The Israeli Operation Directorate’s Influencing Department is reportedly running a xenophobic Telegram channel, featuring content filmed by Israeli soldiers in Gaza.
The Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) Operation Directorate’s Influencing Department, is running a Telegram channel, named “72 Virgins - Uncensored”, that shares gruesome footage taken by invading soldiers in the Gaza Strip, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
Footage and photos, shared by the channel’s administrator, are usually accompanied by captions celebrating Israeli war crimes in the Gaza Strip. The Israeli Influencing Department is responsible for the occupation’s psychological warfare operations which target Palestinians and foreign audiences.
Zionist racial hatred for Palestinians comes as no surprise, as official Israeli accounts have battled hard to normalize an anti-Palestinian sentiment, in conjunction with its aggression on the Gaza Strip. Israeli officials have also publicly stated opinions shared by the channel’s administrators, highlighting deep-rooted systematic xenophobia and extremism within Israeli society.
The channel run by the IOF, has also propagated racial derogatory stereotypes, to an engaged Israeli audience, in an attempt to dehumanize Palestinians, a tactic employed by Nazi officials against minorities during World War II.
Moreover, specific footage highlights occupation forces desecrating the bodies of Palestinian martyrs in the Gaza Strip, which the channel’s subscribers joyfully celebrate.
article referenced archive: https://archive.ph/zight
Do they really not understand why Palestinians fight? Zeev Jabotinsky figured it out 100 years ago.
All Natives Resist Colonists
There is no justification for such a belief. It may be that some individual Arabs take bribes. But that does not mean that the Arab people of Palestine as a whole will sell that fervent patriotism that they guard so jealously, and which even the Papuans will never sell. Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised.
Full essay: https://en.jabotinsky.org/media/9747/the-iron-wall.pdf
Alternative source: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/quot-the-iron-wall-quot
More evidence for the 2024 Israeli War Crimes Tribunal
For the uninitiated that value knowing possible interests and angle on information:
Al Mayadeen (Arabic: الميادين, transl. “The Plazas”) is a Hezbollah-aligned Lebanese pan-Arabist satellite news television channel based in the city of Beirut. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Mayadeen
haaretz article referenced in this article if you don’t like this one from your enlightening wikipedia search to decide whether you trust a news source or not.
Isn’t that how discourse is supposed to work though? If there are issues with the credibility of a source, it’s fine to point those out. And then you respond with a different source to which the criticism does not apply.
Where is the issue?
There is no issue with the source other than it not being the new york times or the washington post or the bbc, every source that is not one of those is unreliable state affiliated media propaganda and is scary and bad because it makes me confused because it says things that make me have to think critically and actually engage with what I’m reading instead of just mindlessly guzzling down the western liberal/center consensus of a handful of “papers of record”.
And then you respond with a different source to which the criticism does not apply
I did not do this, I responded to with the source REFERENCED IN THE ARTICLE it’s in the title of the post, you can literally see it. You clearly did not read the article, no less the title of the post.
There is no issue with the source other than it not the new york times or the washington post or the bbc
- NYT, WP or BBC are also suspect sources, especially when it comes to the Palestine conflict. You will not find me saying anything else.
- Issues with the source you cited (that don’t involve it’s Hezbollah affiliation):
- It’s not the primary source (that appears to be the Haaretz article, but I can’t confirm that, since that is paywalled)
- It gets the name of one of the parties involved in the conflict wrong (it consistently refers to the IDF as IOF (replacing “Defense” with “Occupation”). I get why they do it (the IDF claims to “defend” an area that they are actually occupying), but that’s not how you do journalism. Nobody thinks that North Korea is a democratic republic, but any news article about it will still refer to it as “DPRK - Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea”. Because that’s its name.
So pointing out that the source you posted is biased and potentially unreliable is fine. You citing another source (even one cited in the article itself) is completely par for the course. Hell, now I really would like to know, why you chose to post a secondary source when you had the primary source avaiable to you?
removed by mod
Can I ask you how you came across this almayadeen.net website?
Almayadeen is big in the Arab world. I trust it far more than I trust Alarabiya for example.
Ok and? They are re-reporting what Israeli liberal outlet Haaretz said.
