On March 22nd, this journalist detailed the findings of a UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on “Israel’s systematic use of sexual, reproductive and other forms of gender-based violence since 7 October 2023.” That investigation focused primarily on the hideous, industrial scale rape and sexual abuse of male and female Palestinian detainees in Zionist Occupation Force prisons, a phenomenon so pervasive it can only be dedicated, determined policy, signed off upon and directed by the highest levels of the Israeli government.
Reinforcing that horrifying conclusion, buried within the Commission’s report are bombshell passages unequivocally charging the Zionist entity with deliberately committing “genocidal acts” in Gaza, consciously and intentionally “calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians as a group.” The details provided are irresistibly persuasive, and point to Israel being in flagrant breach of both the Rome Statute, and Genocide Convention. In a truly just world, the mainstream media’s mass omertà on this landmark ruling would in itself be a criminal act.
If this is true then that’s great news. Unfortunately the article seems to have been written by someone who is very clearly biased against Israel and not ashamed of airing that dirty laundry in public (which, fair enough, that describes me too, but I wouldn’t trust me to write an unbiased article on the subject either) so I can’t take this single source’s word on it. I’ll definitely keep an ear out in case any more reporting gets done on it from elsewhere.
Edit: To the people downvoting and replying to this: please read past the ‘biased against Israel’ part - especially to the bit where I say that I am also biased against Israel - before assuming that I’m some pro-Israel shill here.
As is any decent person who’s been paying close enough attention.
Not all biases are bad, and being biased against a fascist apartheid regime committing genocide is an excellent proof of that.
Having a bias against the Israeli government is having a bias in favor of accuracy and against atrocious human rights violations.
Did you not catch this part?
I’m not saying the bias is a problem in general, it’s just a problem for the trustworthiness of the reporting because they could be reading stuff into the source material that isn’t there.
And I’m saying that you’re wrong. Everyone has biases, and my comment above still applies when you’re writing about it.
I’d trust reporting that’s clearly biased in favor of the truth over the mealy mouthed forced neutrality of main stream sources any day.
Bias is when you report the court ruling, the more you report the court ruling the more bias you have.
I guess you guys are ditching the strategy of denying the genocide now, and moving on to “biased tone” or some shit idk.
Did you not catch this part?
I am also biased against Israel, for what I feel ought to be some pretty self-evident reasons. Reading comprehension in the replies to my comment has been surprisingly low.
Respectfully, you don’t know what bias means. The way you’re using it reflects that.
I’m not biased against American conservatives if I say I am against trump. Having a position isn’t a bias in itself.
Respectfully, you clearly don’t know how I meant it.
I am biased against Israel because I do not judge it impartially. I tend to assume the worst about it (which I believe is justified through many years of reading about the awful, awful shit it does to people), in a decision about which side gets the benefit of the doubt in some matter I will never give it to Israel, and I am disinclined to believe pretty much anything it says, even after I filter out the propaganda.
If that’s not bias then apparently we’re using different dictionaries. Try this one.