There has also been speculation on social media of Russian involvement in the Hamas operation, though there is no evidence indicating Moscow’s alleged role. Newsweek has contacted the Russian foreign ministry by email to request comment.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/russia-behind-hamas-attack-israel-what-we-know-iran-gaza-1832999%3famp=1
Ah, well, in that case.
Are these journalists congenitally stupid or what?
This is simply horrible.
First, “Israel calls on Palestinians in Gaza Strip to evacuate certain areas” and “seek shelter in designated locations.” Currently we are bombing those areas without ‘roof knocking.’
And now:
// The Hamas terror group is threatening to begin executing hostages in response to Israeli strikes in Gaza carried out without warning […]
“From this hour, any targeting of our people in the safety of their homes, without warning, will be met with the execution of civilian hostages, which will be broadcast with video and audio,” says the spokesperson, who goes by the nom de guerre Abu Obeida.
A defense official reportedly told Knesset members in a briefing earlier in the day that Israel was not dropping dummy bombs on roofs of buildings set to be targeted, meant to warn civilians to flee. //
Meanwhile, “the number of Israelis killed in the Hamas attack on Israel has risen over 900 and it is feared that it will reach 1,000”
LikeLike
We all know they like using human shields. It’s one terrible crime after another.
LikeLike
To clarify:
“Yesterday the IDF proposed evacuation to the population, determined routes for it (a separate one for each area) and is now engaged in the demolition of objects in which or under which the infrastructure of terrorist organizations is located: headquarters, warehouses, production facilities, and so on.”
Currently Israel cut off Gaza’s electricity, water, food imports, a complete siege.
LikeLike
Requesting comment from any entity named in an article is a journalistic obligation. Not that anyone really expects governments to answer truthfully, but sometimes denials are revealing. If they just say “Nope, no involvement”, well, we’ll have to judge the matter based on other evidence. If they say “Oh, of course we’re not involved, but we definitely think those guys that we’re not supporting have a great point and it just shows how terrible the West is”, that’s almost an admission.
LikeLike
“When asked whether the rumors about Jews not having an amazing time in his country, Mr Goebbels refused to comment”.
I get it but …
LikeLike
Any rule, if pushed far enough, gets into absurdity. I grant you that. But even in the Nazi hypothetical, getting a bullshit denial from a German consulate in a neutral country might be a useful way of showcasing what bullshit propaganda looks like. Depends on how deft the journalist is in relaying and contextualizing the bullshit denial. Still, I agree, the Nazi hypothetical you offered is not a case where reaching out for comment is absolutely crucial.
I will say that some woke media disasters (e.g. Rolling Stone and UVA Jackie) could have been avoided if someone had reached out to named parties for comment. So, in general, it’s a good idea to ask for comment. Even if there’s zero chance of getting truth, or even an illuminating half-denial, the habit of asking for comment is an important one to adhere to.
Maintaining a habit is less about whether it’s useful this time and more about whether it’s going to be useful next time.
OT (sort of): Amid all the horrible news, I’ll admit this was a bit of a relief….
https://twitter.com/Liamjsm/status/1711374327361265999
LikeLike
I’m sure it’s coming and it will be titled “Context”. I can’t wait.
No, I actually really can.
LikeLike
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment