this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2025
810 points (96.0% liked)
Palestine
1422 readers
203 users here now
A community to discuss everything Palestine.
Rules:
-
Posts can be in Arabic or English.
-
Please add a flair in the title of every post. Example: “[News] Israel annexes the West Bank ”, “[Culture] Musakhan is the nicest food in the world!”, “[Question] How many Palestinians live in Jordan?”
List of flairs: [News] [Culture] [Discussion] [Question] [Request] [Guide]
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Doesn't Hamas also call them that? Or perhaps it's just translated as such.
The entire point of that article is to report on what Israel is saying. So I'm not sure how that can be disproportionate if it exclusively talks about what it says in the headline. I think it makes sense for a media outlet to also report what Israel says, even if it can be disproven (and the Guardian does add that context). The Guardian here objectively reports on what Israel says, which I think is an important function of a news outlet. The Guardian also mentions that the "eruption of violence" started on October 7th, and I'm pretty sure that's objectively true as well. Before that there was a very uneasy "peace" with plenty of violence to go around, but nothing to the scale of what we saw on Octobee 7th and beyond. Note how the language used doesn't explicitly blame Hamas for the entire conflict.
The "comedically low death count" is the count as reported by the Gaza health ministry. Of course more people have indirectly died as a result of the war, but that's a different statistic. Not sure what you want the Guardian to do here, unless you think Hamas is also fudging the numbers or something(?)
The Gaza health ministry is under Hamas jurisdiction.
The Gaza Health Ministry are the ones reporting 48k. That's not a "could" or "maybe", you can easily Google this.
Or just check here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_war
There's nothing suspicious or sneaky happening here, your reading comprehension is just not that good.
Are you stupid? If the article lists that the number is 48k, and you can find online that the only party that claims 48k is the Gaza Health Ministry, where do you imagine they got the numbers from? Expain how anyone is misdirecting you if the quoted numbers match exactly with what the Gaza Health Ministry claims?
The Guardian article did not explicitly list a source in that article. But it takes a 2 minute search to find that the only matching source has to be the GHM.
The Guardian: "The number of deaths is approximately 48k."
The GHM: "The number of deaths is approximately 48k."
You, for some reason: "Aha, proof the Guardian isn't citing the GHM number of 48k when they say it's 48k!"
???
At this point you almost certainly have to be trolling to make pro-Palestinians look stupid or something. Thankfully most others I've engaged with here seem to be better understanding.
And does the article actually name a different number than the Gaza Health Ministry does? Yes or no?
I literally quoted it for you. Here, I'll do it again:
At this point I'm just going to block you because you can't read.
Would be news to me, and that kind of double standard in language has been used a lot (see "kidnapped from his tank").
Yes? That's exactly my point. Do they have articles who's whole point is to report on what Palestine is saying? Yemen? Russia?
They choose their own headlines.
I don't.
You going to read the rest of that sentence? The part that goes "...when thousands of Hamas-led gunmen attacked Israeli communities around the Gaza Strip, killing 1,200 people and abducting 251 hostages."
It's also objectively true that Israel is a fascist, genocidal ethnostate, you won't see them saying that though.
That death count is the direct munitions deaths that the barely functionally health ministry has been able to confirm. It is the depths of willfully misleading to imply that thats the actual estimated total death count. And you can tell that it's misleading, because it misled you.
Even that count is much higher than the number Guardian gave now, they're using old numbers.
Actually no, that's the statistic The Guardian is falsely claiming it is.
For a start, they should include that the estimates for total deaths had already passed the two hundred thousand mark half a year ago.