Israel's defence force denies serious allegations of abuse and torture from several Gazan men who say they were detained without charge. WARNING: Readers might find some of the details in this story distressing.
  • GrymEdm@lemmy.worldEnglish
    422·
    7 months ago

    Sorry this is a long one, but it’s packed with lots of info about Israeli treatment of prisoners. Tried to keep each point brief.

    It’s not a recent development. Here’s a trailer for a 2014 ABC News Australia documentary called Stone Cold Justice - the TL:DR is that for decades IDF have taken and tortured Palestinian youths, coercing them into signing confessions so they can be convicted in court. Here’s the full “Stone Cold Justice: Israel’s torture of Palestinian children” documentary if anyone wishes to watch it.

    Josh Paul resigned from a position as a director for the US State Department after war came to Gaza because of his ethics. Here he’s talking about an investigation he directed of the rape of a 13-year-old boy in an Israeli prison as requested by Defense for Children International - Palestine. His department found the allegations to be credible, and when they asked the Israeli government for explanation the IDF raided the DCIP the next day and declared them a terrorist organization (a move condemned by multiple human rights groups, the UN, and 9 EU nations).

    Here’s an article about Israel’s policy of “administrative detention” by which large numbers of Palestinians are held without trial or even charges for an AVERAGE of a year. “Before October 7, the number of Palestinians held by Israel under administrative detention was already at a 20-year high. According to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, there were 1,310 Palestinians imprisoned without charge or trial at the end of September, including at least 146 minors. Since then, Israel has dramatically increased its use of administrative detention, pushing the number of detainees to over 2,000 within the first four weeks of the war. (That’s out of a total of roughly 7,000 Palestinian prisoners.)” It’s just taking hostages with a less offensive name.

    Yesterday Israeli national security minister Ben Gvir made a social media post with a last line that translates to: “The death penalty for terrorists is the right solution to the incarceration problem, until then - glad that the government approved the proposal I brought.” The incarceration problem he’s referring to is a lack of space to hold all the prisoners/hostages Israel is taking, and he’s advocating for executions until more prison cells are built.

    • Altofaltception@lemmy.worldEnglish
      151·
      7 months ago

      The death penalty for terrorists is the right solution to the incarceration problem

      I can’t be the only one who noticed the similarity there right?

      • Stamets@lemmy.worldEnglish
        71·
        7 months ago

        These motherfuckers took all the suffering people went through in WW2 and understood it as a how to manual instead of something horrific never to be repeated. What in the fuck.

  • Deceptichum@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    85·
    7 months ago

    Shocked to see ABC publishing this considering all their recent efforts to bury anything critical of Israel or pro-Palestinian, they’ve treated this topic so biasedly since the genocide started.

    • gaael@lemmy.worldEnglish
      192·
      7 months ago

      First, thanks for doing the work of checking sources for articles posted here, I believe you add value to the conversation.
      This being said, I happen to disagree with you - here’s why.

      There seems to be a common misconception about bias and trustability.

      The site you linked to has two ratings: factual reporting and bias.

      Factual reporting is determined by how they do their jobs: do they check their facts and sources before they publish?
      ABC news australia is voted 4/5 on that scale, which I’d say makes them pretty trustworthy - most of the time, they report accurate and verified information.

      Bias is the way you choose the informations you report and how you comment on them. For exemple, while reporting the same information “billionaires are now x% richer than last year”, a left biased paper could comment on how non billionaires are getting poorer and a right biased paper could list the billionaires and applaud their financial choices. As a strongly left biased person myself, I’ll ignore the right biased paper nit because I think they’re lying, but because I don’t find their commentary relevant.
      Everybody and every news source is biased, and it’s okay. There is usually no neutrality possible when you do journalistic work, because your job is to provide context and commentary around the facts that you report.

      IMO, bias is not a metric helpful to determine credibility, and I find it a little detrimental that the site you linked to has bias and fact checking displayed at the same place without providing a better differentation between the two.

      On a side note, the pursuit of a fictionnal “journalistic neutrality” supposedly devoid of any bias has been and still is weaponized in the french news, where women, muslils or people or color are told they can’t report on subjects that they know well because they are supposedly too close to the topic and wouldn’t be able to stay neutral. While of course cishet white privileged men can report on those subjects because they are more “objective”…