Israel Accuses Al Jazeera Journalist of Being Hamas Operative
nysun.com
Archive (including paywall bypass): https://archive.is/KeCzT
The Israeli Defense Forces on Sunday accused a prominent journalist– who in recent months has reported regularly for Al Jazeera from Gaza – of moonlighting as a senior Hamas commander.
The Israeli Defense Forces have published photos they say were discovered on a laptop in Gaza that show Al Jazeera journalist Mohamed Washah engaged in Hamas terrorist activities.
Neither Al Jazeera nor the Qatari government have responded to the Sun’s request for comment.
You are viewing a single comment
For sure, and Israel admits that, too. It's Hamas that lies about every single attack on its members.
Really? Every single attack? So Israel hasn't attacked any Hamas fighters? Wow, they really suck at this. No wonder they've killed over 10,000 children.
What? You misunderstood. No, Israel has killed thousands of Hamas members. According to Hamas though, the number of its dead soldiers is like three. I think they admitted one early airstrike, I think also on Rafah, killed a commander. So I assume there are probably a couple of others times they've admitted to their casualties. Every other time they say it was only civilians, no fighters killed. They are lying, and for that reason I find Israel has more credibility than the terrorists.
IDF is a terrorist organization.
Says you? Do any credible multilateral bodies of nations join you in that assessment?
Says pretty much anyone who doesn’t have their head up their ass supporting genocide.
If you support IDF you are trash.
And if you are looking for sources, check out Netanyahu on the god damn nightly news.
So no, just you and other internet edgelords that think they have inside information?
The absence of credible multilateral bodies of nations to join them in that assessment is the same as the presence of credible multilateral bodies of nations to join them in that assessment.
There aren't credible multilateral bodies that classify the IDF as a terrorist organization.
The absence of such is evidence that they are not, otherwise, some body with authority on the matter would say so.
The lack of an authority saying so is the same as an authority saying so.
You've taught me that the lack of something is the same as the presence of something, remember?
...
Please show the source of this claim.
So, please prove a negative? No.
You can just read news articles that quote Hamas leaders anytime there is an airstrike and next time you see it maybe you'll spot it now that you know what to look for.
What negative? This was your claim:
Please show the source for this claim.
"Just read news articles" is not a source.
The claim is "Hamas doesn't admit when its soldiers are killed because that would defeat their martyrdom and human shield strategy to gain western sympathy."
It's a negative.
That is a lie. I pasted your claim. I will paste it again:
If you can't back up this claim, fine. I guess it also a lie.
Dated 12/15 from Reuters: Hamas has not said how many of its fighters have been killed. Israel's military has said it has killed at least 7,000.
So they didn't say three.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/26/world/middleeast/hamas-commander-northern-gaza-killed.html
Now stop sealioning.
Yes, expecting evidence for a specific claim is totally sealioning.
I'm sorry that you don't like it that the person made a claim that neither of you can back up. That's not my fault.
Again- this was the claim I asked to be backed up.
You have not proved they have said that and neither have they. That article is from November 26th of last year. It is also not saying that Hamas is claiming that the total number of Hamas soldiers that were killed was four. Just four in that specific instance. And you either knew that when you pasted the article and didn't expect me to read it or you didn't read it yourself. Either way, you're being highly dishonest.
But sure, be that dishonest and accuse me of sealioning as well. Why not? Easier than just admitting that the claim is false, right?
The claims are simple:
1 - Hamas has not released any statistics about the total number of Hamas fighters killed.
2 - Hamas has acknowledged a small number of specific, individual deaths
Claiming that either of these statements are false - now that you have been presented with evidence of both - is precisely sealioning. Claiming that someone is being dishonest - in presenting evidence that does not fit a pedantic standard beyond the scope of the discussion - is precisely sealioning. For example, suggesting a source that reads "Abu Anas al-Ghandour and three others had been killed" as being semantically incompatible with "number of its dead soldiers is like three" is sealioning.
If you would like to present any evidence of counterclaims, that is perfectly fine. Perhaps Hamas has published losses of soldiers in the time since these articles have been published. I and the rest of the world would certainly like to see those numbers.
However, continued requests for further evidence or insistence that the evidence does not say what it says, or pedantic claims that deliberately misinterpret a statement will only be evidence of bad faith.
No that's my inference based on the lack of evidence.
The claim and the evidence is that Hamas hardly ever admits to casualties.
The evidence that Hamas doesn't distinguish it's fighters is the lack of evidence of Hamas admitting to its fighters being killed. I can't prove a lack of something that doesn't exist.
You made absolutely no indication that it was an inference. It was just a statement, as if it were fact.
You have provided no evidence.
What the fuck does this even mean?