's fact, UNLIKE you're "brilliant reading" of Israel's hidden agenda, which ... shall we say, generously, MIGHT exist, might not. Since the only thing Israel needs to win is the two-state "solution", I don't understand why Israel would resort to such complicated plans that can go very wrong a dozen ways till Sunday)
No two-state solution will EVER satisfy hamas. They will massacre their own people, and anyone they can reach, to prevent it. They have done that before, and they scream to anyone willing to listen they'll do it again.
Your conclusion is dead on arrival, and if by some chance you manage to get anywhere, like Clinton did, Hamas will massacre again, and again, and again to kill it. And Oct 7 (and the 90s) prove: isolation will not work. There is no escaping the conclusion: if you want a two-state solution, Hamas must end, FIRST.
Frankly, the two-state solution is a trap for Palestinians. It's one of the VERY few things hamas is actually right about, I think. Their methods are abhorrent, their tactics ... well with their tactics, what exactly is the point of "saving" Gaza? MAYBE Gaza can have some amount of economic life (though nothing like what UNRWA gives them), but the west bank cannot even sustain it's population without constant help, mostly from Israel. If they become independent, they will be poorer than Zimbabwe. More importantly: it is similar for both Palestinian billionaires (both Hamas and Fatah) and the people, and at least the billionaires seem to understand this. I cannot fathom why Palestinians would accept a two-state solution.
So consensus shouldn't matter because if Joe the hairdresser or Jane the mechanic decide they, personally, want to do renewables, they can. Just by themselves. Hell, in most Australian cities ... I bet it would work in anything but the CBD.
Except this: "Of course, Oct 7th changed that: it challenged them and showed they are not all powerful, and that is not acceptable, so the people of Gaza had to be punished."
Yes. That's how it works. The argument made by the UN was that since Hamas is totally powerless, it's not moral to attack them to stop them from killing. Indeed, Oct 7 showed that that is true, but ONE stupid and sufficiently serious mistake on the Israeli side and ...
So of course the status quo was destroyed. By Hamas.
And you're masking your demand, namely that Israel just accept the rockets (and the constant Palestinian deaths the Hamas dictatorship/pseudo-sharia-state causes). So the answer is simple. EITHER:
1) you're against killing, and Hamas must be stopped.
2) you're not against killing, you're just a racist, only demanding Israel stops, and that Hamas be allowed to keep killing Jews. In that case: fuck your racism. Your complaints about Palestinian deaths will be treated in EXACTLY the same manner you treat Hamas killings. No-one cares.
I find it fascinating how lies can be so complicated, even if I suck at it. But yes, I've seen many times with dishonest politicians: you can purposefully lie by saying nothing but the truth, and just leave out a few facts.
https://www.un.org/en/model-united-nations/groups-member-sta...
See what it has to say about the OIC. I'll repeat it here: "The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the 57-member-state that constitutes the largest voting block in the United Nations" ...
They mean the general assembly, of course. "Strange" how you totally leave out the general assembly (especially given how the ICJ is organised).
I mean, are you even going to pretend it's missing for any reason other than outright deception and lying? It's clear from your post, after all, that you know exactly what you're hiding. Which is what makes it a lie: it's a direct attempt to bring over a specific idea, which is not true, and you know exactly what you're doing.
And, once again, it's "not a good sign" that a pro-Palestinian is so deliberately hiding facts. It always seems to be the same side doing this.
Obviously you find Hamas, PA, and muslim countries in general (and in number, they are the largest faction in the UN general assembly) ... extremely opposed to any enforcement, because they blatantly violated international law again and again and again.
1) Do you attack people who kill civilians this? (Who actually does the military attack?)
Congrats, you're now doing what Israel does in it's place.
2) Do you do nothing?
Well, then you might as well shut up. At least have the decency to state, not just that "it is wrong" but that you have zero intention to help. If you don't, you're making things worse, not better.
3) ...
I'm sure A LOT of people are dying, including literally, to hear any ideas.
That this principle is a good idea ... I think everyone, including every Israeli and even Hamas members, no matter how crazy they otherwise are, agree that it is a good idea in General.
Likewise, EVEN IN THIS VERY POST, anything about Hamas and Palestinians is deliberately left out. You see, the ICJ has 3 demands, not one.
1) immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, ("living and dead" has been added in this release)
2) delivering the guilty to the court (even though they haven't named individuals, in other words, they're giving Hamas yet another chance to stop this by just throwing a few of their members under the bus)
3) Israel must make sure it's operation in Rafah doesn't devolve into genocide
Israel is mad that these demands are independent, and not connected (in other words, they're saying they're perfectly happy to stop the war immediately and even rebuild Gaza if 1 and 2 happen)
(and then of course the implicit fourth demand that Hamas, and everyone else, respect UN agreed international borders and stops attacking Israel, now and forever)
The court made these demands knowing full well that there is ZERO chance that anything will happen on demand 1 and 2. And they modified their own laws (illegally) to allow for 3 to even be demanded (they modified their own jurisdiction because Palestine is a member without territory, which means 6 months ago, Gaza was outside of ICJ jurisdiction).
What's illegal about that change? Only the security council has the right to change their statutes, and of course, that's not happening.
This is a court that illegally modified it's own rules in order to convict Jews. Frankly ... after that I'm just not reading any further.
And if you do think further, Palestine is a signatory of the Rome statute. Which means Palestinians agreed to do what the court demands, which in this case is deliver the hostages and the leaders of Hamas. Hamas, going for elections, agreed to this too, btw. Neither Hamas, nor the PA, nor Palestinians obviously have ANY intention to comply, and yet, the court is not throwing them out, and "their" complaint is still getting treated. How is this fair?
And there you get to the issue of enforcement. Hamas agreed to uphold international treaties in order to participate in the election in 2006, and obviously, it didn't take a week before the first large-scale warcrimes (Palestinian-on-Palestinian). The UN didn't do anything. After the Israel-Lebanon war, the UN even sent soldiers to Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah. Well, Hezbollah isn't disarmed in case you didn't notice. Nobody is demanding enforcement, not on the street, not in the UN.
But NOW, when these warcrimes have forced a response from Israel, NOW you want enforcement? And not against Hamas/Hezbollah, but against Israel?
Fuck that.
And there is a basic legal principle, namely that one-sided enforcement of law by a court is not allowed. A court cannot, not even implicitly, punish one party to a crime without punishing the other party too. This court, or any court, cannot be allowed to punish Israel without punishing Hamas (and quite a few others).
And then there's yet another legal principle, that a court is not allowed to make judgements or demands it has zero hope to execute. In other words: if the court has no options for enforcement, it should stay out of it.
Like always we come to the only possible conclusion: this can only be stopped by Hamas, Hezbollah, and maybe Iran. This court, like everything else the UN does, is a joke.
The basic problem with war in general is always the same. If ONE party believes they are at war, TWO parties are at war. Just ask the Ukrainians, they can explain it better than I can.
This seems to be the hope of Marxists today. But if you talk to people who actually lived in the USSR, no, it wasn't lack of information. It was like in the show "Chernobyl". It was protecting decision makers, right up to the point of sending firefighters LITERALLY INTO a fissioning nuclear reactor in hopes of putting it out and blaming it on an electrical malfunction to protect the careers of the plant director and chief scientist.
Fine. This is actually true. Money captures government. Of course, the fact that we discuss it so freely does mean something is done about it.
And yet, everyone I've ever spoken who came from an autocracy, from the USSR, from Palestine, from Saudi, from China, from DRC, from South Africa, from India (tbh India is worse than Europe, but far less bad than Russia was) ... They all confirm that every one of these non-liberal states are deeply, deeply corrupt and WILL prop up corrupt companies at the expense of everyone in the country, in some cases (or "if necessary") with violence. Some have islands of fair play (essentially a few sectors of the economy the rulers really don't care about but are still needed, and thus are an actual economic opportunity), but 95-100% of the economy is corrupt. And most of these people agree that this corruption in turn causes mass poverty, which in some cases is endemic.
One big theme is that all autocracies really have one purpose for all this corruption: to sabotage social mobility. Yes there is competition, usually between entire families, and one gains a bit one loses a bit, but NOBODY is allowed to switch places. That's what illiberal states are fundamentally about. Rulers remain rulers (especially in Saudi Arabia, that can go pretty damn FAR. Families whose children MUST take a job as a house servant for another family because their parents did that job. But also in China, it's about having the right families running the government. You can become the richest person among your cousins, with roughly the same amount of wealth as your richest uncle ... that's the limit. No going above it)
And yes, I obviously know of deeply unfair instances of corruption, in the US, and in Europe (oil companies are pretty much guaranteed to be corrupt, including in "the west", with telecom companies usually close behind). But it just doesn't compare to these illiberal states. And social mobility, definitely in the US, and even in Europe, is far higher.
