Israel

[Vēritās]

There are a few right wing antisemites but how many of them hold office or have an elected Republican representative that supports those views?

Avowed Nazis who aspire to enter the political realm are always trying to run as Republicans, and that's not a coincidence.

Who remembers how, in 2018 and just days before the deadliest attack on Jewish people in US history, a prominent US politician tweeted: “We cannot allow Soros, Steyer, and Bloomberg to BUY this election!”? The tweet was widely – and correctly – understood as dangerously antisemitic, particularly heinous in a period of rising anti-Jewish hatred. And whose tweet was this? If you thought the answer was Minnesota’s Democratic representative Ilhan Omar then, well, you’d be wrong. The author was none other than the House majority leader at the time, Republican Kevin McCarthy. The tweet was deleted.

Donald Trump broke bread with Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist, and Ye, who has praised Hitler. Trump has repeatedly called the loyalty of Jewish Americans into question. He wrote that “U.S. Jews have to get their act together and appreciate what they have in Israel – Before it is too late!”

Marjorie Taylor Greene speculated that the wildfires in California were caused by a laser beam from “space solar generators” linked to “Rothschild, Inc.”, a clear wink to bizarre antisemitic conspiracy theories. Incidentally, Greene, who has a long record of antisemitic and anti-Muslim statements, has been appointed, by the same Kevin McCarthy to the homeland security committee.

In 2018, the avowed Neo-Nazi Arthur Jones who famously argued that "the idea that six million Jews, were killed by the National Socialist government of Germany, in World War II, is the biggest, blackest lie in history," yeah, that guy.... well, he won the Republican nomination for Illinois congressional seat.

That same year John Fitzgerald, an anti-Semite who ran as a Republican for California’s 11th Congressional District seat, had been appearing on neo-Nazi podcasts and falsely claiming that the Holocaust is a “lie.” Fitzgerald came in second with 23 percent of the total vote.

Russell Walker, a retired chemical engineer, ran to represent District 48 in the North Carolina state House of Representatives. On his website he explains that he believes white people are superior and that there is “no such thing as equality" because, "Well someone or group has to be supreme and that group is the whites of the world. As explained in detail in another section of this website, there is no such thing as equality. Someone or something has to be superior and someone or something has to be inferior. That is just such a simple fact that it needs no explanation."

The entire progressive squad holds antisemitic views.

This is a Brietbart lie. Being critical of Israel's apartheid and genocidal antics doesn't an antisemite make. Unless you think the Jews who protested last week on Capitol hill are also antisemites.

They are the only elected officials voting to stop Israel from eradicating Hamas.

Ask Candace Owens if we should keep funding Israel's military. Is she an antisemite too?

If they really cared about the Palestinian people, they'd be eradicating Hamas themselves so that Israel does not have to.

You're pretty dumb huh. House Democrats are responsible for destroying a terror group located on the other side of the planet. Using what means, exactly? I thought Lord Trump said he had already annihilated ISIS and HAMAs?

Since they're unwilling to do any of that, yeah, they're going to bear some responsibility just like every other civilian in nearly every war that has ever happened in the history of mankind.

This is not like any other war. It can hardly be argued to be a war at all. On one hand you have a handful of terrorist rebels smuggling hand launched rockets under tunnels for random attacks on civilians, and then on the other hand you have one of the more advanced militaries on the planet, completely self financed, but with the support of the most powerful country in the world. Now with aircraft carriers miles off the coast just in case Israel runs out of bombs and can't spill enough innocent blood to quench Netanyahu's thirst.

And by your own logic, the House Republicans who just refused to provide funding for Israel unless they can get another tax break for themselves and their wealthiest constituents (by defunding the IRS's ability to prevent tax fraud), well that must mean the entire lot of them are antisemites.

[Vēritās]

I was listening to a random podcast on Youtube today while driving. The caller argued that all lives have equal value even in Palestine, but it is wrong to say Israel is murdering innocents because that isn't their intention. He called it "collateral" damage like any other war, pretty much the same rationale other morally bankrupt people like ajax make. Then about halfway through the call the host asked a question:

"What if we find out Hamas is actually hiding in Israel, would Israel go after Hamas in the same way they are now?"

The caller was stumped, but was forced to answer in the negative.

The host responded, "So there you have it, all lives aren't of equal value."

