The Movement for Settlement in Southern Lebanon said the settlement of the area will bring 'true and stable security to northern Israel'

The Movement for Settlement in Southern Lebanon said the settlement of the area will bring ‘true and stable security to northern Israel’

    • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
      222·
      3 months ago

      Now you’re calling a Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor Report a ‘biased copypasta’ and completely disregarding the entire report.

        • njm1314@lemmy.worldEnglish
          192·
          2 months ago

          Ooof, I’ve never seen someone use MBFC as a source before. That’s just sad.

        • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
          82·
          2 months ago

          MBFC is a terrible way to consider whether a source is credible or not. But even if you look at the MBFC for Euro-Med, is shows no failed fact checks and a bias for human rights… If you consider that kind of bias worth disregarding, what does that say? You’ve given no genuine reason to ignore the Report.

          • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
            213·
            2 months ago

            Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

            Analysis / Bias

            Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor mainly focuses on human rights violations, especially in conflict zones like Gaza. The organization’s articles often use emotionally loaded language. Headlines like “Int’l committee must investigate Israel’s holding of dead bodies in Gaza​” exemplify this. The cited sources, such as NPR, are often credible but can lean towards perspectives emphasizing violations by certain state actors, potentially omitting broader contextual details, which could lead to a one-sided view of the situation. This selection of stories and framing indicates a significant bias against actions taken by Israel.

            • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
              64·
              2 months ago

              Like I said, MBFC is not a good way to determine if a source is credible. Credibility is about facts and honest reporting, both of which are present in Euro-Med Monitor reporting. Nor do they omit context, the entire first two chapters of the report are about the context of the conflict. The MBFC page even contradicts itself by admitting the sources used by Euro-Med are also credible. Euro-Med and other Human Rights Organizations apply International Law equally to all parties. The amount of violations is obviously disproportionate when one side is committing genocide, that does not mean these organizations are ‘one-sided’ as MBFC wants to believe, they each have multiple reports condemning human rights violations by Hamas and other resistance organizations. You’re refusal to consider these reports when it comes to the human rights violations of Israel shows how one-sided your views of this conflict are.

              • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.winEnglish
                211·
                2 months ago

                I’ll make my own determination tyvm. And as already stated, I agree with their analysis. Find a less biased source.

                • ayyy@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  62·
                  2 months ago

                  How can you make your own determination if you steadfastly refuse to even consider all the facts?

                • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  54·
                  2 months ago

                  That’s impossible with your ridiculous premise that bias is somehow inherently bad and also more important to consider than factual reporting.

                  Are Israeli sources like B’TSelem and Breaking the Silence also too biased to you? Works done by Israeli Historians such as Ilan Pappe and Avi Schlaim?

                  The reality of this genocide, the Apartheid, and the daily violence of the Occupation are well documented and readily available.