fukhueson

How insightful... I can vividly remember the allies releasing statements saying how they wanted to kill an entire group of people based solely on ethnoreligious identity...

Hamas showed off most of these approaches in an extensive eight-minute video released on its social media channels in early April.

The video appears to show fighters carrying out a multistage ambush that is said to take place in Khan Younis, in southern Gaza.

The video seems to show Hamas fighters, their faces blurred, sitting on patterned mats as they plan the attack. They use pen, paper and a digital tablet to draw simplistic maps detailing where they want to plant a set of roadside mines.

“We ask, O Lord, for the ambush to achieve its goals — let us kill your enemies, the Jews,” the narrator says.

Almost like employing guerilla warfare doesn't simply equate Hamas to those fighting Nazis. I see many more differences between the two and their tactics. This comparison is unfounded.

Additionally, I don't recall anyone claiming the allies used human shields during their guerilla warfare tactics...

https://stratcomcoe.org/publications/hybrid-threats-hamas-use-of-human-shields-in-gaza/87

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Hamas, an Islamist militant group and the de facto governing authority of the Gaza Strip, has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel since 2007. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the war crime of using human shields encompasses “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.” Hamas has launched rockets, positioned military-related infrastructure-hubs and routes, and engaged the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from, or in proximity to, residential and commercial areas.

The strategic logic of human shields has two components. It is based on an awareness of Israel’s desire to minimise collateral damage, and of Western public opinion’s sensitivity towards civilian casualties. If the IDF uses lethal force and causes an increase in civilian casualties, Hamas can utilise that as a lawfare tool: it can accuse Israel of committing war crimes, which could result in the imposition of a wide array of sanctions. Alternatively, if the IDF limits its use of military force in Gaza to avoid collateral damage, Hamas will be less susceptible to Israeli attacks, and thereby able to protect its assets while continuing to fight. Moreover, despite the Israeli public’s high level of support for the Israeli political and military leadership during operations, civilian casualties are one of the friction points between Israeli left-wing and right-wing supporters, with the former questioning the outcomes of the operation.

Funny enough your comparison falls flat on it's head when confronted with:

https://www.justsecurity.org/27005/human-shields-weapon-strong/

During World War II, the Allies bombed Nazi trains carrying ammunition even though they were aware that civilian prisoners were being used to shield the trains from aerial attacks. Indeed, immediately following the war, at the Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, German armed forces were accused of human shielding. In Vietnam, the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians spurred international legal debates (on the eve of the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions) about the status of civilian populations in wartime and their use as shields. And, in the 1990s, Saddam Hussein’s and Slobodan Milosevic’s use of human shields garnered considerable media attention.

There isn't a legitimate way to equate the two, and history demonstrates the differences. You present one paragraph from the article depicting how Hamas blurs the line between combatant and civilian, and offer absolutely no evidence suggesting in the slightest that your comparisons hold any weight. I'm somehow obligated to provide sources for my claims, yet you're not. This is not the kind of discussion I think is worthwhile in this sub, and lazy at that.

Edit: here's a novel thought... Instead of down voting factual information, perhaps someone can do the above user's homework and get them some sources. If I were a mod, I would view this as misinformation attempting to equate Hamas and the allies in WW2 (I'm not spending all the time to disprove every other comparison when this user is not required to back up their statements in any form). I recommend the mods discuss whether this is the kind of commentary they want in their sub, and how it may unfairly impact users who go through the work of sourcing their claims.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-jewish-press/

Analysis / Bias

The Jewish Press publishes both original stories and republished articles from other sources. News is focused on the USA and Israel with an emphasis on the Jewish Community. Articles and headlines are often straightforward and not overly biased, such as this Iran Reports Sunday Morning Accident at Natanz Nuclear Site. Stories are sourced properly.

Editorial content is found under the blog section. The Jewish Press leans right with articles such as this 60 Minutes Deceptively Edits Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis To Push Blatant Smear Job, and this Emes Ve-Emunah: Will Identity Politics Destroy Us? A review of op-eds reveals moderate right-leaning bias; however, news reporting is factual.

