Journalism is when you leave a few dots unconnected for the reader as a fun little puzzle.
Netanyahu didn't just let the attacks happen, we also know he funded Hamas, and has wanted the attack to use as casus belli so he could do some fucked up war crimes of his own. Netanyahu is a far right extremists who has been paying some fucked up laws, like using live ammo on protestors. He's a fascist, plain and simple.
Edit: I'm gonna leave these typos in place, just let it be known I wrote this with sleep still in my eyes.
The few dots you refer to sound like the "speculation part" which I am very thankful is not included in the article. The news itself is disturbing, but your theory sounds very much like conspiracy theory. However I am open to be proved wrong, as I am not that much into israeli politics.
The "funding" was confirmed by him from a past speech. Funding is in quotes because it wasn't all direct funding, and that particular speech was about him signing off on a transfer of funds from someone else to Hamas. But the underlying motivation is still accurate because... that's what he said the reason was. He said he wanted Hamas to have more funding so they would rise in power and keep the people divided.
The rest of it is stuff that can never be proved in favor or against unless you can read minds. However, it seems more than likely if you take into account the wider history of him, his party, and the region.
On the other side of this you have years of massive protests within Israel by Israeli citizens, and ongoing criminal and corruption charges against him and his associates within Israel.
A violent war would help him, and that's not a conspiracy
It haven't tho, he presented himself in Israel as "mister security" and 7th of October only ruined his ratings to the ground, just look at the opinion polls
Thanks. So Israel handed out work permits and "allowed suitcases holding millions in Qatari cash to enter Gaza through its crossings since 2018, in order to maintain its fragile ceasefire with the Hamas".
That's sounds a bit different from "Netanyahu didn’t just let the attacks happen, we also know he funded Hamas, and has wanted the attack to use as casus belli so he could do some fucked up war crimes of his own."
I'm not denying that he's employing a "divide and conquer" strategy, that a lot of his doing is making the conflict worse, that's he's using the opportunity to do a lot of damage etc. But it's not that he funded Hamas because he wanted the attack to happen (at least the article doesn't prove that).
It's not that he wanted this particular attack to happen (this article doesn't prove that, as you said). It's that he's been allowing Qatari money to flow into Gaza, knowing full well it's Hamas getting it. As for the fact that Netanyahu wanted to do warcrimes... Well just look at what he and his cabinet say.
Funded versus allowed, I oversimplified maybe but to a statesman it amounts to the same thing imo.
Netanyahu didn't just let the attacks happen, we also know he funded Hamas
Objectively false, you can't dispute that.
Also, even if it was the only distortion, "funded" vs "allowed" mean completely different things, even in that specific context. I'm not being pedantic either; words mean things, especially in such a complex situation.
To be clear, I'm not fully on either side because both Hamas and Israel have done horrible things. But your "oversimplification" is really misinformation and has to be called out as such.
HAMAS is the ruling Palestinian party in the Gaza strip. If Netanyahu didn't allow money to pass over the border into Gaza, everyone here would be frothing at the mouth that Israel isn't allowing money into Gaza to fund hospitals! I'm not defending Netanyahu... but I don't see a situation that couldn't be spun against Israel.
You can't ever prove that last part. But knowing he had the intelligence and still moved troops away is pretty indicative of a decision that the Israelis in those towns were expendable.
It's interesting to me that that has to be repeated so often. It's really not a little known fact.
Journalism is when you leave a few dots unconnected for the reader as a fun little puzzle.
I just wanna say, no. Journalism is presenting the objective facts and letting the audience decide for themselves how to react.
It's it really that hard to believe that members of the ruling class would conspire to enact their own will and interest?
History is spotted with blood spilled by consequence of rulers doing exactly this.
That just sounds like the same thing with different wording
I guess there is the old "never assign to malice what can be adequately be explained by stupidity" to consider.
Do you find it adequate?
I'd say never rule out just stupid. Even when you try and make something idiot proof, nature just invents a better idiot. Conspiracies are hard to hold together as people are leaky. I find easier to believe in mass stupidity than mass conspiracies.
I believe in mass stupidity, but also specific evil. People like Netanyahu don't need to plan everything out, they just react very consistently to opportunities to be cruel, which incidentally creates more opportunities to react.
Journalism is when you leave a few dots unconnected for the reader as a fun little puzzle.
Netanyahu didn't just let the attacks happen, we also know he funded Hamas, and has wanted the attack to use as casus belli so he could do some fucked up war crimes of his own. Netanyahu is a far right extremists who has been paying some fucked up laws, like using live ammo on protestors. He's a fascist, plain and simple.
Edit: I'm gonna leave these typos in place, just let it be known I wrote this with sleep still in my eyes.
The few dots you refer to sound like the "speculation part" which I am very thankful is not included in the article. The news itself is disturbing, but your theory sounds very much like conspiracy theory. However I am open to be proved wrong, as I am not that much into israeli politics.
The "funding" was confirmed by him from a past speech. Funding is in quotes because it wasn't all direct funding, and that particular speech was about him signing off on a transfer of funds from someone else to Hamas. But the underlying motivation is still accurate because... that's what he said the reason was. He said he wanted Hamas to have more funding so they would rise in power and keep the people divided.
The rest of it is stuff that can never be proved in favor or against unless you can read minds. However, it seems more than likely if you take into account the wider history of him, his party, and the region.
On the other side of this you have years of massive protests within Israel by Israeli citizens, and ongoing criminal and corruption charges against him and his associates within Israel.
A violent war would help him, and that's not a conspiracy
It haven't tho, he presented himself in Israel as "mister security" and 7th of October only ruined his ratings to the ground, just look at the opinion polls
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Israeli_legislative_election
Around half the people in Israel want Netanyahu beheaded. The other half would rather have him shot
You mind linking the speech or copying the relevant part? That sounds very intriguing and I'd love to see what wording he used.
Can we have a source for that?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
Thanks. So Israel handed out work permits and "allowed suitcases holding millions in Qatari cash to enter Gaza through its crossings since 2018, in order to maintain its fragile ceasefire with the Hamas".
That's sounds a bit different from "Netanyahu didn’t just let the attacks happen, we also know he funded Hamas, and has wanted the attack to use as casus belli so he could do some fucked up war crimes of his own."
I'm not denying that he's employing a "divide and conquer" strategy, that a lot of his doing is making the conflict worse, that's he's using the opportunity to do a lot of damage etc. But it's not that he funded Hamas because he wanted the attack to happen (at least the article doesn't prove that).
It's not that he wanted this particular attack to happen (this article doesn't prove that, as you said). It's that he's been allowing Qatari money to flow into Gaza, knowing full well it's Hamas getting it. As for the fact that Netanyahu wanted to do warcrimes... Well just look at what he and his cabinet say.
Funded versus allowed, I oversimplified maybe but to a statesman it amounts to the same thing imo.
Objectively false, you can't dispute that.
Also, even if it was the only distortion, "funded" vs "allowed" mean completely different things, even in that specific context. I'm not being pedantic either; words mean things, especially in such a complex situation.
To be clear, I'm not fully on either side because both Hamas and Israel have done horrible things. But your "oversimplification" is really misinformation and has to be called out as such.
HAMAS is the ruling Palestinian party in the Gaza strip. If Netanyahu didn't allow money to pass over the border into Gaza, everyone here would be frothing at the mouth that Israel isn't allowing money into Gaza to fund hospitals! I'm not defending Netanyahu... but I don't see a situation that couldn't be spun against Israel.
You can't ever prove that last part. But knowing he had the intelligence and still moved troops away is pretty indicative of a decision that the Israelis in those towns were expendable.
It's interesting to me that that has to be repeated so often. It's really not a little known fact.
I just wanna say, no. Journalism is presenting the objective facts and letting the audience decide for themselves how to react.
It's it really that hard to believe that members of the ruling class would conspire to enact their own will and interest?
History is spotted with blood spilled by consequence of rulers doing exactly this.
That just sounds like the same thing with different wording
I guess there is the old "never assign to malice what can be adequately be explained by stupidity" to consider.
Do you find it adequate?
I'd say never rule out just stupid. Even when you try and make something idiot proof, nature just invents a better idiot. Conspiracies are hard to hold together as people are leaky. I find easier to believe in mass stupidity than mass conspiracies.
I believe in mass stupidity, but also specific evil. People like Netanyahu don't need to plan everything out, they just react very consistently to opportunities to be cruel, which incidentally creates more opportunities to react.