[Res Ipsa]

The point is the initial media reports of 1,400 civilian deaths was just pro-Israel propaganda like the 40 beheaded babies narrative. Ajax has been claiming the media has been strictly pro-Palestinian, which is almost laughable.

CFR on "the initial media reports of 1,400 civilian deaths." You and the misleading article you cited from The Cradle both asserted this, without any citation.

Here is a Haaretz article the day after the attack: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/202 ... fe855e0000 At least 700 Israelis killed in the attack.

The second day after the attack: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/202 ... 990eb50000 least 900 Israelis killed, including 38 soldiers whose names have been released.

The third day after the attack: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/202 ... bf23000000 "At the fourth day of the war" 1200 Israelis killed. Haaretz continues to report total casualty figures beginning with the original attack.

The fourth day after the attack: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/202 ... f68d470000 1200 Israelis killed.

The fifth day after the attack: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/202 ... 7bf0400000 Over 1200 Israeli deaths

The sixth day after the attack: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/202 ... f7c4290000 Over 1200 Israeli deaths. 258 families of soldiers have been notified.

The seventh day after the attack: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/202 ... f7c4290000 1,200 Israelis were killed since Saturday ■ IDF: 258 families of soldiers killed have been notified thus far"

So, at a week after the attack, the Israeli mainstream media isn't even reporting 1400 casualties total, let alone 1400 civilian casualties.

Doing a spot check, I found a couple of tabloids, a few smaller, local papers, and many social media posts that at some point referred to "1400 civilian casualties." But the mainstream media reporting I found was consistent that the 1400 figure included military and civilian deaths. Mosts made it clear that the 1400 figure included total Israeli deaths in the war, which began with the attack.

So, your claim about the death tolls reported in the media being pro-israel propaganda is, in fact, anti-Israel propaganda.

Haaretz, in fact, reported the official death figures from the government and the official death figures from the Palestinian Death Authority. There is no evidence of deliberate exaggeration of Israeli casualties or discounting Gazan casualties.

But when you account for what both pieces are saying the difference is really only around 200-300. We'll know more when all the bodies have been identified which could take months.

No, what the piece you cited and quoted from is saying that the media and/or the Israeli government lied about civilian casualties to enrage the public and drum up support for its invasion. It did so based on a made-up claim about a media barrage and an "analysis" that on its face is BS. It specifically made nonsense claims that Israel exaggerated the number of civilian casualties by lying about the number of military casualties. The claims are 100% anti-Israel propaganda.

The Haaretz piece is a memorial to Israelis killed in the war.

The Times of Israel piece reports casualty totals.

You're the one who made the original accusation based on the article you cited. So, are you now saying that, as long as we're talking about "onl"y 200-300 dead people, what you claimed isn't really a big deal?

This situation is also obscured by the fact that every Israeli who turns 18 is compelled to join the military. So while most Israelis are technically civilians, the bulk of them have military training and experience fighting Palestinians. And I'm pretty sure that's how they're viewed by their enemies.

No, the situation isn't obscured at all, although you are working very hard to obscure it. If you're not in the military, you're a civilian. There is nothing "technical" about it. And forgive me if I don't consider you an authority on how Hamas thinks. I can read its charter: Israel has no right to exist as a country and is illegally occupying part of Palestine. It is legitimate to kill all illegal occupiers, military and civilian, until they're all dead or Israel no longer exists as a nation. There is no reference to "technical civilians."

Regarding the guy on X, it wasn't in reference to video footage. That footage was analyzed by the NYT and other outlets who determined it to be a rocket from Israel, and a video from Aug 2022.

Here's you:

And the NYT reported the visual investigation of the rocket Israel claimed did it was actually launched from Israel and was unrelated to the blast.

But you didn't link to a NYT report. You linked to a Xit.

Israeli and U.S. intelligence officials believe that a projectile captured on videos shortly before the Ahli Arab Hospital explosion was a Palestinian rocket.
@nytimes Visual Investigations found that this object was launched from Israel, and likely unrelated to the deadly blast.

An @ in a Xit directs the Xit to another user's feed, in this case, the New York Times. So the Xit isn't citing a New York Times investigation. It's calling the New York Times's attention to the Xit.

