I suspect you're being facetious but on the off chance you're not and to hose down unsuspecting blind-with-rage-AND-kill-them-all B&RT subscribers, *surely* you see the logical flaws in your statement. You beg the question (the IDF has photos???) then you create a false analogy, i.e. jihadists have beheaded innocents in the past, therefo…
I suspect you're being facetious but on the off chance you're not and to hose down unsuspecting blind-with-rage-AND-kill-them-all B&RT subscribers, *surely* you see the logical flaws in your statement. You beg the question (the IDF has photos???) then you create a false analogy, i.e. jihadists have beheaded innocents in the past, therefore we don't need objective proof to believe reports of infant headings.
What's maddening here is that the veracity of this report is both incredibly important and worthless in this debate.
It's worthless in that it's not necessary to believe this before condemning in total the actions of Hamas AND offering Israel full-throated support of Israel's right to secure their people and eliminate the possibility of a second act by these demented fiends, i.e. the elimination of the Hamas threat with reasonable force.
It's incredibly important that we recognize when a claim in unsubstantiated because it can be use to justify action beyond what is reasonable.
What I do in horrific times is make stupid jokes. Helps me cope.
Is your argument that…
A: it’s incredibly important that the claims being made are verified.
B: the claims aren’t important, because they shouldn’t make the moral difference in your calculation?
The IDF claims to have the proof in photos that they won’t release out of respect for the grieving families. This is the time for war propaganda, for sure, so they could be lying to gain sympathy for their reprisal. I’ve also seen a small creator on social media (not necessarily reliable either) who is part of the remediation crew in Israel talk about what he’s seeing in the aftermath. This, plus the images that Hamas themselves have released to the victims own social media accounts gives me the preponderance of evidence I need to believe the reports, but I’ll update my belief if it turns out to be wrong.
When I break down what I think is maddening *here*, I'm talking about how unverified claims are treated by the media, media consumers and belligerents. So (A), as you stated, remains the same, verification is paramount.
But I would alter (B) to say that so much repugnant behavior by Hamas has been verified that it's worthless to waste time -- as we are doing now, I recognize -- working ourselves up into a lather over something that might turn out to be bunk or even a simple misunderstanding. If it *is* verified, then okay, add it to the list and we keep making our respective cases with that much more knowledge. But until it is, its only value is cloud our judgement and engage the worse impulses in a deeply wounded population and the darkest desires of the least moral pols and military commanders.
We've already cross the Rubicon into war. What's left are questions of how the war will be conducted and thus, each and every casus belli should be as clear and well-argued as can be.
Okay, I can accept that argument to a degree. I still think that tactics are important to parse as it informs future decisions and judgements. It’s important to know how ruthless Hamas is, because it can inform future judgement calls.
Is Hamas really trying to prevent the citizens of Gaza from fleeing south so that they can be used as human shields and political pawns? Is that something we can know or verify? What have they done in the past that might inform that judgement?
I'll assume that your question regarding the veracity of the report is done in good faith, but would still say that your emphasis on concrete proof in this situation is a bit misplaced--again, assuming you're acting in good faith. It's not been the practice of the Israeli government to furnish pictures of babies that have been killed by terrorists in the past, but as a result of all the questioning, they have in fact released those pictures, and you can seek them out if you choose.
Obviously proof is important, and after all the lies we've been told these last few years, it's good to seek verification more than ever. But the beheading of babies is absolutely in character for Hamas, is it not? In fact, I'd be interested to know if there is actually one single example of Hamas leaders ever once showing the slightest evidence of something a neutral bystander would recognize as unalloyed human compassion or kindness for anyone outside their immediate families. (Hint: showering money on the families of "martyrs" doesn't count.)
In general, the burden of proof needs to start getting shifted. We've seen decade after decade after decade of Israel being blamed for everything and Palestinian terrorists continually receiving the benefit of the doubt, and it's well past high time to turn the tables.
