Just a moment...
english.almayadeen.net

The Israeli Operation Directorate’s Influencing Department is reportedly running a xenophobic Telegram channel, featuring content filmed by Israeli soldiers in Gaza.

The Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) Operation Directorate’s Influencing Department, is running a Telegram channel, named “72 Virgins - Uncensored”, that shares gruesome footage taken by invading soldiers in the Gaza Strip, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

Footage and photos, shared by the channel’s administrator, are usually accompanied by captions celebrating Israeli war crimes in the Gaza Strip. The Israeli Influencing Department is responsible for the occupation’s psychological warfare operations which target Palestinians and foreign audiences.

Zionist racial hatred for Palestinians comes as no surprise, as official Israeli accounts have battled hard to normalize an anti-Palestinian sentiment, in conjunction with its aggression on the Gaza Strip. Israeli officials have also publicly stated opinions shared by the channel’s administrators, highlighting deep-rooted systematic xenophobia and extremism within Israeli society.

The channel run by the IOF, has also propagated racial derogatory stereotypes, to an engaged Israeli audience, in an attempt to dehumanize Palestinians, a tactic employed by Nazi officials against minorities during World War II.

Moreover, specific footage highlights occupation forces desecrating the bodies of Palestinian martyrs in the Gaza Strip, which the channel’s subscribers joyfully celebrate.

link: https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/israeli-military-runs-racist--72-virgins--telegram-channel

article referenced: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/security-aviation/2023-12-12/ty-article/.premium/graphic-videos-and-incitement-how-the-idf-is-misleading-israelis-on-telegram/0000018c-5ab5-df2f-adac-febd01c30000

article referenced archive: https://archive.ph/zight

  • chillhelm@lemmy.world
    810·
    1 year ago

    Isn’t that how discourse is supposed to work though? If there are issues with the credibility of a source, it’s fine to point those out. And then you respond with a different source to which the criticism does not apply.

    Where is the issue?

    • tree@lemmy.zipOP
      121·
      1 year ago

      There is no issue with the source other than it not being the new york times or the washington post or the bbc, every source that is not one of those is unreliable state affiliated media propaganda and is scary and bad because it makes me confused because it says things that make me have to think critically and actually engage with what I’m reading instead of just mindlessly guzzling down the western liberal/center consensus of a handful of “papers of record”.

      And then you respond with a different source to which the criticism does not apply

      I did not do this, I responded to with the source REFERENCED IN THE ARTICLE it’s in the title of the post, you can literally see it. You clearly did not read the article, no less the title of the post.

      • chillhelm@lemmy.world
        73·
        1 year ago

        There is no issue with the source other than it not the new york times or the washington post or the bbc

        1. NYT, WP or BBC are also suspect sources, especially when it comes to the Palestine conflict. You will not find me saying anything else.
        2. Issues with the source you cited (that don’t involve it’s Hezbollah affiliation):
          • It’s not the primary source (that appears to be the Haaretz article, but I can’t confirm that, since that is paywalled)
          • It gets the name of one of the parties involved in the conflict wrong (it consistently refers to the IDF as IOF (replacing “Defense” with “Occupation”). I get why they do it (the IDF claims to “defend” an area that they are actually occupying), but that’s not how you do journalism. Nobody thinks that North Korea is a democratic republic, but any news article about it will still refer to it as “DPRK - Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea”. Because that’s its name.

        So pointing out that the source you posted is biased and potentially unreliable is fine. You citing another source (even one cited in the article itself) is completely par for the course. Hell, now I really would like to know, why you chose to post a secondary source when you had the primary source avaiable to you?