Also, note that, unlike what you claimed, the Xit refers to Visual Investiations (capitalized), which is the name of the X account owner's business. So, in contrast to your claim, the source doesn't show that the New York Times conducted a "visual investigation" of the rocket -- It calls the New York Times's attention to the conclusion of the Xitter's company named Visual Investigations that the rocket was launched from Israel. Not only that, but the Xit does not refer to a "visual investigation of the rocket," but did attach video clips. The Xit you linked to does not link to any kind of analysis or report.

And, while we're on the topic of what your sources say, here's what you said about a second video:



Except the source you linked to says nothing about the media running with anything. Here's what it says:

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/vide ... 023-10-18/

The Reuters fact check talks about social media, not "the media."

The reason I cited the guy on X is because he seems to know Arabic, along with the few hundreds others who commented on that thread. And the overwhelming consensus was that the purported "phone call" that Israel claimed to have recorded from a Hamas intercept, was nothing more than a staged fake audio clip with bad actors with crappy accents. I suspect that the western media would have their own experts analyze and debunk it accordingly, if it were not so pro-Israel to begin with. Because what does this mean if it is fake? It means Israel is actively lying to us.

So, you counted comments on a Xit by a random pro-Palestinian guy who claims no expertise at all in linguistics. Literally, a rando on X and other randos who saw the Xit and bothered to comment. And based on that you know that the conversation is fake and what the results would be if "western media" performed an expert analysis. That's your evidenced based, expert conclusion?

[Vēritās]

The point is the initial media reports of 1,400 civilian deaths was just pro-Israel propaganda like the 40 beheaded babies narrative. Ajax has been claiming the media has been strictly pro-Palestinian, which is almost laughable.

CFR on "the initial media reports of 1,400 civilian deaths." You and the misleading article you cited from The Cradle both asserted this, without any citation.

So I see you're hung up on the word "initial"? I didn't mean to suggest the very first report the day of the attack, I meant the initial reports after body counts were made, and you're citing the media reports from the earliest stages when reports were in a state of flux.

You're obviously able to use Google but I wonder why you stopped after the first week?

Doing a spot check, I found a couple of tabloids, a few smaller, local papers, and many social media posts that at some point referred to "1400 civilian casualties." But the mainstream media reporting I found was consistent that the 1400 figure included military and civilian deaths. Mosts made it clear that the 1400 figure included total Israeli deaths in the war, which began with the attack.

Brace yourself. On the 6th day Time Magazine reported 1,4000 civilian deaths and that became a staple that was repeated in regular media like the Washington Post. Hardly "smaller local" outlets.

1.jpg

2.png

3.jpg

You were saying?

So, your claim about the death tolls reported in the media being pro-israel propaganda is, in fact, anti-Israel propaganda.

Yeah, except for the dozen media outlets that said precisely what I said they were saying. And I could go on with a lot more, and you would have seen them yourself if you were honest about doing your so called "spot check."

No, what the piece you cited and quoted from is saying that the media and/or the Israeli government lied about civilian casualties to enrage the public and drum up support for its invasion. It did so based on a made-up claim about a media barrage and an "analysis" that on its face is BS.

I wish I could see how red your face is right now.

The Times of Israel piece reports casualty totals.

It did more than that. It made a statement saying how many were civilian, whereas the Haaretz piece did not.

You're the one who made the original accusation based on the article you cited. So, are you now saying that, as long as we're talking about "onl"y 200-300 dead people, what you claimed isn't really a big deal?

The only person making this a big deal is you. Surely you see that.

No, the situation isn't obscured at all, although you are working very hard to obscure it. If you're not in the military, you're a civilian. There is nothing "technical" about it.

If you don't think Hamas is fully aware that virtually every Israeli is either a soldier, a future soldier or a trained former soldier, and if you think that doesn't play on their mentality then you're just being obtuse. I recall over the years seeing that point being made by Hamas defenders a number of times. Maybe that's what this Hamas official was suggesting when he said no one who was killed Oct 7th was a civilian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egipqa0ZhUk

Also, Hizbullah-Affiliated Lebanese Researcher Habib Fayyad stated There Are No Civilians In Israel

Also, Dr. Mohammad Shahedi, an Iranian West Asia Expert: There Are No Civilians in Israel; It's a Military-Oriented Colonial Regime

But you didn't link to a NYT report. You linked to a Xit.