So I'm baffled. Liberal capitalism is, as far as I can tell, by far the best solution to minimize corruption and maximize social mobility, both of which seem extremely desirable. It's also what these protests seem to be calling for. And yet ... every time there's demonstrations (which I understand, are part of liberal democracy and obviously part of the reason corruption remains under control) lots and lots of people call for entire countries to become illiberal. When asked they are under some sort of weird impression that socialism will make sure medicine is free, without training doctors. That housing for all will be the norm, while, of course, not building anything. That islam will mean wars end, without, of course, explaining why the conflict in, say, Sudan, isn't yet resolved.
I get that this is bad practice for a big production site, but I'd love to have this option.
https://rsf.org/en/country/palestine
From the article:
(about PA and Hamas journalism)
> Content is subject to political control ...
> In the West Bank, where journalists were already the victims of abuses by both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli occupying forces ...
(about PA and Hamas actions against the press)
> With arrests, violence, destruction of equipment, legal proceedings and denial of accreditation, practicing journalism was already difficult before 7 October 2023 ...
Of course, then the article does what everyone keeps doing and blames Israel for all of it. Despite Israel STILL allowing even Al Jazeera to operate (and before you post the bullshit "they closed it", no they didn't: they closed the Al Jazeera CABLE CHANNEL in Israel. Al Jazeera journalists are still operating freely in Israel, as is plain to see on the frontpage of Al Jazeera, not that I expect you not to make yet another false accusation, but the reality is that you just can't receive Al Jazeera on cable in Israel anymore)
In other words, I stand by my claim "there are no independent journalists in Gaza, Hamas won't allow it". And I won't respond further.
Plus, frankly, I hope people still remember the incessant claims from leftists how Soviet press was totally free to report whatever they wanted. You're not the first making this totally absurd claim and nobody with minimal intelligence is fooled.
Only if you follow western sensibilities. If you have gunmen roaming the streets with machine guns, allowed to shoot anyone of the "normal" people, and they constantly ask for inspecting people's phones ... then it's not very difficult. They regularly fire into crowds, for all sorts of reasons.
Especially if about 20% of the population is part of that force roaming the streets with machine guns. There's 3 possible jobs you can have in Gaza: construction worker in Israel, Hamas or independent (baker, plumber, ...)
Hamas keeps far tighter control of their population than the USSR ever did.
You do this after pointing out that if one country lacks press freedom, that doesn't make it OK for another to lack it too. Great.
You are not fairly discussing this issue. Not that that wasn't already clear. Everybody knows what hamas is and what they do. NOTHING excuses their behavior, and it is not comparable to what Israel does by any moral measure. Not in press freedom. Not in anything.
Second, this is false moral equivalence. Hamas beats up and even kills journalists to get them under control. Israel "pressures". Some Israeli (NOT the Israeli state) have "smear campaigns" (ie. a few posts on twitter) about those journalists. Some Isreali politicians call for the justice system to go after those journalists, but the justice system doesn't actually do that. And even if it did, it STILL would be VERY far from what Hamas does. There is no moral comparison possible.
Hamas suppress the press "problem" by what any honest human being calls "murder". Just like they solve any other problem.
What Hamas does, obviously IS INFINITELY WORSE than what Israel does, to the point that comparisons are absurd. This is equating what the Taliban does to girls' education (ie. bomb school, poison students, massacre their own people, send in the police to beat students) with the denial of the "right" for teachers to wear headscarves. Whatever your opinion about both issues, they are totally incomparable.
Yes I am. Google it for 5 seconds and ...
Obviously you can buy pictures from propagandists. The tough part really is NOT getting pictures from them when you're NOT paying for them.
There are only propagandists with a "press" jacket. And since there's nothing better, places like BBC and CNN take what they can get.
(PLUS a bunch of Gazan journalists went with the terrorists into Israel, and observed, filmed and documented the killing of civilians, triumphantly posting the videos they made of the event. They did not help anyone)