The idea that Israel should expect the rest of the world to accept their pronouncements on the basis of what is "in character" for Hamas is silly. Silly, silly, silly. Clear, indisputable facts matter when making a case for war. From where I stand, there are enough facts to warrant Israel's declaration of war and the USA's full support in words and deeds. If babies have been beheaded, show the proof to a few select journalist and ambassadors. Otherwise, we should assume it's not true. These sorts of claims have the capacity to overwhelm emotions, cloud judgement and lead the suffering and deaths of more innocents. A casus belli cannot stand on wanton sophistry and biased assumptions.
And I will add:
The idea that we change the burden of proof -- which I'll regard here as a general respect for the truth -- to speed sectional notions of the "right" outcome is what powers the woke left, the MAGA right and, more generally, autocratic aims.
The idea that Israel is a poor pathetic victim is absurd in the larger context of the historical Israeli-Palestinian contretemps. The idea that Israel wants to exterminate the Palestinian people is absurd. When Israel's war objectives have been met, a fresh reckoning awaits the Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Journalists should definitely investigate claims like this, but what's your point? That no report at all should be made until the claims are verified? That's not how news has ever worked.
Or are you saying that this level of detail is actually material to the big picture? Like say maybe half of the babies were beheaded and the others were killed in other ways. Is that going to change Israeli politics or military strategy?
I certainly don't think journalists should be making, or even repeating, inflammatory claims prior to verifying them!
Like, there's this podcast called "Blocked & Reported" that often satirizes journalists who do this sort of thing. Have you ever listened to it by chance?
It's nuts how many don't care at all that a bunch of reporters were brought into the site of a massacre and instead of coming back with firsthand reports, they came back with claims from unnamed commanders.
Meanwhile over 1 million civilians have been ordered to leave their home within 24 hours when they have no place to go. Hamas is terrible and Israel has every right to respond to a massive terror attack.
Nevertheless, history did not start on the day of the massacre and killing tons of civilians indiscriminately for the crime of living in a crammed, walled in, blockaded city is not a valid response to said massacre.
So what would you do Michael? Do you agree that in the same way we had the right to dismantle Al Qaeda after 9/11, Israel has the right to destroy Hamas? Or do you think that Hamas ruling Gaza after Israel's operation is an acceptable outcome?
And if you want to destroy Hamas, how do you do it without bombings followed by a ground invasion? As far as the civilians, they started leaving Northern Gaza a week ago. How long should Israel wait? Would giving them a month help when the border with Egypt is closed? Do you realize that every day that passes makes locating the hostages more difficult and allows Hamas better preparation? Seriously, what would be a valid response?
Your implication is that Israel is responsible for the fact that life in Gaza is terrible, but in fact Israel has had no role in Gaza since they pulled out in 2005--after forcing many of their own people to leave. Then the Palestinians took over, voted in Hamas (one vote one time), and ever since then, Gaza has been a little North Korea of the Levant. The reason they're blockaded is because if they weren't, those monsters from Hamas would rampage through Israel indiscriminately, and Saturday's events would look like a "minor incursion." No, history didn't start on 10/7: the preceding 75 years saw endless, *endless* Israeli attempts at peace and cooperation, always met with lies and violence. Now that's come to an end, because it's obvious that Hamas exists for one purpose: to wipe Israel out.
`in fact Israel has had no role in Gaza since they pulled out in 2005' and `The reason they're blockaded'
These two statements are contradictory. Israel has had near full control over what goes into Gaza (why else could they turn off water, electricity, etc.) so, yes, they have an extraordinarily powerful role in Gaza.
Israel also deserves exactly zero credit for removing *illegal* settlers from the Strip in 2005.
`the preceding 75 years saw endless, *endless* Israeli attempts at peace and cooperation'
Name a serious initiative undertaken by Israel over the last 15--20 years for peace. Otherwise, yes, Israel has attempted to make peace, solely on their terms and with ridiculous conditions.
The continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank, under all Israeli governments, has made a two state solution impossible. How many West Bank Palestinians, the ones who did not vote for Hamas, have been killed this year by the IDF and/or settlers? Something like 200?
`Hamas exists for one purpose: to wipe Israel out.'
As soon as Israel ends the occupation we take away Hamas' reason to exist. They won't go away but we will be able to fight them and they will only be able to recruit based upon their unpopular Islamic view.
The atrocities Hamas has committed since the invasion are sufficient for the IDF to justify invading Gaza and eliminating Hamas as an effective localized entity. The baby-beheading thing, if true, absolutely should be reported, far and wide, and cited when arguing against calls for a cease-fire as those being made this week by the various and sundry groups who tend to favor an neo-communist-revolutionary approach to the Middle East.
But since it can't be falsified at this point, we have to deal with the fact that we are stuck in a state uncertainty. In such a case, it is incumbent on the media to make it crystal clear that the reports have not been verified and hold leaders accountable who defend their actions on that basis. We NEVER should relax laws and journalistic standards when things get muddy; that is the logic of #MeToo, anti-TERFs, three-strikes sentencing proponents, the neoconservatives who led us into Iraq and, in general, wannabe, self-important benevolent dictators with terminal tunnel vision.
I dipped into The Majority Report today for a few minutes to see if Emma and Matt had reverted to their supercilious neo-communist form after initially seeming to moderate their stances in the immediate wake of the invasion. Answer.... YEP! But what does that form look like? How does it present?
Uncritically peppering their language with talk of genocide and apartheid by Israel.
To me, asserting the baby-beheading in an uncritical way is equally insincere. If and when that changes... okay. Yet another horrible thing that Hamas has done will have been exposed.
The Fog of War is a well-known phenomenon. I don’t think anyone doubts that all sorts of changes will be made to initial reports from a combat zone. I also think it’s reasonable to put information out quickly during a crisis without verifying all of it, if it’s done in a way that makes it clear how it was sourced and that it is preliminary.
Fact-checking is important, and I’m entirely open to the possibility that any particular claim like this could be false. I also question whether the people contesting this claim have any interest in determining whether it’s true and might not have some ulterior motive, given how absurdly selective they’re being.
Totalizing language like genocide and apartheid I find unhelpful.
The genocide/apartheid talk is just plain stupid. If you want to eradicate a population why would you bother implementing a stabilizing *albeit* cruel and inhumane practice like apartheid? There will be plenty of time to discuss the wisdom of isolating Gaza and settling the West Bank after Hamas is dealt with. But in the meantime, these over-educated boobs who as we speak are droning on and on about the lack of appreciation of "the history" of Israel's wanton cultural slaughter need to explain why Palestine didn't accept the UN two-state proposal or what the objectives were of the Six-Day and Yom Kippur Wars.
Ascribing ulterior motives to the mere act of questioning a particularly incendiary claim like beheading babies, to me, isn't nearly as absurd as all that, but it's not fair at the very least and bad-faith at worst. There's no excuse for media organizations to repeat the many journalistic blunders in the lead-up to the Iraq War by doing the dirty work of the hard-line hawks hovering haughtily in Bibi's shadow.
`There will be plenty of time to discuss the wisdom of isolating Gaza and settling the West Bank after Hamas is dealt with'
We've had, what, almost two decades to discuss this `wisdom' and about 50 years to discuss settler expansion?
The suffering of the Palestinians and the occupation will soon be forgotten by > 95% of the posters here and the population in general.
`The genocide/apartheid talk is just plain stupid. If you want to eradicate a population'
Thankfully we live in a world in which modern states can't just do this without repercussions. Israel knows this. Open genocide or ethnic cleansing would result in even lessened US support.
Sure. That sounds awesome. And -- since you're taking my point so seriously -- please include a Blu-Ray copy of "Cuties" and a dog-eared copy of "A Tale of Two Cities".
