CNN staff say network’s pro-Israel slant amounts to ‘journalistic malpractice’
Insiders say pressure from the top results in credulous reporting of Israeli claims and silencing of Palestinian perspectives
You're viewing part of a thread.
You understand that West Bank is occupied by Israel for many years and they do these raids for many years (decades even), right?
You didn't answer my question.
Also, from the link I pasted that you obviously ignored:
On 15 December, Doctors Without Borders reported 2023 was the deadliest year for Palestinians in the West Bank in recorded history.
And yet the war is only in Gaza.
Weird kind of peace.
I would not call it peace, I would call it occupation. And it is absolutely expected increase of activities there when something is happening in Gaza. That was true the last time Israel had excursion into Gaza, it is true now. But it is absolutely dishonest to call it the war with Palestine. Israel does not have goal to dismiss the Palestinian Authority, does not try to attack the officials or government buildings of the Palestinian Authority, and Palestinian Authority does not use any paramilitary forces to fight Israel. Calling it a war with Palestine is simply false and is anti-Israel propaganda in my opinion.
As for your question - it does not matter if it is 5 or 35 or 3005 times those raids happen. Weather it is a war or not is not defined by the number of raids, but by what I have discussed above.
So you're saying that despite this being the deadliest year for Palestinians in the West Bank in recorded history and despite Israel occupying parts of the West Bank, taking away any authority the PA may have in those areas and despite Israel conducting raid after raid into the West Bank, the war is only in Gaza.
It really sounds to me like you're arguing that the war is only in Gaza because Israel says so and no matter what the IDF does in the West Bank and no matter how many people they kill in the West Bank, the war is only in Gaza.
That's some real 1984 shit.
Yes, I am saying precisely that. The raids are not war. It is just the question of definition of what war is and is not. One thing I agree with you, it is 1984 shit. Just I suspect we disagree who is doing it. You may want to open dictionary and check what war is.
Ok.
war
/wôr/
noun
noun: war; plural noun: wars
a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.
Sure sounds like what's happening in the West Bank to me... unless the IDF is only killing unarmed people. Is that what is going on?
given the decades of blockades, i dont see how anyone couad be armedin gaza
Let’s abstract this. We marine you are asking someone: “there is this state that as result of war occupied territory, but did not annex it. In this occupied territory it organized provisional government, yet this territory is not independent and still under occupation. There is resistance in this territory and the state periodically has raids to squash the resistance. The resistance is not organized or have relationship to the provisional government. At some point due to events happening elsewhere, the resistance is activated and number of raids dramatically increased to the levels higher than before, higher than at any time since setting up the provisional government. The state did not declare war on provisional government, the provisional government did not declare war on the state nor is the one who is responsible for increase in resistance activity. The state does not target the government or officials from the government, it only increased the number of raids. How would you call this situation?”
How do you honestly think that person answer? As for me, I would be very surprised that the person would answer “a war”. It is continued occupation with increased activity and raids. Don’t you agree that this is reasonable answer?
You told me to look up the definition of war. I did. Now you're saying that definition is wrong.
It is not wrong, it is just not full. Answer the question I ask you in the above post about abstracting situation.
You: "You may want to open dictionary and check what war is."
Me: Okay, here's the definition.
You: That's not the full definition.
Then why did you tell me to look it up? Or at least not tell me which dictionary to look it up in that would agree with you?
Did you even check what the dictionary definition was before you told me to look it up?
You are not answering my question. Are you trying to discuss dictionaries instead? You are avoiding topic. I probably should have said encyclopedia , but you will face the same problem when you see “intensity of conflict” etc. So, let’s not talk about dictionaries but about the meaning of the word as most people would understand in this situation. This is why abstracted for you to see my point. Can you answer my question?