Take a look at Times of Israel in MBFC

Amongst other things it says:

Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: Israel
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MODERATE FREEDOM
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

When covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they usually are objective and cover both sides fairly, such as this: IDF strikes fresh Hamas targets after 2nd rocket fired from Gaza Strip. However, during the conflict of 2023, they were less objective, focusing on the objectives of the Israeli military. In general, the Times of Israel is factual with a slight left-leaning editorial bias.

This is not a joke, just check it out.

The way you describe it I would say this post is in the news-like content.

Apart from that, in the description of this magazine it says otherwise and does not limit its content the way you describe it. It doesn’t mention what the source should be, talks about the content. I will use only the part I find relevant to this conversation:

@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events, analysis or other informative content related to politics both domestic and international.

So what you say just doesn’t make any sense according to this community’s description, rules and guidelines. Unless I’m missing something? If you have something to add, I am all ears.

[edit: maybe this is relevant as well?]

this is stretching thin the premise of this magazine

May I ask for some clarifications on this statement?

I am not ignoring the first part, this is why every military action doesn’t qualify under that statute but Israel is “plausibly” doing a Genocide according to ICJ. Personally I don’t need a court decision to make up my mind.

Plausible does not mean probable

see dictionary for details?

Apart from that, you haven’t said anything about what are Israel’s responsibilities, and you actively ignored my specific question on the matter. We cannot talk solutions without that so I don’t see any point continuing this attempt to have a conversation.

to get the Arab League to enforce a demilitarized zone between Palestine and Israel

Let’s say that this is what he’s saying. I don’t see you mentioning what Israel has to do, so this reading cannot not be a solution cause it leaves out the responsibilities of Israel. What would you put on the top of the list of what Israel has to do? My answer to that would be that Israel has to stop bombing and starving, civilians and children, as well as recognize Palestine.

On Genocide, Israel is doing at least 3 of the 5 required for one to be called as such. And ICJ court said “plausible” so far.

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

It’s more than “calling them out” when they helped create the situation. The Arab league invaded Israel (…)

I was not talking about Arab people, I don’t know where you got that from.

Also before the Arab league invaded Israel, (debatable but not our topic) Israel had to be created as a country. If Israel has the right to exist in West Asia, there are no valid arguments on why Palestine should not have that right as well. Are there?

For the apartheid in South Africa to end, both colonizers and colonized worked together for some sort of solution. Palestine has recognized Israel as part of the Oslo agreement. As long as Israel is not recognizing Palestine, no solution can be implemented, and the Genocide will continue.

that’s assuming all these concerned parties actually want a solution and not just to vilify Israel

For this statement to be valid it would be required that the concerned parties are equal. In the case of the Israel and Palestine there is a power imbalance. On one hand there is the zionist settler colonial power of Israel that is one of the strongest military forces in the world. One the other hand you have Palestine that is not even recognized as a country by the colonizers and instead of borders the colonizer has raised a wall controlling amongst other things the few entrances.

Calling out Israel for its settler colonial policies is no synonym to vilifying it.

T’aurais pas un lien en anglais pour cet article?

deleted by creator

You are totally right. I’m editing the summary now.

A military conflict over colonial borders was avoided. A joint commission was created instead in order “to address matters as mutually agreed”, as they said. That’s good news in my book.

Russia outlaws ‘international LGBT public movement’ as extremist - 30 Nov 2023 - The Guardian

Russia’s supreme court has outlawed what it called an “international LGBT public movement” as extremist, in a landmark ruling that representatives of gay and transgender people warn will lead to arrests and prosecutions of the already repressed LGBTQ+ community.

Human rights activists have said the vague wording of the ruling that targets the “international LGBT public movement” allows Russian authorities to persecute any individual or organisation it considers to be part of the “movement”.

“Even though there is no such thing as an international LGBT movement, it is clear that all legal activities of LGBT organisations will be impossible in Russia,” said Igor Kochetkov, the head of the rights group Russian LGBT Network.

In a way I tend to agree with you in the sense that european colonisers have been doing this for centuries, even through christian religion. On the other hand I am not sure about the rest of the world, especially during last century.

Thank you very much for your input.

I must admit I am not a fan of Time magazine. So far, and according to my knowledge, I highly appreciated Shuster even though I seldom agree with him, and I held a high opinion of his reporting. As it happens, I agree with his take this time.

The testimony of Darka Hirna is news to me and I have to take it into consideration.

Within the next week I will hopefully have the time to reevaluate his journalistic approach, taking into account what is mentioned above. If I have something to add, it will be in a comment bellow. Unless this post is removed anyway.

In case you have some additional elements that would help me in this research, please provide them here. I would be grateful.

deleted by creator

I somewhat wonder what Palestinians would think of this one-state solution

I also wonder about what Palestinians have thought of the one-state solution. I mean before this October.

I only know of the One Democratic State Campaign (ODSC) which is a Palestinian-led initiative, but I don’t know how many Palestinians are behind this proposal.

Now that we talk about the one-state solution I should mention an Israeli I really appreciate Jeff Halper.
It is time for the one state solution to go mainstream - Awad Abdelfattah and Jeff Halper - The Electronic Intifada

It’s one thing to miss the point and another to disagree. I am with the latter. Close to the end of this article it says:

I’m grateful for leaders who don’t feel the need to take sides.

I don’t see how something like this can be fair to the oppressed, no matter who you think they are.
The way I see things in this conflict too, it is worth looking at the power imbalance. I never support the colonisers.

Btw I never claimed to have read your articles, I am talking about this post’s argument and your comment. I was just saying your comment missed the historical background.

You forgot to mention the settler colonial background of the conflict and the zionist nature of the state of Israel.

You are correct. He has served the UN since 1992 and he did not step down for Yemen or any genocide. It is just his retirement letter.

Also this is mentioned in the article:

He was criticised for posting support of the boycott, divest, sanctions (BDS) movement and accusing Israel of apartheid – an accusation which he repeated in his retirement letter.

and this is the twitter link to the retirement letter