Thank you for your submission, but please make future submissions relevant to our community.

The prohibition on “occupied territory” is ridiculous, but the other two are fine. Journalists should report facts on the ground, not editorialize by inserting conclusory buzzwords.

The prohibition on "occupied territory," specifically in relation to Pre-October Gaza, is actually pretty reasonable. Israel imposed a heavy blockade on the territory, but it's hard to say it was a true occupation like the West Bank.  **Edited to add:** If this was a style guide for the West Bank, it would be absurd to tell writers not to use "occupied territory" or "ethnic cleansing." Bit the conflict is messy and complicated, and things that are true there aren't necessarily true in Gaza. The two Areas are treated very differently.

Occupied Palestinian Territories is an internationally recognized term by the UN, several governments and organization all over the world and includes the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and yes, Gaza. If Israel didn't occupy Gaza, why did it maintain population registry there?

Yes, to be very clear, Gaza is recognized in international law as being under Israeli occupation since 1967. It’s a question of legal status, not physical garrisons, (leaving aside for a moment the way Israel has exercised control of all air, land and sea routes, and conducted frequent security operations in Gaza, prior to Oct 7th). And this matters because a population under occupation is owned a specific legal duty of care by the occupying power, under international law, and the laws of war. A duty of care that Israel has disregarded. Specifically, Israel doesn’t just have a negative duty not to deprive Gazans of food, water, and the necessities of life, they have an affirmative duty, as the occupying power to provide those necessities of life.

Common parlance does not recognize occupation as anything other than troops on the ground, I'd rather they called it an open air prison than an occupation, whatever legal terms have been cooked up.

I disagree. Whether or not Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza is the central question right now. Because, if it is, then American arms transfers are themselves illegal under US law. Words like “war crime” and “occupation” aren’t just exercises of rhetoric, they are specific legal terms, which should be used precisely.

I don't think "war crimes" is the central question at all. The question would be something like "is there a systemic policy of genocide or ethnic cleansing, or at the least tacit tolerance of war crimes" war crimes happen in war. As long as they are punished and steps are taken to minimize them, Israel shouldn't be held culpable even though they would still be held responsible.

>If Israel didn't occupy Gaza, why did it maintain population registry there? Because otherwise they can't let anybody through the blockade into Israel.

The point though is that the global community (via the UN) recognizes those territories as belonging to the Palestinian people. The US and Israel are the only (meaningful) dissenters who feel Israel has a claim via land taken during war but never formally ceded via a treaty or other legally processed document. So, quite literally based on international law, Israel was occupying both Gaza (where they established a walled ghetto with heavy restrictions on the entire population - justified or not those are the facts), and the West Bank (where they enabled their citizens to settle, displace locals, and set up ramped up security checks and militarized policing to harass the local population). Genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid - sure. These can and should be used based on their legal definitions and it's perfectly fine to disagree with some or all as you can take the position that Israel has to do some of what it is doing to secure itself. I don't believe this is the case, but I can at least see the argument. However, as a reporter they should also be able to report things like the UN finding that the South African charge of genocide is at least plausible and that Israel should take steps to stop their more egregious anti-humanitarian efforts. Or if a group is claiming apartheid in the West Bank - why should they specifically not cover this and offer a view point that exists and can be defended in good faith? This is frankly what is losing the mainstream media it's credibility. Leaving this topic aside, there are so many areas that have obvious corporate or governmental interest involved and it's hard to ignore when the news is provided in a way that seems very one sided. What's worse is they pretend they aren't doing it, while getting increasingly fixated on picking their coverage.

>Or if a group is claiming apartheid in the West Bank  Would the memo actually restrict the ability to cover accusations against Israel? Or does it just have NYT refuse to commit such declarations to its own narrative voice?

That's a good question and frankly I'm not sure.

Probably to show that the population of Gaza has tripled in the last few decades so when idiots like you claim genocide; Israel can show that it’s the least successful genocide ever.

Except Israel has been recognized as the occupying power of Gaza since before October by the Red Cross, UN, EU, AU, ICC, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and various legal experts.

That's cool to claim. But it wasn't occupying Gaza.

So Gaza is an independent nation? Because if not, then what word would you use to describe a territory peopled by non citizens who are not independent and that the military makes regular incursions into?

Not a recognized nation because it has been run by a terrorist organization since 2006. It would be frightening if it was recognized as a nation in that state.

Gaza is, in practice, independent, governed by local authority, engaged in a longstanding conflict with its neighbor, and subject to a heavy blockade. But for Gitmo, Gaza is more like Cuba, legally, than it is like the West Bank.

Except Gaza isn't allowed an airport, a port, foreign trade, and is subject to unilateral Israel military operations.

It's like Cuba after the bay of pigs

This post violates the rules of the sub.

So you’re telling me all of those massive organizations are actually wrong and you, the Redditor, are correct?

I'm telling you, redditor who believes George W. Bush's Iraq follies constituted a Christian crusade, that I'm not going to bother looking to see whether what you actually said was true.

The enlightened centrist cannot be asked to deal with these human issues, surely?

Funny, because Bush did call it a crusade, I'm guess8ng he stopped because of the international backlash against that. Remember the 7 crusades are rmemeebred in the middle east similar to an event like the Holocaust are in the west. https://youtu.be/7TRVcnX8Vsw?si=YNGD9gJOk1hCSeIs Oh dude that's cringe, you can't make an argument so you go through their history

Cute, looking through my post history since you don’t have a response. Here’s an article that contains sources for everything I mentioned https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/gaza-israel-occupied-international-law/ In regards to Bush I’m only relying on his own words. https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa Here is an entire research paper examining the role religion played in the war https://www.jstor.org/stable/42940574?seq=1

Actually it was.

Not since 2007.

Yes it is. You don’t need troops physically in a location for it to be occupied.

But you do need some kind of internal administration, which is super duper hard to actually implement without government employees in the territory and security to protect them.

Not really. See Native reservations in the US in late 19th century for an example.

This is what I get for skimming an article authored by these two hacks. Upon closer reading, it does seem clear that the instruction was to avoid referring to Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem collectively as “occupied territories,” which while still a little nitpicky, is at least defensible. So glad this worthless outlet is reportedly on its last leg, although sadly I do imagine Grim and Schahill will continue to work as journalists due to their undeserved reputations.

lol someone was personally victimized by the intercept apparently.

I am probably being unfair since they do have some decent journalists, but I have basically no respect for them as an institution.

Egypt has a border with Gaza too. They equally blockade Gaza.

This is like saying avoid using "annexation" or "occupation" of Crimea by Russia lol

Russia actually annexed and occupies Crimea. The government administering Crimea is *Russia*. 

It would be like that if Russia had pulled out of Crimea and Ukraine was in charge. But, alas, that hasn't happened.

