Geneva – The Israeli army’s execution of an elderly Palestinian after using him in a propaganda campaign promoting its “safe corridor” in Gaza was strongly condemned in a statement released by Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor today.
The rights organisation expressed outrage over Israel’s incorporating the man into its attempt to cover up horrific crimes against displaced Palestinians fleeing Israeli violence in the northern Gaza Strip.
Israel’s army released a photo of one of its soldiers talking to Bashir Hajji, a 79-year-old resident of Gaza City’s Zaytoun neighborhood, as he travelled on Salah al-Din Road, the main route to the southern Gaza Valley. The soldier in the photo appears to be helping and protecting displaced Palestinian civilians, said Euro-Med Monitor, yet Hajji was subjected to a field execution on the morning of Friday 10 November.
The elderly man’s granddaughter, Hala Hajji, told the Euro-Med Monitor team that her grandfather was brutally executed while crossing the “safe corridor” when members of the Israeli army intentionally shot him in the head and back. She also confirmed that he is in the photo that was put out by Israel—exposing the Israeli army’s dangerous practice of flagrantly fabricating stories.
Euro-Med Monitor stated that it has previously documented dozens of cases where the Israeli army executed displaced Palestinians by live bullets and, in some cases, by artillery shells. Those displaced were attempting to flee to the south of Wadi Gaza at the Israeli army’s request.
Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor renewed its calls for the United Nations and the International Criminal Court to open an urgent independent investigation into the execution crimes to which displaced Palestinians have been and are still being subjected to, to hold those who ordered such crimes accountable, and to achieve justice for the victims.
The terrorist group Hamas has been actively preventing evacuation, and according to reports opening live fire on Palestinians trying to evacuate throughout this war.
Big title with little evidence this case was any different, coming from a highly non-objective organization that failed to find a single issue with Hamas, the sole government in Gaza, which took all the aid money and turn it into rockets.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/oct/13/first-thing-hamas-tells-gaza-city-residents-to-stay-put-after-israel-orders-evacuation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro-Mediterranean_Human_Rights_Monitor
This is your “highly non-objective organization”. At this point you need sources. And let’s face it, Hamas was right to tell civilians to not evacuate. Do you have the slightest idea how messy a complete evacuation of the north Gaza strip would be like? Especially into the also overcrowded, starving south sid Hint: It would be a much worse bloodbath than what we’re seeing now. Not to mention many people already evacuated south, found themselves being bombed there too, didn’t find shelter and the like, and went back.
“Evacuate Northern Gaza” was a moronic take a month ago and it’s still moronic now. Also I’ll need to see those reports you’re talking about.
It’s not just that. By leaving they lose everything to the settlers. There are very good reasons for not leaving.
I’m no expert, but it took me about 30s to find out that the organisation’s founder is Palestinian, so I’m not sure that’s a good sign for their objectivity
I mean they’re biased; that’s normal. The thing is: Does that bias get in the way of the factuality of their reporting? Given that they have a pretty long track record, there needs to be a source that proves they’re unreliable.
Idk and I don’t really care enough to research it, I just wanted to point out that that article makes it quite easy to find reasons for why they would be biased.
It didn’t, it makes it easy to add your bias.
Add it to what?
You can’t see your parent comment can you?
Not on mobile, but that’s besides the point. The point is - do you seriously believe the organization led by someone from a country engaged in a war is going to be objective in judging what one of the parties in said war is doing? Because if you do, I’ve got a bridge to sell to you.
I just find out you speak English, I’m not sure that’s a good sign for your objectivity.
English is the most spoken language in the world.
Correct, there’s 5 million Palestinians… Can we trust any of them?
Depends on the context. But I doubt any of them can be objective about a war their own country is involved in.
Can you be objective as an English speaker which heavily implies former British colony or heavily influenced by English power?
I am not a native English speaker.
deleted by creator
I mean, at first glance your comment sounds potentially at least as biased as the accusation you’re making against Euro-Med Monitor.
There are a couple other news sources repeating this story (specifically Middle East Monitor and Middle East Eye - both of these directly reference EMM), with no further details, however these would have more apparent bias than EMM. No western publications have reported on it. The root source is his granddaughter. However, it could be expected that other places wouldn’t report on it without being able to verify themselves, eg speaking to the granddaughter, which generally isn’t possible right now. That doesn’t mean the quote isn’t genuine, any more than it disproves Hamas killing him.
Is there any particular reason you hold Euro-Med Monitor’s publication in doubt? You mention them failing to find a single fault with Hamas, what’s that about?
I googled those:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Eye
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Monitor
So criticism of MEE and MEM means that EMM is not to be trusted? I asked about EMM, which was where the initial criticism was levied.
However, it should be said that EMM’s Strategy Director has also reported for MEE.
Bit more than some criticism though. Both seem to be defacto propaganda outlets for the Muslim Brotherhood / Qatar.
Of course, that doesn’t mean this story didn’t happen, it’s just that like a story on Russia Today, it’s probably best to take it with a large pinch of salt.
And it’s not as if it’s easy to find unbiased reporting from middle-eastern sources anyway. Eg. Al-Jazeera’s also a flaming pile of poop (especially the arabic version which doesn’t try to maintain a veneer of respectability), but if you disregard everything they report (even if it is potentially biased or cherry picked) that’s also very problematic because they’re often the only ones on the ground.
But I broke a promise to myself to avoid wading into discussions on this topic. They inevitably end in shit flinging, given it’s such an emotive subject. Not as if it’s going to change anything anyway.
Absolutely. I’m just asking if there’s anything specific about EMM that calls them into question. To me, it seems they have an inherent bias, but that doesn’t mean their reporting isn’t objective when taking that into account. I’ve certainly seen questionable articles from MEM, but that doesn’t mean that similar or affiliated outlets are as bad.
The story itself is rooted in a quote from his granddaughter. It could be that the quote is false, it could be that she lied, it could be that she was pressured to lie after Hamas killed her grandfather. It could also be completely true. The most annoying thing is how hard it is for independent journalists to verify anything, what with how Gaza has been cut off from the rest of the world by Israel.
I hope you don’t feel like I was slinging shit your way, that wasn’t my intention.
Oh, no. You were being perfectly civil.
It’s just that IME debating this topic often goes off the rails, for perhaps understandable reasons.
deleted by creator