Sounds like a reasonable decision. The Hamas-run label was used to denote that the death toll coming out of the Gaza Health Ministry was not very trustworthy. The numbers have since been declared trustworthy by pretty much any credible agency around the world but the most invested hasbaristas. Therefore today the label has become misleading when it comes to this information. It adds uncertainty to trustworthy information which only serves the goals of the hasbaristas who seek to convince that the death toll is significantly lower.
I Germany, I hear this often, but it’s also often mentioned that the death numbers reported by them were usually reliable.
The 40,000 killed statistic is reliable in that the killed persons name, identity number etc are reported to MoH officials and recorded by them, and the dead are seen by the officials. However the figure is a small subset of the actual number dead. 200,000 to 300,000 dead in Gaza in the past year is a conservative estimate.
Yeah, which I think is a real weakness in the reporting.
40k dead is bad, but it’s a rounding error of the total population.
A tenth of the total population dead, a fifth or a quarter of the population subjected to severe permanent disabilities, and nearly the entire population displaced, homeless, and presently starving to death is a clear genocide. They really are trying to exterminate them. It strains my ability to comprehend. In any case, “40,000” does not begin to capture the current scale of what has become a pretty standard, unambiguous genocide.
By the end of the article they’ve framed much of this as being pro-Hamas / anti-Israel when a collaborative encyclopedia was seemingly worried about appearing neutral.
There’s enough there to have a good argument about sources and consistent wording but the article keeps highlighting people who think it’s purely political and even that people probably didn’t read the issue, they just wanted to be pro or anti Israel.
There’s still a lot of people who call this a genocide because they feel / think it’s a genocide, not because they’re on a side. Having consistent wording is important because you should be able to speak the truth and still feel whatever you felt… it’s not about hating Israel. I guess the beginning of the article sort of captures that mindset.
it’s not about hating Israel.
Israel is working hard to turn the world agaisnt itself.
Once you learn the history, it is very hard to seeing aa anything but a brutal colonial project.
But it is run by Hamas, just so we are clear.
Technically, you’re correct despite the down votes, Hamas was the government and the HM was part of the government.
I think since the invasion though, any bits of government still running are doing so independently of any oversight.
Why? Is it not Hamas run? If it’s not Hamas run, then it shouldn’t be called Hamas run, but if it is Hamas run what’s the issue?
So we should also be calling it the Otzma Yehudit-run Ministry of National Security of Israel?
Heh, might as well have some fun with it: The Jewish-Power-run National Security Ministry of Israel. Sounds pretty fucking fascist.
And the Religious-Zionist-run Ministry of Finance of Israel.
They start sounding pretty cooky aren’t they?
There was also a question of redundancy, as editors against the qualifier opined that it’s implied that Hamas runs Gaza and noted that Wikipedia doesn’t refer to the Israel Defense Force (IDF) as the “Israel-run” or “Netanyahu-run” IDF or the State Department as the “Democrat-run State Department.”
There’s a clear implicit meaning when saying “Hamas-run” that a lot of people in western countries would use to help discredit what’s actually going on there.
If it was the Hamas National Hospital I’d agree with you.
I’m afraid I’m not understanding. Can you elaborate?
Until I did homework on the situation in Gaza, I didn’t know Hamas* was de facto in charge, and arguably de jure.
The Wikipedia “redundancy” is designed for people like I was: completely ignorant on the topic.
That’s why people go to Wikipedia, to educate themselves quickly.
Thats not on Wikipedia to ensure that everyone knows who runs what country at any given moment. Like the quote I provided above says, we don’t say the same thing for Israel or any western nation. So not only would there be a clear political undertone with using it, it would also display a very big bias and double standard. And one of the big things about Wikipedia is its stance to be as neutral as possible.
It would be like calling FEMA ‘democrat run’ when talking about the latest hurricane recovery efforts. It is literally true, but it is not relevant. To add it would only serve an editorial purpose, not a factual one.
Well here are the facts:
Hamas is officially recognized as a terrorist organization by
mostsome of the more influential world powers.. 70+ countries, in fact.It is absolutely relevant if a hospital was held hostage by terrorists.
No that’s certainly not most of the world
Doesn’t matter, they’re hiding behind women and children in hospitals and schools. “Heroic freedom fighters” don’t take fucking hostages.
Blame Israel for pushing them to that point.
They are not capable of symmetrical warfare, all resistance to genocide is justified.
Hamas only exists because of the Apartheid Occupation of Israel and the daily violence that has subjected Palestinians to for generations. Israel has always been the obstacle for peace.
De-development via the Gaza Occupation
Between July 1971 and February 1972, Sharon enjoyed considerable success. During this time, the entire Strip (apart from the Rafah area) was sealed off by a ring of security fences 53 miles in length, with few entrypoints. Today, their effects live on: there are only three points of entry to Gaza—Erez, Nahal Oz, and Rafah.
Perhaps the most dramatic and painful aspect of Sharon’s campaign was the widening of roads in the refugee camps to facilitate military access. Israel built nearly 200 miles of security roads and destroyed thousands of refugee dwellings as part of the widening process.’ In August 1971, for example, the Israeli army destroyed 7,729 rooms (approximately 2,000 houses) in three vola- tile camps, displacing 15,855 refugees: 7,217 from Jabalya, 4,836 from Shati, and 3,802 from Rafah.