Also Wikipedia’s biases itself depends on citations
The second citation about it being Hezbollah-aligned leads to a one-paragraph article in a French newspaper that makes no mention of Hezbollah but instead loosely claims (with no evidence) that it’s tied to Iran and Syria instead lol
There’s no such thing as unbiased reporting, you must always analyze the information given through the lens of the interests of the person giving it to you. This Hezbollah-aligned source, regardless of framing, is reporting on things that can be independently verified, whereas the media in my own country and the west in general has been caught in wholecloth lie after wholecloth lie. Therefore, in lieu of perfect knowledge, I choose the source whose claims are more readily corroborated by evidence.
desecrating the bodies of Palestinian martyrs
This wording alone should tell you just how biased and thus unreliable the article you just posted is. This site even goes so far as to call the entire war by the name Hamas gave the October 7 pogrom, “Operation Al Aqsa Flood”. That is not okay on several levels.
Posting this “article” clearly goes against one of the few rules of this place that prohibit hate speech, bigotry and propaganda.
If you find the article so objectionable read this “article” in Haaretz instead. Let me know if you have any problem with their wording, I’m guessing for some reason you won’t!
Why did you put this in quotation marks? That’s an actual article and actual reporting instead of the Islamist propaganda site that you originally posted.
I read it and I think this is highly problematic. The IDF should definitely not operate such a channel and there needs to be an investigation into how it came to be.
removed by mod
The IOF should be destroyed, period.
If the IDF gets destroyed, the result would be October 7 times several thousand, a second Holocaust. Do you want millions of dead Israelis? It seems to me like you do, based on your rhetoric.
Once Hamas gets destroyed, the result will be relative peace for a few years. That’s the difference.
Once Hamas gets destroyed, the result will be relative peace for a few years. That’s the difference.
No it won’t. Settlements getting built on their land, while enduring constant raids by the police, militants, and armed settlers is the worst outcome Palestinians could get.
The occupation’s militia is an immoral terrorist group that’s very well equipped, and it must be destroyed.
Because Haaretz is a propoganda channel for Israeli Hasbara.
There are fine Israeli media outlets, such as 972 and B’Tselem
ThEy SaId ThE sAmE tHiNg.
You racist asshole.
You can’t tell most Israelis and Palestinians apart based on their physical features, including skin color, because they are from the same region and closely genetically related to one another. Only someone who knows very little about this region and conflict would try and make this about race - and on top of that, you are so confidently wrong that you are needlessly aggressive.
Rightful Punishment to armed foreign settlers, not a pogrom. The Pogrom is what the Zionist Entity has been doing since the past 7 decades.
Yes, it was the Tufan Al-Aqsa, nothing else.
If you don’t like hate speech and bigotry, don’t support the genocidal Zionist Entity.
Yes, those civilians that were raped, tortured, murdered had it coming for being born on the “wrong” side of the border (or because they were just working there or on visit).
What an absolutely despicable, vile, evil thing to say. You should be ashamed of yourself!
They chose to Occupy the lands. They got punished for it. Don’t try to say that Israeli “Civilians” don’t have a role in this ethnic cleansing. Most of them are Dual Nationals and ran away from their “God Given Land” at the first moment. You don’t cry about these atrocities when the indigenous people are the ones targetted first.
So five year old Ethan Kapshetar chose to occupy this land? Or was it his eight year old sister Aline when they were both murdered, together with their parents, when they tried to escape from the terrorists?
If they were in a moving vehicle when they were killed it was probably an Israeli helicopter that did it.
removed by mod
F.U.C.K. Y.O.U.
Israelis got Israel as reparation for a genocide.
50 years later they are competing genocide.
Stop straw manning data sources.
Stop blank checks to Israel.
Israelis got Israel as reparation for a genocide.
From who? Germany?
No.
From the UN…
Do you think Israelis are indigenous?
Reparations are given by the group who perpetrated violence to members of the group of victims of violence, even many generations later. I see what you mean though, a justification for the creation of Israel was that Jews have historically been persecuted and did not have a homeland, but to me that doesn’t fit the definition of reparations.
Yes, the UN had a partition plan that was rejected by the Arabs. The Arabs of the area were under the impression that one can’t make a country in the place where there is already a country (especially by giving the minority population a majority of the land), but before negotiations could proceed, Jewish militias came in and started blasting. Then they established the state of Israel and have been expanding ever since, rejecting any peace offers along the way.
Do you think Israelis are indigenous?
Not Israelis but Jews were about 25% of the population of Mandatory Palestine in the 1940s. They have existed there for thousands of years alongside Muslims and Christians, so yes Jews are indigenous.
Still, no excuse for occupation, oppression, and genocide.
No Idea what your on about bruv.
Sounds like you wanna call Israeli’s indigenous.
They aren’t. They were installed by the white man to be a great camp fire across the pond.