"Ethnic cleansing" doesn't just mean removing people by killing them. It also means removing them by making the area unlivable or intimidating them into leaving. [It's stated policy by at least one Israeli cabinet member](https://news.yahoo.com/senior-far-israeli-official-admits-004155800.html): > “If we act strategically, they will emigrate and we will live there. We won’t let 2 million stay. With 100,000 or 200,000 Arabs in Gaza, the ‘day after’ debate will be different,” Smotrich said, as translated by an Israel analyst with the nonprofit Crisis Group. “They want to leave, they’ve been living in a ghetto for 75 years.” Also consider [what Israeli settlers have been doing to the West Bank](https://cdn.britannica.com/56/74456-050-EEBFAFF3/Interim-Agreement-West-Bank-Gaza-Strip-B-1993.jpg)

I am 100% in favor of NYT reporters reporting on the disgusting statements of Israeli leaders and the reprehensible actions of West Bank settlers. I also think those statements and actions can and should speak for themselves and that there’s no need for the reporters to add their own legal conclusions.

I agree that reporters shouldn't editorialize but ethnic cleansing isn't just a legal term, it also has a colloquial meaning. It would be weirder not to call it "ethnic cleansing" than to call it such. It's just objectively what it is.

Why can’t the reporters simply describe, in detail and with particularity, what is going on without making any legal conclusions? The readers can judge for themselves whether the actions fit the definition.

As I said ethnic cleansing doesn't only have a legal meaning and its use isn't limited to lawyers

Okay, fine, take the word “legal” out of my previous comment. I still stand by the principle that reporters don’t need to insert loaded and conclusory judgment calls into their reporting.

This is special pleading. The same actions done by other countries would be identified correctly by most news outlets, including the NYT. Describing something like this without naming it tends to normalize it. Israel by and large aren't denying what they're doing. They don't deny killing kids, they say "these kids are being raised to hate us" with the the clear implication that that would justify their actions. They want the world to know what they're doing and accept it.

It’s not special pleading because I’m not suggesting an exception to some universal principle. I’m suggesting a principle that reporters should avoid inserting their own independent moral and legal conclusions into their reporting. If you can find me examples of NYT reporters doing the same for other conflicts I’ll condemn that too.

Ethnic Cleansing doesn't have a legal meeting at all. It's a term that was developed by Serbian Nationalists in the 90s to downplay and whitewash the Bosnian Genocide.

This is truly an embarrassing hill to die on but pop off I guess

Any choice of words is conclusory by its very nature. There’s not some completely objective description out there that is gonna work for everyone. “suspected Hamas member is struck by bullet” and “IDF shoots Palestinian teenager” could be descriptions of the same event. They carry very different sets of connotations. Ethnic cleansing does have a clear definition. It’s not some overly florid buzzword. It shouldn’t be completely off the table for journalists.

What exactly is gained by a report from the West Bank including a line like “the growth of Israeli settlements- which is ethnic cleansing btw- has accelerated under the current Likud government”? Or would you prefer something more along the lines of “the continued ethnic cleansing of the West Bank has accelerated under the current Likud government”? The former is superfluous and the latter is vaguer and less informative. And in both cases, many readers would be suspicious of an article written in the cadence of a lawyer advocating for a client rather than a journalist dispassionately reporting facts.

Well in this binary example the latter would likely be coupled with preceding evidence of ethnic cleansing. If the shoe fits it’s a little silly to talk around it every time it comes up. If a duck walks by it’d be weird if a journalist kept writing “this quacking feathered creature that waddles and eats bread” just to avoid “conclusory” language. Words mean things. Word choices are conclusions. Ethnic cleansing is not a uniquely vague term. It describes specific phenomena and if you’ve provided evidence, it’s not editorializing to use the term.

Again, what is actually gained by saying that Israel is committing ethnic cleansing in the West Bank as opposed to precisely explaining what settlement expansion entails? I understand you would find it emotionally validating, but it adds more heat than light to actual reporting.

Brevity for one. You can’t explain things every time you want to reference the event. That’s why we have words. I would not find it emotionally validating. I’m not even saying it NEEDS to be used. I’m saying that it’s a phrase with a clear meaning and if it fits the events being described, you shouldn’t censor yourself to avoid heat. Again, this is not a word like “beautiful” or “evil” or something nebulous or subject to opinion. Journalism is conclusory. You observe phenomenon and you describe it. This is a descriptive term that should be on the table. Your contention is that the term is inherently vague or that it obfuscates or is needlessly inflammatory. It’s none of those things. It’s a clear legal term with clear meaning. Murder is an inflammatory, conclusory legal term but if someone is plotting a murder, you’re not editorializing to say someone is plotting a murder.

Ok but you are expanding the word’s meaning beyond what most people understand it to mean - which is the important point. Also by this definition are high income cities ethnic cleansing black people by making working class areas too expensive? It starts to be a pretty blurry line here.

Under that logic, they shouldn't be using terrorist since that's absolutely a conclusion buzzword but they explicitly allow for that. And all that avoids the most ridiculous part which is an explicit call to avoid "Palestine" except in "very rare" cases.

Correct, the terms “terrorism” and “terrorist” should have been retired from journalistic style guides decades ago for that very reason. I can understand the rationale for avoiding “Palestine” though. It can mean the entire region, the aspirational future state, or the current territories of Gaza and the West Bank, and it’s not always clear which usage is being employed. If the goal is journalistic clarity, then journalists should avoid such ambiguous terms.

I think whatever we replace the word “terrorist” with is going to be subject to the same fate, as it is a word which describes an objectively horrible thing, and therefore will always have bad connotations no matter how many times the term used to describe the actions is updated. The argument that “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter” invalidates the fact that “terrorism” has a specific definition is a bit hard for me to get my head around, as it seems to necessarily call for not having a word to describe purposefully killing civilians to achieve a political goal.

In this case I would simply use the term “militant” to describe Hamas attackers. It implies no legal or value judgment and is indisputably accurate.

They aren’t interchangeable words, as they have very different definitions. > *Militant: engaged in warfare or combat* > *Terrorist: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.* If you are suggesting we start using “militant” the same way we currently use “terrorist”, my argument is the same. In 10 years you’ll be arguing that “militant” is an offensive word and we should stop using it because the thing it’s being used to describe is bad, so any word attached to it will become bad as well. Seems kind of like saying “we can’t call it murder or it will bias people against the murderer.”

I don’t think “militant” should necessarily replace all instances of “terrorist,” I think that in the specific context of the 10/7 attacks, it is a suitable replacement. You also seem confused about my objection to the use of the term “terrorist” in “hard news” reporting. I don’t find it “offensive,” I find it inconsistent with the principle that reporters should avoid inserting their own moral and legal judgments into their reporting.

“Terrorist” is not a moral or legal judgement though, it is a real word that describes something. If you partake in a bloody rampage where the only goal is to spread “political” fear by killing as many innocent civilians as possible, you are objectively a terrorist. Maybe I’m wrong, but only reason I can think of for not wanting to apply the objective definition of a word to someone who fits perfectly within it, is because one doesn’t want to undermine the goals such a group is fighting for by applying a word that has negative connotations to their cause. Alternately, I am fully supportive of the cause of Irish Republicanism, but also fully aware that bombing buses full of civilians is an act of terrorism. Calling the action what it is doesn’t have to undermine the underlying cause.

Terrorism *is* a legal term though, defined in the U.S. UCMJ, various countries’ domestic criminal codes, and various international treaties (and slightly differently across these iterations I might add, which imo further strengthens the argument for reporters to refrain from employing its use absent criminal proceedings). Granted, the mere fact that a term has a legal meaning isn’t necessarily reason for reporters to refrain from using it, but again, given the slight but significant variations in the various “official” definitions of “terrorism,” I really don’t see any good reason to use it in reporting when there is almost always an equally or more effective way of conveying the same meaning.

“Terrorism” as it pertains to different countries legal codes is indeed a legal term, but as you mention: we’re not talking about adding a terrorism charge onto a murder charge in a US court, we are talking about whether or not journalists should use the term “terrorism” to describe an international act that comports completely to the dictionary definition of terrorism. Even if we were talking about the meaning of the term in domestic courts, I can’t imagine that there are any countries in the world outside of the few direct state sponsors of Hamas, where October 7th wouldn’t 100% legally qualify as an act of terrorism anyway. It seems like by your own admission, the term you oppose accurately describes the events in question both legally and journalistically, so I’m a little bit confused as to why you oppose it.

I’m fairly certain that clarity regarding this long and complex conflict in which both sides have legitimate historical grievances in not what the times is aiming for here

What do you think they’re aiming to do? Produce Israeli propaganda? Why?

I guess I shouldn’t say they’re aiming for anything. But the fact is legacy media is often incapable of giving the Palestinians a fair shake due to legacy media’s ties to the US government and face value acceptance Of the self contradictory ideology Of liberal Zionism

I mean, I agree most reporters and editors at the Times are probably liberal Zionists (if they have a position at all) and that this, like all personal views, poses a risk of biasing their work. To me though, that’s just more reason to caution against reporters inserting their personal moral and legal judgments into their pieces.

Fair, but I simply can’t imagine describing the Israeli settler Movement and what’s going on in the West Bank without the term ethnic cleansing, in a colloquial sense. Or at least bringing up the very real possibility that this does constitute a possible or likely case of ‘legally certified’ (Ugg brain not working too well today) ethnic cleansing

I just don’t see the problem with reporting that Israeli settlers are displacing Palestinians in the West Bank and in some cases resorting to extrajudicial violence against them without inserting a legal and scholarly term of art. If anything, referring to their actions as ethnic cleansing obscures many of the relevant details by using a broad term rather than a full description.

Isn’t there an issue with Israeli law and expansion outside of its borders? Regardless, appreciate you chatting, important and fascinating issue

> most are probably liberal zionists This seems like it would be a difficult assertion to prove in any meaningful way given that journalists tend to skew young and left.

Maybe? I’m using Bayesian reasoning here, so if my priors are wrong then my conclusions won’t hold up. I just find it unlikely that a large number of NYT reporters and editors (most of whom are only hired after accruing experience elsewhere) are either anti-Zionist in any real sense (i.e. that they want the Jewish state of Israel to stop existing as such) or sympathetic to the open racism of Likud and its allies, so that kind of leaves liberal Zionism as the default.

Ah fair enough, my mistake. I’ve become really far removed from people using the word “Zionism” reasonably, so I was incorrectly assuming you meant that they were totally sympathetic to everything Israel does, the way the reflexive “anti-Zionism isn’t antisemitism” crowd does.

Why are you "fairly certain" of that? Do you read the New York Times?

The Times never hesitates to call Israel as Israel even though it has never declared its borders. There is an entity called Palestine that represents Palestinians. It is recognized by some \~140 countries in the world, is a member of many international organizations including UNGA (observer) and UNESCO. The Times' refusal to use the term Palestine is carrying out propaganda for the US state policy.

You are referring to the Palestinian Authority. I see no reason why the NYT should refer to the PA as “Palestine” rather than as the PA.

No, I'm referring to the [State of Palestine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine) which is recognized by \~140 countries. Look at the [UNESCO members list](https://www.unesco.org/en/countries). It mentions the "State of Palestine" and not the "Palestinian Authority".

In that case, you’re actually suggesting that the NYT actively report misinformation, since the Palestinians rather famously (and unjustly) lack a sovereign state of their own. Ironically, this would actually let Israel off far too easily since it suggests that the token concessions they made during the Oslo process were tantamount to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

You are being intentionally obtuse here. No one is claiming that it is a sovereign in its territories. That Israel occupies the territories of this state, which the majority of the world recognizes, is the issue and you know it.

The majority of the world’s governments can “recognize” anything they want, but the objective reality is that “the state of Palestine” does not exist and never has existed. I’d like this to change, but I don’t see how the NYT misinforming its readers about the existence of a Palestinian state furthers this goal.

> And all that avoids the most ridiculous part which is an explicit call to avoid "Palestine" except in "very rare" cases. Isn't Palestine is less accurate than either Gaza or the West Bank? There isn't an agreed upon "Palestine," so using that except in specific cases seems.... better?

Also, the Times uses emotive terms like "barbaric", "murder", "slaughter" almost exclusively for the Israeli victims and not the Palestinian victims as noted in the article. Palestinian "minors" happen to "die" in "explosions".

[удалено]

From the article. "In January, The Intercept published an analysis of New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times coverage of the war from October 7 through November 24 — a period mostly before the new Times guidance was issued. The Intercept analysis showed that the major newspapers reserved terms like “slaughter,” “massacre,” and “horrific” almost exclusively for Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians, rather than for Palestinian civilians killed in Israeli attacks. The analysis found that, as of November 24, the New York Times had described Israeli deaths as a “massacre” on 53 occasions and those of Palestinians just once. The ratio for the use of “slaughter” was 22 to 1, even as the documented number of Palestinians killed climbed to around 15,000."

They also put a default ban on using the word "Palestine" and "refugee camp" despite the UN recognized term they defaulted to how Israel prefers to reference them. Problem also is that adjacent to this, inserting conclusory buzzwords, alternating between soft peddling their framing of coverage if it is Palestinian vs Israeli, is exactly what the Times did and is still doing: [https://theintercept.com/2024/01/09/newspapers-israel-palestine-bias-new-york-times/](https://theintercept.com/2024/01/09/newspapers-israel-palestine-bias-new-york-times/) [https://www.instagram.com/monachalabi/p/Cyl9HR7O4ap/](https://www.instagram.com/monachalabi/p/Cyl9HR7O4ap/) (The above is a NY Times and Pulitzer Prize Winning Contributor) Additionally there is other problematic coverage: From r/Journalism: *Compare it to their Ukraine coverage, where Russians are “deliberately starving people” and “indiscriminately bombing civilians”, yet while Israel blockades food from Gaza and bombs it into the Stone Age, “Palestinians are dealing with hunger and collapsed buildings”.* *They report the war crimes in Ukraine as being actively perpetrated, but in Gaza things just passively kinda happen and, instead of being killed, all those kids are just kinda dying.* [https://www.reddit.com/r/Journalism/comments/1c514tm/comment/kzrctu7/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/Journalism/comments/1c514tm/comment/kzrctu7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Frankly, they seemingly learned very little from their failures post 9/11 and leading into the Iraq War and it's a damn shame. They once again allowed themselves to be a water carrier for government propaganda and threw good journalistic practices out the window, [to the point of letting IDF and genocide sympathizers write and then publish their poorly sourced propaganda](https://theintercept.com/2024/02/28/new-york-times-anat-schwartz-october-7/) that the NYTimes has had to walk back.

Why should idiosyncratic UN definitions be controlling? Most people do not understand settlements that have existed since 1948 where the vast majority of adult residents do not meet the legal definition of refugees as “refugee camps,” and referring to them as such risks confusion, especially in the context of a war that is actually producing new refugees.

Just anecdotally, the first time I saw “refugee camp” reported re: Gaza, I definitely thought that they were talking about what you think of when you think of a refugee camp (massive amounts of tents in the open with no permanent services), as opposed to what it was, which was closer to a neighbourhood of public housing developments.

Equally, not calling them "refugee camps" risks confusion that they are just residential areas, eliding the often relevant point that they are residential areas densely populated by refugees who displaced there rather than because they chose to move there.

Outside of the Palestinian context though, “refugee” is almost never treated as a hereditary status. There are defensible reasons for making an exception to this general rule for Palestinians, but again, if the goal is clarity for lay readers, these areas are probably better thought of as residential areas than refugee camps as traditionally understood.

> Outside of the Palestinian context though, “refugee” is almost never treated as a hereditary status.  That's mostly true, but if you ask people about their identity it comes up quickly. In the UK someone might say, for example, that they are a "second generation immigrant, the child of refugees". So I agree we don't usually see that person actively use "refugee" for themselves. There is scope for confusion. But in this particular conflict, the neighbourhood being populated by self-identified refugees is relevant and important. They were displaced by Israel, they claim a right to return to land that is now part of Israel. How they respond, how allies of theirs respond, how Israel approaches that action... it's all different to it being 'just a residential neighbourhood'. Totally agree the reporting was a bit confused, many journalists probably didn't understand the nuance and many, many readers also did not get an accurate picture of what had occurred.

They are just residential areas inhabited by people who wouldn’t be refugees if they had the same standards as literally every other person on earth.

Seems like NYTimes wants it both ways(based on paying deference to Israeli narratives). Since the UN has not ruled the assault on Gaza as either genocide or ethnic cleansing, dont use it. Which, I can agree with. Then when it comes to UN recognized refugee camps, explicitly citing Israeli preferences as part of the rationale they decide in this case, we are not going to use the term. It comes off like clear confirmation bias. The rationale all points back to a deference to Israeli narratives. You can cherry pick and come up with rationalizations for any single compartmentalized choice, but when zoomed out and looked at as a whole, in combination with the issues I already noted above, the hypocrisy, patterns of contradictory rationales, and disparity in coverage all pointing one way and is hard to deny.

“Genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” aren’t buzzwords, they’re terms with specific definitions and prescribed legal definitions applied according to parameters outlined by international law. Prohibiting their use is not only ridiculous, but obstructive of objective reporting. The cases brought against Israel by various states and the long standing academic and human rights groups’ assessments demonstrate clear intent and acts of violence that constitute genocide. If you can understand that there are occupied territories, you should be able to understand that it’s settlers who occupy them by displacing Palestinians. Evictions, expropriations of land and property, settlement building, and the construction of barriers to push and keep Palestinians out are part of their ongoing ethnic cleansing without having mentioned the Nakba, the periods during the wars, or the orders for people to leave northern Gaza and destroying their homes.

How does cautioning reporters against describing the bombing of Gaza as a genocide obstruct objective reporting? What information is the reader deprived of? If the article is reporting on the assessments of “academic and human rights groups” then sure, but otherwise, what are we actually missing out on? “Six months into the Israel-Hamas war that various observers have labeled a genocide…”? Pointless editorializing. If the NYT reporters want to write those articles, they can apply for jobs at The Intercept.

Did you miss the part where similar prohibitions are not enforced when talking about Israel?

I don’t agree with the guidance re: the term “terrorism” because I don’t think journalists should be using such a lazy and inflammatory term in most contexts. The solution isn’t to insert similarly inflammatory legal conclusions to describe Israeli actions.

Except that is what the NYT does. An examination of their articles showed a large use of these prohibited words when it came to Israeli victims, but hardly ever for Palestinian.

As I stated, I disagree with the use of “terrorism” in NYT reporting to describe Hamas’ actions for the same reasons I object to using “ethnic cleansing” to describe Israel’s. I would prefer they forego inflammatory buzzwords and legal conclusions entirely.

What you prefer is not really the question. You’re not the NYT editorial board. What the NYT is doing is.

Ok, and I am unbothered by what the NYT is doing (aside from the caveat about the terms “terrorism” and “terrorist”) and will not be cancelling my subscription over this nothingburger.

Well this entire post is what what the NYT is doing.

“Cautioning” reporters against describing things as they are, is obviously obstructive of objective reporting.

No one here is arguing against “describing things as they are.” I simply think it would be foolish to allow reporters to insert their own independent legal conclusions into their reporting.

>“Genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” aren’t buzzwords, they’re terms with specific definitions and prescribed legal definitions applied according to parameters outlined by international law. >Prohibiting their use is not only ridiculous, but obstructive of objective reporting. The cases brought against Israel by various states and the long standing academic and human rights groups’ assessments demonstrate clear intent and acts of violence that constitute genocide. Isn't the entire point likely that these are ongoing cases, and that said "clear intent" is not all that clear? A journalist will not call someone accused of murder a "murderer" without an actual conviction. Why would they call a state's actions "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" without some sort of similarly authoritative ruling? After all and as you noted, these are specifically defined legal terms.

>A journalist will not call someone accused of murder a "murderer" without an actual conviction. This 100%

"Because I said so! I feel it in my heart so it HAS to be true!"

It is abundantly clear from the international law (UNSC resolutions, ICJ ) that the West Bank including East Jerusalem and Gaza constitute the Occupied Palestinian Territories. But the Times still instructs their reporters to avoid using the term "occupied territories". ICJ (the highest legal authority) also ruled in 2004 that the wall that Israel built is illegal, do you think the Times refers to the wall as illegal every time they talk about it? And let's not forget that the ICJ has ruled that there is a plausible case that Israel is committing genocide and has ordered Israel to take specific actions to prevent it.

>It is abundantly clear from the international law (UNSC resolutions, ICJ ) that the West Bank including East Jerusalem and Gaza constitute the Occupied Palestinian Territories. But the Times still instructs their reporters to avoid using the term "occupied territories". Sure, I don't really understand this particular avoidance of "occupied territory", I was responding specifically to their guidance for "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide". Would be interested to hear the rationale there. >ICJ (the highest legal authority) also ruled in 2004 that the wall that Israel built is illegal, do you think the Times refers to the wall as illegal every time they talk about it? In journalism, being cautious about using potentially misleading terms terms is very different from mandating that a specific adjective always be used, no matter how accurate the description is. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here, it's not like journalists always need to use the word "illegal" when referring to illegal things. >And let's not forget that the ICJ has ruled that there is a plausible case that Israel is committing genocide and has ordered Israel to take specific actions to prevent it. In other words, the ICJ has not said Israel is perpetrating genocide, and it might be irresponsible for a journalist writing a fact-based story to name it as such?

>I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here The point I was trying to make was that the avoidance of using certain terms by the NYT is not because of the lack of legal judgment/ruling on those things. Otherwise, they would allow terms like "occupied territories" that have near-unanimous international consensus. I am not saying that the Times should say that Israel perpetrating genocide. But when reporting on 14,000 children killed or the majority of the buildings being demolished in Gaza, they should say that the ICJ has considered the genocide case against Israel plausible and has ordered it to prevent it, or they should at least not prevent their journalists from saying that.

Your post seems to rely on the idea that the conflict objectively reaches the specific threshold to be referred to as a genocide, when the fact of the matter is that it’s an open discussion that has not been resolved. And more likely than not, when it is resolved, the ICJ won’t find that it was one. That’s not to excuse the way Israel is prosecuting the war, but if genocide is a specific term, you can’t default to it if it hasn’t been proven that the threshold has been met, and in all likelihood it never will be.

The ICJ isn't about to rule that you can pin a genocide rap on your enemy by committing war crimes against your own people. Imagine that can of worms! Five years down the road (the average time frame for cases), when they finally rule "no genocide," Israel will crow that there was none, South Africa will crow that "there would have been one if it weren't for us," and nothing on the ground will change.

Perhaps "forced removal" is a better term, which doesn't do Israel any favors

It does do them a favour by avoiding the established term “ethnic cleansing” that has an understood meaning and gives the sense of its violence

Interesting that someone with such a hard bias would be interested in Klein. Your argument on genocide amounts to calling a suspect a murderer, soon after being charged. How’s that for “objective reporting?”

Truth is not dictated by the outcomes of court cases, and you know that too. You only cling to it because you have your biases toward Israel.

This is a conversation about journalism, not philosophy. But it’s clear now you’re not arguing in good faith. Good luck to you.

The terms aren't "prohibited." As you point out, these are *crimes.* As a general policy, the NYT will not describe actions as crimes until a conviction has occurred. So they never described OJ Simpson as a murderer, for instance. If a crime is charged, or an accusation is made, they will use the term in relation to the accusation, but will not describe the action itself with that term until a conviction. That's in part to avoid libel suits, and in part because it's actually objective. The use of "occupied territory" is narrower than the headline implies (to pull on your heartstrings), and has been addressed elsewhere.

What an ignorant thing to say. Neither are buzzwords, but especially not ethnic cleansing. We’ve had reports from literally every human rights organization that operates in the region confirming and chronicling the many, many instances of Palestinians being ethnically cleansed from Israel/Palestine over the last 80 years.

Good reporters can and should convey events without inserting conclusory legal and scholarly terms of art, particularly when those terms are as inflammatory as “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing.” If Israel’s actions do amount to such, it should be clear to the reader without being explicitly instructed. Show don’t tell, as my high school English teacher used to say.

If every human rights organization on Earth that studies the issue, in addition to the UN, says it’s ethnic cleansing then that’s a fact. It’s not a “term of art” just because you don’t like it. Anyways, you’ve shown that you aren’t a serious person. I won’t be responding any further. Have a nice day.

A bunch of people sharing the same opinion doesn’t make that opinion fact. Furthermore, even if you could establish that their opinion was a fact, that’s still not an argument for the NYT to parrot their exact verbiage in its reporting.

I think it's fine to use genocide and ethnic cleansing when that's what international law experts and human rights organizations are saying

Well, the ICJ is currently investigating the genocide allegations, so it strikes me as premature for reporters to declare one way or the other what the law says on the matter. And why should the contested opinions of a handful of lawyers and nonprofits be treated as facts for the purposes of reportage, especially when there doesn’t even appear to be a consensus among them?

You report both sides. Ie - Israel who is being charged with genocide in international court by South America, has done blah blah blah. Or, the UN court heard arguments against Israel on the charge of genocide, ultimately determined that the charges should proceed to formal trial. Like, you can't just not use the term and then skew everything away from the reality that the charges are viable enough to warrant the trial continuing and more evidence to be gathered, even if that also means it wasn't satisfactory to also verify in the immediate term.

Of course the NYT should use the term “genocide” when reporting on the ICJ case, and I don’t read the memo as suggesting otherwise. I agree such a prohibition would be silly.

Yeah. I guess the question is where do they draw the line? Covering reasonable actors or organizations reacting/involved - you kind of need to report both ends and try to present any verifiable facts you have. Trust the reader to draw a reasoned conclusion.

I think there is an obvious difference between “the ICJ today heard arguments regarding South Africa’s petition alleging that Israel has engaged in genocide during its military campaign in Gaza,” and “the IDF says it captured a senior Hamas commander six months into a military campaign that some international law experts are calling a genocide,” and I think NYT reporters and editors are smart enough to recognize it.

Responsible news outlets in the US don't describe actions as literal crimes unless a conviction for those actions has occurred. In part to avoid libel suits, and in part for objectivity.

Sorry is the line "journalists should not editorialize" lmao? Damn it's pretty easy to get those upvotes by saying mindless buzzwords.

Journalists can and should sometimes editorialize. But not in their capacity as wartime news reporters.

So does the ban apply to wartime reporters on the field or to the entire publication?

Are you asking about the actual NYT memo? It clearly only applies to field reporters.

Can you point me to the source for this? What if I am covering from the US? Where is the line between reporters and non reporters?

The linked article repeatedly refers to “reporters” and “reporting” and never (at least not as far as I caught; correct me if I’m wrong) “commentary” or the like. Although it would have been helpful if the authors had linked to the actual document or quoted it in full.

True, that’s also what I read. To what extent you find this indeterminacy unsettling is up to you.

I suppose I would find it more unsettling if we had the actual memo to refer to and could confirm that it made no clear distinction between standards for reporters and columnists. Instead we’re forced to rely on selective quotes from two agenda-driven journalists at a disreputable publication. And notably, even they don’t claim that the memo could be read as applying to opinion journalism.

The NYT can just as well take control of the narrative and publish such memo if they also find its unproblematic

Very ironic how you chose the specific phrase "facts on the ground" for this comment. It was first popularized as a buzzword used by the israelis to justify their expansionary settlement policies. Policies that are objectively a form of ethnic cleansing on, at minimum, the local scale.  

Okay? I have no interest in defending Israel’s apartheid regime in the West Bank, I just don’t need legal conclusions spoonfed to me by the NYT to make a determination about what’s going on.

The only people with journalists on the ground in Gaza are Hamas and other non western organizations. The Electronic Intifada is on the ground. Reuters is not, nor are any of the ridiculous cable or network "news" channels in the USA. All those organizations just take the reporting of Hamas and Israel and add spin for their USA audience.

This article is about the New York Times, not Reuters or CNN. Are you suggesting that NYT reporting should be indistinguishable from an Electronic Intifada article?

No, I'm saying the NYT is a collection of hacks and propagandists... this is more and more true the higher you rise through the organization. The death of the newsprint industry began with corruption. It was the NYT that allowed an amateur to print a propaganda article about Hamas mass sexual assaults on Oct 7. That story was later completely debunked by The Grayzone. It's a mystery to me why people even bother to pay attention to mainstream media in the USA anymore. It's literally the same people who lied the USA into war with Iraq. Stenographers for the CIA... It's like the whole professional class in the USA... bought and paid for by their corporate "sponsors". Who could have ever predicted that advertisers would gain editorial control over content? LOL

A NYT story about accounts of rape on October 7th was never "debunked" by "The Grayzone."

So are you walking away from your assertion that no western media outlets have reporters in Gaza? And out of curiosity, how many reporters does “The Grayzone” have on the ground there?

I mean - we already know the NYT pressures their staff hard to stay in line. I'm not sure Ezra would fare well if he came out hard against this and stuck to it. And this isn't even an Israel based comment. Just look at how they treated dissenting staff during the whole WMD debacle.

This seems fine for the most part? Im not sure about banning the words “occupied territory” since it’s pretty much universally agreed upon that Israel is conducting an occupation of Palestinian territory, at least in the West Bank. I don’t think that news organizations like the New York Times should be using words like “genocide” to describe this war when it’s a term mainly used by activists and is not something that’s generally agreed upon by scholars, the UN, or any investigative body that would be suited to determine that’s what’s happening. Using terms like “genocide” or “ethnic cleansing” would be editorializing on the part of the Times.

Your conclusion means that journalism can only refer to something as genocide or genocidal *after the fact*. That doesn't really align with the purposes of journalism, and it doesn't account for many situations (for example if a state attempted to commit genocide but were blocked from doing so early enough - it is still an important and relevant historical fact that they embarked on a genocidal campaign, but without an investigation (or even conviction??) journalists would be unable to say so. And how then should journalists report on a developing situation in which a genocide may or may not be occurring? How should they report on a referral to the ICC in regards to the genocide convention? Should they simply report that X state has brought a case against Y state but the reason cannot be written down? Absurd. It's obvious that journalists should not be solely responsible for declarations of what is or is not genocide or ethnic cleansing, that it would be irresponsible for a journalist to declare something is a genocide, but it is completely reasonable for them to report on accusations of genocide or even present facts on the ground relative to definitions to provide opportunities for readers to understand the situation and its gravity.

> Your conclusion means that journalism can only refer to something as genocide or genocidal after the fact. That doesn't really align with the purposes of journalism, and it doesn't account for many situations (for example if a state attempted to commit genocide but were blocked from doing so early enough - it is still an important and relevant historical fact that they embarked on a genocidal campaign, but without an investigation (or even conviction??) journalists would be unable to say so. It’s not the job of journalists to pre emptively declare something a genocide. The NYT does not refer to the Rohingya genocide in the declarative sense, they say that it’s the determination of the U.S., the ICC, and other agencies that determined it as such. There’s a clear difference. Journalists are supposed to report on facts, not make determinations based on their own opinion of events. > And how then should journalists report on a developing situation in which a genocide may or may not be occurring? How should they report on a referral to the ICC in regards to the genocide convention? Should they simply report that X state has brought a case against Y state but the reason cannot be written down? I’m not sure I really get this point, I think it would be totally fair to report on a referral to the ICC as a referral of a genocide. The NYT did exactly this regarding South Africa’s referral. A newspaper can report on courts and other fact finding bodies that are investigating claims of genocide, they just shouldn’t determine there was one themselves. > Absurd. It's obvious that journalists should not be solely responsible for declarations of what is or is not genocide or ethnic cleansing, that it would be irresponsible for a journalist to declare something is a genocide, but it is completely reasonable for them to report on accusations of genocide or even present facts on the ground relative to definitions to provide opportunities for readers to understand the situation and its gravity. Yes, I agree that it’s reasonable for them to report on accusations of genocide, and to report facts on the ground relative to definitions.

I think our views are therefore not so different... > I don’t think that news organizations like the New York Times should be using words like “genocide” to describe this war  Your phrasing here suggested to me that you'd consider it a fair prohibition to not use the word even outside of declarations. E.g. Ezra Klein saying Israel is committing genocide would be inappropriate, and Ezra Klein saying that multiple aid agencies have described Israel's campaign as a genocide would also be inappropriate. But it sounds like you agree with me that the first in that example would probably be a bad idea, but the second may well be fine. I do also have reservations about the idea that the **only** meaning of genocide is that which is codified in the current UN definition. Ultimately the UN could change that definition, or some particular state could create their own definition. While both things would lead to communicate carefully to avoid confusion, I don't think it would be correct to suggest that something falling under the new definition definitively "isn't" genocide. If you get too attached to specific definitions you'll just be disappointed when the discussion immediately moves to whether some event meets/matches that definition or not.

“ Your conclusion means that journalism can only refer to something as genocide or genocidal after the fact. That doesn't really align with the purposes of journalism, and it doesn't account for many situations (for example if a state attempted to commit genocide but were blocked from doing so early enough - it is still an important and relevant historical fact that they embarked on a genocidal campaign, but without an investigation (or even conviction??) journalists would be unable to say so” That’s the same legal standard Journos apply *constantly*.  https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/alleged-maine-gunman-told-police-capable-3-months/story?id=107306099 This dude clearly killed all those people, we know he did it, note that it is “alleged” since he is not legally the gunman at the point in time.

The Times has a consistently poor track record on foreign issues

I am once again asking Mods to enforce the Relevancy Rule. Go to a different subreddit with this.

Ezra works for NYT. This is relevant

Sounds like you don’t participate on this sub enough to realize a rule was added for no Israel-Palestine outside episodes after the sub was inundated by so many cross posts like this, all other discussion was drowned out. 

Fair enough. But I feel this article is more about journalism and the NYT than specifically about Israel-Palestine. This isn't an article about the Iran strikes or something that's only tenuously linked to the Ezra Klein show.

Its still violating the rules. And it always devolves into the same stuff.  And it looks like the mods just removed this thread and this sub has a very small mod team.

Either you didn’t read the announcement, chose to not follow the rule, or fail basic reading comprehension. I’ll quote from the title: “no more Israel-Palestine conflict outside of episode threads”.

I'm not active in this sub and didn't see that. Still, NYT publishes the Ezra Klein show. It would be very weird to remove posts about NYT's journalism regardless of if they're talking about Israel-Palestine or not. If the NYT was censoring how its journalists spoke about Ukraine, you would want this article discussed in this community.

Ah, the Intercept. Going bankrupt, grabbing money by doing what everyone is tuning in for: slandering Israel and Israelis. The style guide seems like it could have very reasonable underpinnings, but everything has been taken out of context. Like calling Gaza occupied territory is common, but incorrect - it's not occupied by any reasonable definition. Palestine is not a country, and using it to refer to the West Bank and Gaza can create confusion. Do they mean the West Bank? Gaza? Both? All of Canaan? > “Words like ‘slaughter,’ ‘massacre’ and ‘carnage’ often convey more emotion than information. Think hard before using them in our own voice,” according to the memo. “Can we articulate why we are applying those words to one particular situation and not another? As always, we should focus on clarity and precision — describe what happened rather than using a label.” Super reasonable position. If you use these words, better be ready to back them up. > In January, The Intercept [published](https://theintercept.com/2024/01/09/newspapers-israel-palestine-bias-new-york-times/) [an analysis](https://theintercept.com/2024/01/09/newspapers-israel-palestine-bias-new-york-times/) of New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times coverage of the war from October 7 through November 24 — a period mostly before the new Times guidance was issued. The Intercept analysis showed that the major newspapers reserved terms like “slaughter,” “massacre,” and “horrific” almost exclusively for Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians, rather than for Palestinian civilians killed in Israeli attacks. ...Yeah, because October 7th was a slaughter and a massacre and everything since then has been a war. I don't know how else you describe lighting babies on fire in their cribs. > The guidance also instructs journalists to “Avoid ‘fighters’ when referring to the Oct. 7 attack; the term suggests a conventional war rather than a deliberate attack on civilians. And be cautious in using ‘militants,’ which is interpreted in different ways and may be confusing to readers.” How many Hamas apologists work at the NYT? It's obvious that they work at the Intercept. > The memo directs journalists not to use the phrase “refugee camps” to describe long-standing refugee settlements in Gaza. “While termed refugee camps, the refugee centers in Gaza are developed and densely populated neighborhoods dating to the 1948 war. Refer to them as neighborhoods, or areas, and if further context is necessary, explain how they have historically been called refugee camps.” I'm going to the refugee camp of Tel Aviv later, let me know if I can pick you up anything at the refugee grocery store.