I suspect you're being facetious but on the off chance you're not and to hose down unsuspecting blind-with-rage-AND-kill-them-all B&RT subscribers, *surely* you see the logical flaws in your statement. You beg the question (the IDF has photos???) then you create a false analogy, i.e. jihadists have beheaded innocents in the past, therefore we don't need objective proof to believe reports of infant headings.
What's maddening here is that the veracity of this report is both incredibly important and worthless in this debate.
It's worthless in that it's not necessary to believe this before condemning in total the actions of Hamas AND offering Israel full-throated support of Israel's right to secure their people and eliminate the possibility of a second act by these demented fiends, i.e. the elimination of the Hamas threat with reasonable force.
It's incredibly important that we recognize when a claim in unsubstantiated because it can be use to justify action beyond what is reasonable.
What I do in horrific times is make stupid jokes. Helps me cope.
Is your argument that…
A: it’s incredibly important that the claims being made are verified.
B: the claims aren’t important, because they shouldn’t make the moral difference in your calculation?
The IDF claims to have the proof in photos that they won’t release out of respect for the grieving families. This is the time for war propaganda, for sure, so they could be lying to gain sympathy for their reprisal. I’ve also seen a small creator on social media (not necessarily reliable either) who is part of the remediation crew in Israel talk about what he’s seeing in the aftermath. This, plus the images that Hamas themselves have released to the victims own social media accounts gives me the preponderance of evidence I need to believe the reports, but I’ll update my belief if it turns out to be wrong.
When I break down what I think is maddening *here*, I'm talking about how unverified claims are treated by the media, media consumers and belligerents. So (A), as you stated, remains the same, verification is paramount.
But I would alter (B) to say that so much repugnant behavior by Hamas has been verified that it's worthless to waste time -- as we are doing now, I recognize -- working ourselves up into a lather over something that might turn out to be bunk or even a simple misunderstanding. If it *is* verified, then okay, add it to the list and we keep making our respective cases with that much more knowledge. But until it is, its only value is cloud our judgement and engage the worse impulses in a deeply wounded population and the darkest desires of the least moral pols and military commanders.
We've already cross the Rubicon into war. What's left are questions of how the war will be conducted and thus, each and every casus belli should be as clear and well-argued as can be.
Okay, I can accept that argument to a degree. I still think that tactics are important to parse as it informs future decisions and judgements. It’s important to know how ruthless Hamas is, because it can inform future judgement calls.
Is Hamas really trying to prevent the citizens of Gaza from fleeing south so that they can be used as human shields and political pawns? Is that something we can know or verify? What have they done in the past that might inform that judgement?
I'll assume that your question regarding the veracity of the report is done in good faith, but would still say that your emphasis on concrete proof in this situation is a bit misplaced--again, assuming you're acting in good faith. It's not been the practice of the Israeli government to furnish pictures of babies that have been killed by terrorists in the past, but as a result of all the questioning, they have in fact released those pictures, and you can seek them out if you choose.
Obviously proof is important, and after all the lies we've been told these last few years, it's good to seek verification more than ever. But the beheading of babies is absolutely in character for Hamas, is it not? In fact, I'd be interested to know if there is actually one single example of Hamas leaders ever once showing the slightest evidence of something a neutral bystander would recognize as unalloyed human compassion or kindness for anyone outside their immediate families. (Hint: showering money on the families of "martyrs" doesn't count.)
In general, the burden of proof needs to start getting shifted. We've seen decade after decade after decade of Israel being blamed for everything and Palestinian terrorists continually receiving the benefit of the doubt, and it's well past high time to turn the tables.
The idea that Israel should expect the rest of the world to accept their pronouncements on the basis of what is "in character" for Hamas is silly. Silly, silly, silly. Clear, indisputable facts matter when making a case for war. From where I stand, there are enough facts to warrant Israel's declaration of war and the USA's full support in words and deeds. If babies have been beheaded, show the proof to a few select journalist and ambassadors. Otherwise, we should assume it's not true. These sorts of claims have the capacity to overwhelm emotions, cloud judgement and lead the suffering and deaths of more innocents. A casus belli cannot stand on wanton sophistry and biased assumptions.
And I will add:
The idea that we change the burden of proof -- which I'll regard here as a general respect for the truth -- to speed sectional notions of the "right" outcome is what powers the woke left, the MAGA right and, more generally, autocratic aims.
The idea that Israel is a poor pathetic victim is absurd in the larger context of the historical Israeli-Palestinian contretemps. The idea that Israel wants to exterminate the Palestinian people is absurd. When Israel's war objectives have been met, a fresh reckoning awaits the Israelis and Palestinians alike.
Journalists should definitely investigate claims like this, but what's your point? That no report at all should be made until the claims are verified? That's not how news has ever worked.
Or are you saying that this level of detail is actually material to the big picture? Like say maybe half of the babies were beheaded and the others were killed in other ways. Is that going to change Israeli politics or military strategy?
I certainly don't think journalists should be making, or even repeating, inflammatory claims prior to verifying them!
Like, there's this podcast called "Blocked & Reported" that often satirizes journalists who do this sort of thing. Have you ever listened to it by chance?
It's nuts how many don't care at all that a bunch of reporters were brought into the site of a massacre and instead of coming back with firsthand reports, they came back with claims from unnamed commanders.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.timesofisrael.com/israel-takes-foreign-journalists-to-see-massacre-site-in-kfar-aza/amp/
Meanwhile over 1 million civilians have been ordered to leave their home within 24 hours when they have no place to go. Hamas is terrible and Israel has every right to respond to a massive terror attack.
Nevertheless, history did not start on the day of the massacre and killing tons of civilians indiscriminately for the crime of living in a crammed, walled in, blockaded city is not a valid response to said massacre.
So what would you do Michael? Do you agree that in the same way we had the right to dismantle Al Qaeda after 9/11, Israel has the right to destroy Hamas? Or do you think that Hamas ruling Gaza after Israel's operation is an acceptable outcome?
And if you want to destroy Hamas, how do you do it without bombings followed by a ground invasion? As far as the civilians, they started leaving Northern Gaza a week ago. How long should Israel wait? Would giving them a month help when the border with Egypt is closed? Do you realize that every day that passes makes locating the hostages more difficult and allows Hamas better preparation? Seriously, what would be a valid response?
Your implication is that Israel is responsible for the fact that life in Gaza is terrible, but in fact Israel has had no role in Gaza since they pulled out in 2005--after forcing many of their own people to leave. Then the Palestinians took over, voted in Hamas (one vote one time), and ever since then, Gaza has been a little North Korea of the Levant. The reason they're blockaded is because if they weren't, those monsters from Hamas would rampage through Israel indiscriminately, and Saturday's events would look like a "minor incursion." No, history didn't start on 10/7: the preceding 75 years saw endless, *endless* Israeli attempts at peace and cooperation, always met with lies and violence. Now that's come to an end, because it's obvious that Hamas exists for one purpose: to wipe Israel out.
Which, to be fair, they have always stated was the aim.
`in fact Israel has had no role in Gaza since they pulled out in 2005' and `The reason they're blockaded'
These two statements are contradictory. Israel has had near full control over what goes into Gaza (why else could they turn off water, electricity, etc.) so, yes, they have an extraordinarily powerful role in Gaza.
Israel also deserves exactly zero credit for removing *illegal* settlers from the Strip in 2005.
`the preceding 75 years saw endless, *endless* Israeli attempts at peace and cooperation'
Name a serious initiative undertaken by Israel over the last 15--20 years for peace. Otherwise, yes, Israel has attempted to make peace, solely on their terms and with ridiculous conditions.
The continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank, under all Israeli governments, has made a two state solution impossible. How many West Bank Palestinians, the ones who did not vote for Hamas, have been killed this year by the IDF and/or settlers? Something like 200?
