|
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
You can believe it has a Pro-Israeli bias if you really want to, but either way it means you can't trust any one single video or photo or article that you read, you really have to scour every available source for any level of realism. |
I generally accept this.
However, I find this, among many other things, troubling:
| quote: | The UN officials said they regularly provided the Israeli military with exact co-ordinates of their facilities, and that the school was in a built-up area.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he was "deeply dismayed" that despite these efforts, three UN-run schools had been hit by nearby Israeli strikes.
Earlier in the day, at least three Palestinians were killed when another school was hit in the Shati camp, UN officials said.
The BBC's Rushdi Abu Alouf reports from a UN school inside a Gaza refugee camp
Ten people were also injured at a UN health centre in the Bureij refugee camp.
Maxwell Gaylard, the UN humanitarian co-ordinator for the Palestinian territories, described the incidents as tragic and demanded an independent investigation. |
So while I generally agree that different media sources often yield different conclusions, the problem here is that even the prospect of alternative views being produced--to whatever degree of objectivity--is being denied by Israel. Even when it's demanded by outside actors.
And if it is a case of 'their-word-against-ours' (at least as it appears to us via the media,) then why not allow even the possibility of someone who might not have a political agenda to investigate and report on the scenario?
Better yet: what if the death toll was reversed; what if 6 people in Gaza were dead and 640 Israelis were dead?
I think it's safe to say that if this were the case, no such ban on foreign reporting/investigation would take place.
|