Overall, we rate the Jewish Press Right-Center Biased based on editorial positions that moderately favor the right. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact checks record. (D. Van Zandt 3/1/2017) Updated (12/13/2023)

I had posted this elsewhere but feel it is relevant to your comment. It describes Erdogan's position towards the conflict, and could provide some context to your reminder. Worth the read.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-turkeys-response-to-the-israel-gaza-crisis/

From your link too, said previously in 2023 by Palestinians against Hamas in the economic protests:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Gaza_economic_protests

In July and August 2023, thousands of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip took to the streets to protest chronic power outages, poor economic conditions in the territory, and Hamas's taxation of stipends to the poor paid by Qatar. The rallies, organized by a grassroots online movement called "Alvirus Alsakher" (The mocking virus), were a rare public display of discontent against the ruling Hamas government. Hamas bars most demonstrations and public displays of discontent.

This is correct, Jerusalem Report has the high rating which is published by the Jerusalem Post, though it appears these ratings are switched by op. Posted article is from the Jerusalem Post.

And I have supervision over this particular download, which is a random PDF hosted on cloud~~flare~~front, not from a trusted source like apnews (I consider images on lemmy to be rather safe). Maybe the guardian article would have been a better reply instead of a random PDF? I don't understand why they would opt for that over the guardian article.

It's random shit from some user on lemmy, thus I'm not downloading it. And no, PDFs like theirs don't automatically download, unless I click it.

It attempted to download to my phone when clicking, and I have configured it to not automatically open PDFs for this reason. This terminology is correct.

https://www.ilovepdf.com/blog/can-a-pdf-have-a-virus#:~:text=Yes%2C%20PDFs%20can%20contain%20harmful,not%20take%20the%20proper%20precautions.

Can a PDF have a virus? Yes, PDFs can contain harmful security threats such as viruses, malware, and trojans. Like many other file types, PDFs can be used to compromise our data and sensitive information if you do not take the proper precautions.

Similar reporting, but I think discussed an important caveat to the polling:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/21/middleeast/palestinians-back-hamas-survey-intl-cmd/index.html

But Shikaki cautions that higher support for Hamas should not be over-stated, at least not yet. As more Palestinians come to terms with the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7, so attitudes could change — though that is unlikely to be the case so long as Gaza remains under massive attack.

Important again is how many people have watched videos from October 7 and the differences between the territories. In Gaza, 25% of those asked said they had viewed such videos; and 16% of all respondents told researchers Hamas had committed war crimes. In the West Bank, the corresponding numbers were just 7% and 1%.

Gaza is moving out of denial more quickly than the West Bank, Shikaki says, and that means a reckoning for Hamas. Already, only 38% of Gazans want to see the militant group return to governance after the war.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/about/

The credibility of a website/media source is not determined by who owns them but rather by its track record. Everybody starts as a beginner and, through experience, becomes an authority in their field. MBFC is no different. Over the last 8 years, we have proven to be a trusted authority on the rating of bias and the credibility of media sources. For example, MBFC is trusted by major media outlets and IFCN fact-checkers. This is evidenced by frequently being referenced by sources such as USA Today, Reuters Fact Check, Science Feedback, Washington Post, and NPR, among dozens of others. We are also frequently used as a resource in libraries, high schools, and universities across the United States.

Media Bias/Fact Check has also been used as a resource for research by the University of Michigan and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Further, we have been utilized by numerous print books such as these:

The Rise of the Alt-Right

Fake News, Propaganda, and Plain Old Lies: Find Trustworthy Information in the Digital Age

Raising Humans in a Digital World

Everyday Media Literacy An Analog Guide for Your Digital Life

Hate Groups and Extremist Organizations in America: An Encyclopedia

Finally, MBFC scored a perfect 100/100 rating by Newsguard, which rates the credibility of Media Sources. We believe it is significant that a competitor gave us this score.

https://www.newsguardtech.com/about/why-should-you-trust-us/