`Hamas exists for one purpose: to wipe Israel out.'
As soon as Israel ends the occupation we take away Hamas' reason to exist. They won't go away but we will be able to fight them and they will only be able to recruit based upon their unpopular Islamic view.
That is not my point.
The atrocities Hamas has committed since the invasion are sufficient for the IDF to justify invading Gaza and eliminating Hamas as an effective localized entity. The baby-beheading thing, if true, absolutely should be reported, far and wide, and cited when arguing against calls for a cease-fire as those being made this week by the various and sundry groups who tend to favor an neo-communist-revolutionary approach to the Middle East.
But since it can't be falsified at this point, we have to deal with the fact that we are stuck in a state uncertainty. In such a case, it is incumbent on the media to make it crystal clear that the reports have not been verified and hold leaders accountable who defend their actions on that basis. We NEVER should relax laws and journalistic standards when things get muddy; that is the logic of #MeToo, anti-TERFs, three-strikes sentencing proponents, the neoconservatives who led us into Iraq and, in general, wannabe, self-important benevolent dictators with terminal tunnel vision.
I dipped into The Majority Report today for a few minutes to see if Emma and Matt had reverted to their supercilious neo-communist form after initially seeming to moderate their stances in the immediate wake of the invasion. Answer.... YEP! But what does that form look like? How does it present?
Uncritically peppering their language with talk of genocide and apartheid by Israel.
To me, asserting the baby-beheading in an uncritical way is equally insincere. If and when that changes... okay. Yet another horrible thing that Hamas has done will have been exposed.
The Fog of War is a well-known phenomenon. I don’t think anyone doubts that all sorts of changes will be made to initial reports from a combat zone. I also think it’s reasonable to put information out quickly during a crisis without verifying all of it, if it’s done in a way that makes it clear how it was sourced and that it is preliminary.
Fact-checking is important, and I’m entirely open to the possibility that any particular claim like this could be false. I also question whether the people contesting this claim have any interest in determining whether it’s true and might not have some ulterior motive, given how absurdly selective they’re being.
Totalizing language like genocide and apartheid I find unhelpful.
The genocide/apartheid talk is just plain stupid. If you want to eradicate a population why would you bother implementing a stabilizing *albeit* cruel and inhumane practice like apartheid? There will be plenty of time to discuss the wisdom of isolating Gaza and settling the West Bank after Hamas is dealt with. But in the meantime, these over-educated boobs who as we speak are droning on and on about the lack of appreciation of "the history" of Israel's wanton cultural slaughter need to explain why Palestine didn't accept the UN two-state proposal or what the objectives were of the Six-Day and Yom Kippur Wars.
Ascribing ulterior motives to the mere act of questioning a particularly incendiary claim like beheading babies, to me, isn't nearly as absurd as all that, but it's not fair at the very least and bad-faith at worst. There's no excuse for media organizations to repeat the many journalistic blunders in the lead-up to the Iraq War by doing the dirty work of the hard-line hawks hovering haughtily in Bibi's shadow.
`There will be plenty of time to discuss the wisdom of isolating Gaza and settling the West Bank after Hamas is dealt with'
We've had, what, almost two decades to discuss this `wisdom' and about 50 years to discuss settler expansion?
The suffering of the Palestinians and the occupation will soon be forgotten by > 95% of the posters here and the population in general.
`The genocide/apartheid talk is just plain stupid. If you want to eradicate a population'
Thankfully we live in a world in which modern states can't just do this without repercussions. Israel knows this. Open genocide or ethnic cleansing would result in even lessened US support.
I appreciate your point. Thank you for taking the time to write it.
do you want me to send you the photo of the bloody baby car seat, or maybe of the very burnt toddler corpse?
Sure. That sounds awesome. And -- since you're taking my point so seriously -- please include a Blu-Ray copy of "Cuties" and a dog-eared copy of "A Tale of Two Cities".