I linked to the Twitter account of Aric Toler who works for the NYT Visual Investigations team. His linkedin account says he has a verified NYT email address. The NYT produces articles based on data provided by experts like him.

Also, note that, unlike what you claimed, the Xit refers to Visual Investiations (capitalized), which is the name of the X account owner's business.

I don't know if it is his business name, but it is the name of a division of the New York Times.

So, in contrast to your claim, the source doesn't show that the New York Times conducted a "visual investigation" of the rocket -- It calls the New York Times's attention to the conclusion of the Xitter's company named Visual Investigations that the rocket was launched from Israel. Not only that, but the Xit does not refer to a "visual investigation of the rocket," but did attach video clips. The Xit you linked to does not link to any kind of analysis or report.

While you're splitting hairs and making desperate distinctions without much of a difference, the NYT followed up on Toler's analysis and reported precisely what he concluded. Toler subsequently retweeted it from the official NYT X account. So there you have it.

The Reuters fact check talks about social media, not "the media."

More hair splitting I see, but fine. It went viral through social media and continues to go viral even to this day. How does this change the fact that it is pro-Israel propaganda that has been debunked? Russia can affect an entire election using primarily fake news on social media, but you're aghast that Israel might do the same?

So, you counted comments on a Xit by a random pro-Palestinian guy who claims no expertise at all in linguistics. Literally, a rando on X and other randos who saw the Xit and bothered to comment.

No, this wasn't some "rando guy," it was someone who is an expert in the language. For crying out loud are you even listening to yourself? You're saying people whose first language is Arabic, and who are familiar with various accents, have no credibility when it comes to determining whether or not a purported audio clip from Gaza is legit? Here is a News piece from the UK reporting the same thing based on two different Arabic speaking journalists.

So there you have it. Not just an opinion by a rando on X.

The question is, why isn't the rest of the western media treating this with the same skepticism? Israel just pushes videos and audio clips that turn out to be disinformation and the media just takes it for granted. Why do you think that is?

"Channel 4 also presented an analysis from NGOs Earshot, Forensic Architecture, and the Palestinian rights organization al-Haq. It contains assertions that audio from a verified video of the explosion shows that the missile was fired east of the hospital, that the alleged phone call was digitally manipulated beyond credibility and that photographic evidence of the crater shows that the projectile hit the hospital from the northeast instead of the southwest." - https://www.jurist.org/features/2023/10 ... st-probes/

[Res Ipsa]

CFR on "the initial media reports of 1,400 civilian deaths." You and the misleading article you cited from The Cradle both asserted this, without any citation.

So I see you're hung up on the word "initial"? I didn't mean to suggest the very first report the day of the attack, I meant the initial reports after body counts were made, and you're citing the media reports from the earliest stages when reports were in a state of flux.

You said initial. It’s not a hang up to take you at your word. If you mean something other than initial, then don’t say initial.

You're obviously able to use Google but I wonder why you stopped after the first week?

Because tracking down a week’s worth of reporting in one of Israel’s leading newspapers was sufficient to show what the initial casualty reports actually were.

Doing a spot check, I found a couple of tabloids, a few smaller, local papers, and many social media posts that at some point referred to "1400 civilian casualties." But the mainstream media reporting I found was consistent that the 1400 figure included military and civilian deaths. Mosts made it clear that the 1400 figure included total Israeli deaths in the war, which began with the attack.

Brace yourself. On the 6th day Time Magazine reported 1,4000 civilian deaths and that became a staple that was repeated in regular media like the Washington Post. Hardly "smaller local" outlets.

LOL. You’re so funny when you don’t read your own “evidence.” What you just said is 100% false. You obviously Googled “1400 Civilians” but never bothered to read the items that turned up.

Go back and read the search result you got for Time Magazine. The 1400 civilians refers to civilian casualties inflicted on Gazans by Israel. Now read the hit you posted for the Washington Post. It says 1400 civilians and soldiers.

What you said was completely false because you didn’t bother to read the results of your own research.

So, I’m not “bracing myself” for anything. I’m laughing my ass off.

Which other returns on your search did you not bother to read? Let’s see:

Jerusalem Post: another leading paper in Israel says 1400 civilians and soldiers.