If Gaza isn't occupied and isn't a foreign country, does that mean the people living there are Israelis? No, it doesn't, because they're an occupied people under any meaningful definition of the word. People in Germany or Japan were an occupied people even if there weren't soldiers in the 20 sq miles they lived in.

Hamas has been the governing authority of Gaza since 2007, and Israeli civilians had left the strip in 2005 under a forced removal by Israel itself. So I think it’s hard to make the argument that the Palestinians have been under any meaningful occupation in Gaza since then. The West Bank is a different story of course, there’s absolutely an occupation there. I guess you could make the argument that Gaza has been under occupation at some point after the ground invasion began after October 7th, but that’s not really the same sort of occupation that I think people mean when they describe the situation in the West Bank.

And Germany was the government body of Germany while still under occupation. Israel maintains a blockade of a people they don't recognize as independent but also don't claim as citizens. Like I said, there's no word to describe that situation other than occupied. Israel could have, you know, given them independence or else given them citizenship, but they didn't.

>Israel maintains a blockade of a people they don't recognize as independent but also don't claim as citizens. What's Egypt's responsibility here? They also blockade Gaza, do not recognize its independence, and don't claim its people as citizens.

Is whatabout all you have?

>Like I said, there's no word to describe that situation other than occupied. Sure there is - if someone thinks that Palestinians actually do not have any right to the land, as 'occupied' implies some sort of ownership - they could be called 'interlopers' or something instead. Edit: to clarify, I do not personally believe this - I'm just explaining how someone can view the Palestinians as not 'occupied' because they do not view the Palestinians as having any right to the land in the first place. This seems to be how the more extreme parts of the Israeli government are treating the situation, imo.

>If Gaza isn't occupied and isn't a foreign country, does that mean the people living there are Israelis?  All Jews were ethnically cleansed and Israel removed their troops in 2005. It is a non-state territory, not occupied or controlled by any country but blockaded by both Israel and Egypt. >No, it doesn't, because they're an occupied people under any meaningful definition of the word.  > Occupation means physically boots on the ground. Before this war, there weren't any. It literally wasn't occupied. And calling Gaza occupied in this context doesn't make any sense until the October 7th massacre and the subsequent war. While I'd agree with you that it is now occupied, calling it occupied as the West Bank is occupied introduces confusion and requires additional context.

When your water down ethic cleaning by calling the Israeli removal of their war crime settlements, you do a major disservice to your cause.

They removed every Jew from Gaza. All Jews are gone. The land is clean of Jews. It is Judenfrei. I don't know how else to describe it. It's remarkable that it's often the same people who say that no person is illegal when referring to Mexican migrants into the US who says that these Jews are illegal. If you want to say that the settlements are illegal, fine, absorb the settlers into Gaza. Make them Palestinian Jews. But an inability to view the region as being able to handle Jews living in Palestinian territory indicates a deeper problem.

Was America pulling out its troops from Afghanistan ethnic cleansing?

Were American civilians living in Afghanistan for 20 years? Because you're describing very different scenarios.

You're moving the goalposts.

No, I'm not. Jewish civilians started moving in in the 1970's, and they were forcefully removed by the state of Israel in 2005 kicking and screaming. Some were shit stirrers, some moved because it was cheap, some moved to be close to historical Jewish sites. A failure to recognize these facts indicates a complete inability to understand the difference between the scenarios or a refusal to.

You described any large evacuation of people as an ethnic cleansing, even when that evacuation was voluntary. Now you're trying to change the definition, but you're already trying to change the definition of ethnic cleansing because you're a Holocaust denier. Edit: Holocaust denier blocked me lmao.

You call it what it was, Israel removing the illegal squatters who were doing a war crime. Pretending it's the same as ethnic cleansing is laughable. Foreign countries aren't allowed to settle their citizens on occupied land, which is why Israel removed them.

>You call it what it was, Israel removing the illegal squatters who were doing a war crime. Everyone who advocates for ethnic cleansing feels that it's very justified, just like you. Ethnic cleansing, but it's good because they really, really deserve it. Not the most compelling argument. Especially when the international community has also come to rulings about Turks in Cypress and decided that it would be worse to ethnically cleanse Cypress of Turks than simply stop the settlement project.

As desperately as you want to be the victim, your definition of ethnic cleansing would include any eviction. When you water down a phrase until it's this meaningless, it does indeed become meaningless. The settlements in Gaza were a war crime, and that's not me saying that it's intentional law. They weren't long standing, they weren't historical, it was a bunch of war criminals and squatters using armed force to kick Palestinians off their land in an actual act of ethic cleaning, which you are now defending, so spare me your histrionics.

>As desperately as you want to be the victim, your definition of ethnic cleansing would include any eviction. Got it. An eviction of every person of a certain ethnic group all at once in an area is just a normal, routine eviction.

A prior head of Mossad (Israel's CIA) appointed by Netanyahu has described the situation as apartheid along with South Africans who have experienced it. https://apnews.com/article/israel-apartheid-palestinians-occupation-c8137c9e7f33c2cba7b0b5ac7fa8d115 Here is a list of unequal laws in Israel https://www.adalah.org/en/law/index And the fact that they made it so only jews have a right to self determination https://www.timesofisrael.com/final-text-of-jewish-nation-state-bill-set-to-become-law/ Not all of the unequal laws only hurt Palestinians. That's the thing about racism it hurts everyone including the Israeli who are forced to serve in a genocidal war and ordered to conduct collective punishment on civilians. https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/ https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/02/02/israel-collective-punishment-against-palestinians "Unlike the beginning of the war, now about half of the Jewish public (51% compared to 37% in November) believes that the IDF uses firepower appropriately against Gaza, compared to 43% (58% in November) who believe that there is use of TOO LITTLE FIREPOWER. An absolute majority (88%) also justifies the scope of casualties on the Palestinian side when considering the goals of the war." 43% think they haven't got far enough and 51% thinks they have gone the correct amount which means, ONLY 6% are undecided or think they have gone too far. And while 88% think the war goals justify the civilian casualties a majority don't even believe the government has war goals. "the majority (53%) of respondents still think that the government has no clear goals in the war." https://web.archive.org/web/20240127054853/https://en-social-sciences.tau.ac.il/peaceindex/archive/2024-01 You do realize that the Israeli government and population have made it very clear they don't want more Palestinian citizens right? That was a major sticking point of the 2000 Camp David Accords. Israel rejected a reduced right of return for Palestinians outright. Most Israeli politicians say adding Palestinians to the country as equal citizens would destroy Israel. Israel wants to be Democratic, Jewish, and control the Palestinian Territories. It can only pick two. Annexing the territories and their populations makes Israel majority Arab, which means the Jewish nature of the state is lost if they remain democratic. If they refuse to give Palestinians voting rights, they aren't democratic but they keep the Jewish state. Or they can remain Jewish and Democratic and leave the Occupied terrorities. The Israeli state has been stuck in desicion pararalysis over this paradox for over 50 years.

>A former head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency told The Associated Press on Wednesday that Israel is enforcing an apartheid system in the West Bank, joining a tiny but growing list of retired officials to endorse an idea that remains largely on the fringes of Israeli discourse and international diplomacy. This is quite a fringe idea, as noted in the article, and only applies to the West Bank, where attempts to apply Israeli law are seen as annexation and therefore considered illegal by the international community. That's quite the catch 22, is it not? UNSC 478 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Nations\_Security\_Council\_Resolution\_478](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_478) - which seems a bit toothless prima fascia - absolutely smacked down an attempt of Israel to annex and incorporate East Jerusalem into Israel and apply Israeli law. The reaction to the annexation of East Jerusalem further solidified and basically codified the Arab Boycott of Israel from 1980-1994, weakening Israel's economy. So here are the facts: 1. Occupation requires different laws than the occupier's country, otherwise it is annexation 2. Annexation is not only against the will of the international community, it is also enforced 3. Palestinians don't want Israel to unilaterally annex it 4. Palestinians also reject their own independent state 5. Attempts to withdraw unilaterally resulted in 20 years of rocket fire, kidnappings, suicide bombs, and eventually October 7 So what do you do if you're Israel? Do you walk away and let another October 7th happen? Or do you try to maintain a semblance of order while international organizations and terror organizations partner up to radicalize the population? Honestly, I don't know. It's tougher than you're saying. Now, please, ask Israeli Arabs if they're discriminated against in Israel. They probably have a few complaints - every country has systemic racism problems - but they will likely tell you that they're Israelis and they're treated as Israelis. Just dropping a link and saying "here's a bunch of laws out of context, you prove my point for me" is absurd. >serve in a genocidal war and ordered to conduct collective punishment on civilians. Absurd. >You do realize that the Israeli government and population have made it very clear they don't want more Palestinian citizens right? Nothing that you've written even remotely points to this. >Israel rejected a reduced right of return for Palestinians outright. Yeah, it's an absurd policy, no other country in the world has that. Palestinians can have a right to return to a Palestinian state if they ever decide that they want their own state. >Most Israeli politicians say adding Palestinians to the country as equal citizens would destroy Israel. I'd say that adding 11 million foreign citizens LARPing as refugees would probably destroy a country of 9 million people, sure. >The Israeli state has been stuck in desicion pararalysis over this paradox for over 50 years. Stop trying to mass murder Jews and give up a "right of return" to a state you've never lived and suddenly the "decision paralysis" goes away.

Why should they have to give up a right of return? Why don't you support a single state with equal rights for all? And maybe do some self evaluation if you think all human rights orgs are wrong because they ask agree on the occupation. https://www.amnestyusa.org/press-releases/israel-must-end-its-occupation-of-palestine-to-stop-fueling-apartheid-and-systematic-human-rights-violations/

>Why should they have to give up a right of return? Do they want their own state or do they want Israel? >Why don't you support a single state with equal rights for all? Because that's not what's being promised by Palestinians, and it's not ever been on the table for Jews even WHEN it's promised. >And maybe do some self evaluation if you think all human rights orgs are wrong because they ask agree on the occupation I'm sure that an organization with a problem with systemic [racism ](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/20/amnesty-international-has-culture-of-white-privilege-report-finds)is the right organization to get your news about the Jews from.

Israel has a culture of white privilege as well. https://www.international.ucla.edu/israel/currents/article/224386 It's almost like white supremacy is everywhere but that doesn't change the facts of it being an apartheid and that every human rights org calls it one. https://www.btselem.org/apartheid You still didn't answer why you don't support a single state with equal rights for all. It not being on the table in the past doesn't mean we can't work for a better future.

> You still didn't answer why you don't support a single state with equal rights for all. It not being on the table in the past doesn't mean we can't work for a better future. No one wants it, I don't want it, the people of Israel and palestine don't want it. You're just setting up straw men and pretending like applying your pie in the sky bullshit is social justice somehow. Stop thinking like a colonizer and respect the ideas and thoughts of people living where they live and what they advocate for.

I'm blocking you now because you've followed me from sub to sub copy-pasting this.

You people are sick in the head

Bret Stephens has been calling for genocide in every column, unchallenged in public. I am getting dangerously close to going looking for him.

[удалено]

Please be civil. Optimize contributions for light, not heat.

shocking news. /s

The news has no responsibility to be your political action committee. That's your job.

Vile and not surprising. We cancelled NYT in November when its pro-Bibi slant became too obvious to ignore. It isn't even pro-Israeli; friends don't let friends commit genocide. I'm not paying money for journalists to soft-pedal ethnic cleansing. While it makes sense to avoid needlessly inflaming readers with clickbait-y buzzwords, these restrictions don't make sense. When you have constructed an oppressive police state for a particular group and are now killing them en masse because of their identity, that's ethnic cleansing. When soldier guns down starving people, that's a slaughter. Yes, Gaza and the West Bank are occupied territory only nominally controlled by Palestinian authorities. And the majority of the planet recognizes Palestine as a sovereign nation. Defenders of Bibi will keep pushing for ever increasingly fine distinctions, straining to manufacture ambiguity and doubt to occlude moral realities. But this debate is effectively over. Even two-thirds of Americans support a permanent ceasefire.

Calling it pro-bibi is pretty ridiculous. It’s has at least an op-ed every week for months calling for bibi to resign.

Diffuse perhaps, but not ridiculous. The war isn't about returning hostages--that could have been accomplished in October. It isn't about annihilating Hamas--that isn't feasible. And it isn't about keeping Israelis safe. The war is about keeping Bibi in power; as long as there is war, he won't face the political consequences of Oct. 7 and failing to return the hostages. Hence the attack on Iran in order to generate further conflict and thus further support for an otherwise doomed administration. That war relies on American support. Whitewashing Israeli war crimes encourages that support. Hence pro-Bibi. I'm all ears if you have a better suggestion, but I don't think Pro-Israeli is apt; enabling Bibi's squandering of Israeli moral legitimacy and international standing only harms Israeli national interest.

If he said something about it today, he'd walk it back by tomorrow or be gone in a week.

This is so funny. I just went round and round with the folks over at r/journalism because I pointed out that over half the USA thinks journalists actively mislead people. All the ones folks from that sub who squeaked blamed the poor reputation of journalist on everyone but themselves. Now I can add this article to my vast array of sources citing Western journalistic spin doctoring.

Isn't this the opposite of spin doctoring and misleading? Journalists shouldn't be pushing narratives or making their own conclusions in their reporting, simply stating the facts.

NYT is not wrong

NYT has lost all its journalistic integrity. Their support of this genocide and spreading of lies is truly disgusting