- Page 105
Through 1993 Israel imposed a one-way system of tariffs and duties on the importation of goods through its borders; leaving Israel for Gaza, however, no tariffs or other regulations applied. Thus, for Israeli exports to Gaza, the Strip was treated as part of Israel; but for Gazan exports to Israel, the Strip was treated as a foreign entity subject to various “non-tariff barriers.” This placed Israel at a distinct advantage for trading and limited Gaza’s access to Israeli and foreign markets. Gazans had no recourse against such policies, being totally unable to protect themselves with tariffs or exchange rate controls. Thus, they had to pay more for highly protected Israeli products than they would if they had some control over their own economy. Such policies deprived the occupied territories of significant customs revenue, estimated at $118-$176 million in 1986. (Arguably, the economic terms of the Gaza—Jericho Agreement modify the situation only slightly.')
- page 240
In a report released in May 2015, the World Bank revealed that as a result of Israel’s blockade and OPE, Gaza’s manufacturing sector shrank by as much as 60 percent over eight years while real per capita income is 31 percent lower than it was 20 years ago. The report also stated that the blockade alone is responsible for a 50 percent decrease in Gaza’s GDP since 2007. Furthermore, OPE (com- bined with the tunnel closure) exacerbated an already grave situation by reducing Gaza’s economy by an additional $460 million.
-
Page 402
-
The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-Development - Third Edition by Sara M. Roy
Blockade, including Aid
Hamas began twenty years into the occupation during the first Intifada, with the goal of ending the occupation. Collective punishment has been a deliberate Israeli tactic for decades with the Dahiya doctrine. Violence such as suicide bombings and rockets escalated in response to Israeli enforcement of the occupation and apartheid.
After the ‘disengagement’ in 2007, this turned into a full blockade; where Israel has had control over the airspace, borders, and sea. Under the guise of ‘dual-use’ Israel has restricted food, allocating a minimum supply leading to over half of Gaza being food insecure; construction materials, medical supplies, and other basic necessities have also been restricted.
The blockade and Israel’s repeated military offensives have had a heavy toll on Gaza’s essential infrastructure and further debilitated its health system and economy, leaving the area in a state of perpetual humanitarian crisis. Indeed, Israel’s collective punishment of Gaza’s civilian population, the majority of whom are children, has created conditions inimical to human life due to shortages of housing, potable water and electricity, and lack of access to essential medicines and medical care, food, educational equipment and building materials.
- Amnesty International Report pg 26-27
Peace Process and Solution
Both Hamas and Fatah have agreed to a Two-State solution based on the 1967 borders for decades. Oslo and Camp David were used by Israel to continue settlements in the West Bank and maintain an Apartheid, while preventing any actual Two-State solution
How Avi Shlaim moved from two-state solution to one-state solution
‘One state is a game changer’: A conversation with Ilan Pappe
One State Solution, Foreign Affairs
Hamas proposed a full prisoner swap as early as Oct 8th, and agreed to the US proposed UN Permanent Ceasefire Resolution. Additionally, Hamas has already agreed to no longer govern the Gaza Strip, as long as Palestinians receive liberation and a unified government can take place.
During the current war, Hamas officials have said that the group does not want to return to ruling Gaza and that it advocates for forming a government of technocrats to be agreed upon by the various Palestinian factions. That government would then prepare for elections in Gaza and the West Bank, with the intention of forming a unified government.
Israel justifies nearly every attack on civilians with the lie of ‘human shields’
Human Shields
Hamas:
Intentionally utilizing the presence of civilians or other protected persons to render certain areas immune from military attack is prohibited under international law. Amnesty International was not able to establish whether or not the fighters’ presence in the camps was intended to shield themselves from military attacks. However, under international humanitarian law, even if one party uses “human shields”, or is otherwise unlawfully endangering civilians, this does not absolve the opposing party from complying with its obligations to distinguish between military objectives and civilians or civilian objects, to refrain from carrying out indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks, and to take all feasible precautions to spare civilians and civilian objects.
Israel:
Additionally, there is extensive independent verification of Israel using Palestinians as Human Shields:
-
Including Children (2013 Report)
-
Israel “Systematically” Uses Gaza Children as Human Shields, Rights Group Finds 2024
-
Breaking The Silence - Testimonies from IDF Veterans
Deliberate Attacks on Civilians
Israel deliberately targets civilian areas. From in general with the Dahiya Doctrine to multiple systems deployed in Gaza to do so:
-
The Dahiya Doctrine & Israel’s Use of Disproportionate Force
-
‘A mass assassination factory’: Inside Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza
Israel also targets Israeli Soldiers and Civilians to prevent them being leveraged as hostages, known as the Hannibal Directive. Which was also used on Oct 7th.
Holy shit that is a lot of factual sources to back your statements. I have no rebuke other than say you have successfully changed my mind about this subject. Good shit. Please keep this up!
There are about 180 countries in the world, so rather than most that’s little more than a third
Correct. I’ve edited my post to sound more opinionated. Appreciate you.
Just shows that there’s no such thing as neutrality on anything contentious (wikis are in any case systemically unsuitable for contentious issues). Even when and how often to mention indisputably true things can be a form of taking sides.
There’s a difference between literal truth and contextual honesty.
People only point out that the Gazan health ministry is de jure “Hamas-run” (even though the biggest hospitals are run by the UN, just like the education system) to discredit it’s death tolls and justify the bombings of hospitals by making people associate it with the one thing even the most ignorant know Hamas does; terrorism.
It’s the equivalent of a red hat fascist calling it “Democrat-run FEMA” or a red armband fascist (the two are far from mutually exclusive btw) the “Jew-run IDF”.
Another example of this phenomenon is that, last I checked, all or most of the articles about individual Israeli settlements on en.wikipedia had, very near the top, a sentence like “the international community considers Israeli settlements illegal under international law, but the Israeli government disputes this”. This is literally about right, but the article about one individual settlement wouldn’t become less accurate or informative if it were left out. No such thing as neutrality on contentious issues.
Jewish Jounral - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Jewish Jounral:
MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Search topics on Ground.News