Haaretz: as I said above, a leading Israeli paper, says 1400 civilians and soldiers.



So, what are you left with:

A local news reporter reporting on a City Council resolution did say 1400 civilians, while the international reporter correctly said: “ Hundreds of thousands of soldiers massed outside the territory ready to invade in response to the Hamas assault in which more than 1,400 people were killed.”

https://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/i ... K6L6LSEME/

And “killing hundreds” https://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/i ... M77PCGTHQ/

And killing “1400 people” https://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/i ... VJE4JV2LQ/

So, a local reporter screwed up local story, while the reporters assigned to cover the story got it consistently correct.

The Chicago Tribune hit is an op-ed by a congressman. This news article from October 17 says “1400 people, mostly civilians.” https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-w ... story.html

The hit for CNN is a transcript. It doesn’t identify which show or who actually said the words. But CNN’s news stories, including their daily update, consistently refer to “1400 people” or “1400 people, mostly civilians.” Here’s a typical example. “ https://cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/is ... id=ios_app. The CNN site is easy to search. If there were a barrage of stories claiming 1400 civilians” you should be easily be able to post links.

The Seattle Times story is an AP story that incorrectly refers to 1400 civilian deaths. https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-is ... ab354354ce

However, here are other AP articles from around the same time.

From the day before: “1400 people” https://apnews.com/article/israel-gaza- ... c803678d4a

From two days before: “1400 Israelis” https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-bo ... 87db5cc839

From the Day After: 1400 Israeli people. https://apnews.com/article/israel-pales ... 9cab95b80c

No barrage.

The rest appear to be speeches, blog posts, and one TV story.

Now, before you try to rewrite history, I’m going to quote the most recent version of your claim:

Brace yourself. On the 6th day Time Magazine reported 1,4000 civilian deaths and that became a staple that was repeated in regular media like the Washington Post. Hardly "smaller local" outlets.

That is 100% totally false. All of it. At most, you’ve shown a few examples of incorrect reporting out of thousands of mainstream media stories that have been published. And your own “evidence” contradicts your claim about Time magazine and the Washington Post.

You were saying?

So, your claim about the death tolls reported in the media being pro-israel propaganda is, in fact, anti-Israel propaganda.

Yeah, except for the dozen media outlets that said precisely what I said they were saying. And I could go on with a lot more, and you would have seen them yourself if you were honest about doing your so called "spot check."

Yes. I said you made up a story about an alleged propaganda campaign. And in response, you made up another story that you would have known was false if you’d only bother to read the sources you cited.

Even worse, you never bothered to check other stories published by the same sources to see whether your hits represented isolated errors or the two week barrage of propaganda that your cited source claimed.

And you have the balls to call me dishonest? My spot check was way more accurate than your Google fiasco.

Isolated errors in reporting are not evidence of a media propaganda campaign.

No, what the piece you cited and quoted from is saying that the media and/or the Israeli government lied about civilian casualties to enrage the public and drum up support for its invasion. It did so based on a made-up claim about a media barrage and an "analysis" that on its face is BS.

I wish I could see how red your face is right now.

Only from laughing at you.

Now, because you lazily posted screenshots of your Google search instead of links, this took me over two hours of work. Work that you should have done before you made claims about a propaganda campaign.

I was wrong about the Xit about the missle. Although the fact that the story was run by the NYT doesn’t fit your claims about media bias.

As for the rest, I’ve spent enough time doing fact checking of your claims, which is something you should have done. That you are about as careful as Ajax when it comes to accurately representing sources should give you pause.

[Jersey Girl]

As for the rest, I’ve spent enough time doing fact checking of your claims, which is something you should have done. That you are about as careful as Ajax when it comes to accurately representing sources should give you pause.

Yep. And as blindly persistent in his rhetoric as LDSFAQS. The only voice he wants or is willing to listen to is his own. He sacrifices reason for combat.

So be it.

The ignore feature works like a charm.

[Vēritās]

Yes, I probably should have treated a casual exchange with an anonymous internet guy as if it were my doctoral dissertation. Yes, you got me on the 1,4000 casualties but only on the point that it wasn't initially spread by popular news outlets. The fact that the figure in question on Oct 7th was the exact same figure tallied after bombings in Gaza threw me off, and yes, you're right, I don't always have two hours to make sure all my Ts are crossed. The 1,400 death count for civilians on Oct 7th, was spread however, and a more precise Google search would show that, though not on major outlets. But for crying out loud, talk about missing the point. You seem more interested in winning internet battles over dumb technicalities instead of addressing the thrust of the argument and the fact that you spent 98% of your longwinded "response" belaboring the point about whether major news outlets initially reported 1,400 civilian deaths on Oct 7th instead of addressing the more concerning issue that Israel is engaged in a propaganda campaign.

A careful reader would understand that the crucial bullet points here are Israel 1) lied about a video claiming Hamas bombed a hospital and 2) completely staged a phone call with two bad actors in an attempt to prove Hamas had done it.

Now, those two points alone are more than enough to establish the premise that Israel is in fact lying to us and give all of us reason to pause and question our support for them. The initial reports of beheaded babies I had already addressed in a previous post, but that was more of an egregious lie than anything said about civilian casualty tallies.

I'm honest enough to admit when I'm wrong.

Serious question though: Are you or anyone else on this forum Jewish? And I don't mean the Mormonesque "adopted" kind. Some of you seem to be uncharacteristically triggered by any criticism of Israel.

It still blows my mind that you're upset about the notion that Israel is engaged in a propaganda campaign and that Western Media tends to go along with spreading it.

Marc Owen Jones, an associate professor of Middle East studies at Hamad Bin Khalifa University in Qatar who studies misinformation, told NBC News that he found that the source of the “40 babies beheaded” allegations largely stemmed from a viral Israeli news broadcast clip that did not specifically refer to the allegation.

Nicole Zedeck, a correspondent for the privately owned Israeli news outlet i24NEWS, said in the video that Israeli soldiers told her they’d found “babies, their heads cut off.” The video has been viewed more than 11 million times on X, according to its view counter. In another tweet, Zedeck wrote that soldiers told her they believe “40 babies/children were killed.”

“Somehow those two bits of information were connected, the story became ‘40 babies were beheaded,’ and in the British press today, about six or seven newspapers had it on their front pages,” Jones said.

An IDF spokesperson, Doron Spielman, told NBC News on Tuesday that he could not confirm i24NEWS’s report.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/u ... rcna119902

[Vēritās]

Meanwhile, Israel decided to forgo the propaganda shenanigans this time around and just flat out admit they bombed the crap out of what they knew to be a refugee camp with women and children. Wolf Blitzer was left stunned when the IDF spokesperson just came out and admitted it with a straight face.

https://newrepublic.com/post/176534/cnn ... -airstrike

[Vēritās]

As for the rest, I’ve spent enough time doing fact checking of your claims, which is something you should have done. That you are about as careful as Ajax when it comes to accurately representing sources should give you pause.

Yep. And as blindly persistent in his rhetoric as LDSFAQS. The only voice he wants or is willing to listen to is his own. He sacrifices reason for combat.

So be it.

The ignore feature works like a charm.

Sure Jersey Girl, this started because I initiated "combat." Right. Go back and look at the previous exchanges between us on several threads now, it is always Res initiating confrontation with me in an attempt to berate me. The irony of complaining that someone doesn't listen to other viewpoints while you brag about using the ignore feature.

[Vēritās]

Being open to other viewpoints.

In a rare, candid conversation, Abby Martin interviews a former Israeli Army combat soldier who served as an occupier in Palestine’s Hebron City. Eran Efrati spent years as a sergeant and combat soldier in the Israeli military, but has since become an outspoken critic of the occupation of Palestine and Israeli apartheid.

Efrati gives explosive testimony on the reality of his service and explains how war crimes are institutionalized, as well as how systematic the oppression against Palestinians really is in a war of conquest that will no-doubt be accelerated under the Trump Administration.

He said his main mission as a soldier was to terrorize the Palestinians and make them so afraid that they would never dare think to act against an Israeli. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkxJd88xkBU&t=614s

Did you know Israel imposes martial law in the occupied territories? Did you know it is illegal to wave a Palestinian flag or to congregate in groups of ten? Did you know Israeli solders were give orders to shoot to kill if any Palestinian was caught outside t violating curfews?

Abby Martin details the hypocrisy of Western Media, pointing out that we always hear about rockets from Hamas when they happen but we are never told anything about the context which led to that.