British police have launched a criminal investigation into a performance by rap-punk duo Bob Vylan at the Glastonbury Festival on Saturday, when the group led chants of “death to the IDF,” or Israel Defense Forces.
I agree that they didn’t use enough anti-genocide supporters, their sources were one sided.
But your second critique would require a complete rewrite and would change the article completely.
I agree that pro vs anti genocide is the better way to approach the conflict, however, for reporting purposes, it makes more sense to call it an Israel vs Palestine conflict. Calling it pro vs anti genocide means that you have taken the position of calling the conflict a genocide (which I agree with, it is genocide). But as the article states, Israel does not see this as a genocide and neither do a lot of governments.
AP describes the conflict as a war of Israel against Hamas. Not a war of Israel against Palestine. This could be interpreted as 1) diminishing the genocide and 2) reporting on one specific facet of the conflict ie Israel against Hamas forces, which it could be argued, is a different conflict than Israel against the Palestinian people. This also means that by the articles definitions, Palestinian supporters are different than Hamas supporters.
Their second position does not say one side is correct and one side is wrong. They say
Israel and some supporters have described the protests as antisemitic
Israel and their supporters, not the AP describe protests as antisemitic.
critics say Israel uses such descriptions to silence opponents.
Critics, not the AP, say Israel is incorrect in their antisemitic descriptions.
If the article did what you wanted, it would be an opinion piece about how we need to call the conflict a genocide, and all future reporting should reflect this.
I don’t think this article is very supportive of the Palestinian people’s struggles. I also don’t think it supports the Israelis. It is tip-toeing the very fragile line of (falsely accused) antisemitism that they write about. It isn’t perfect, but it’s unfair to call it pro Israel.
I agree that they didn’t use enough anti-genocide supporters, their sources were one sided.
But your second critique would require a complete rewrite and would change the article completely.
I agree that pro vs anti genocide is the better way to approach the conflict, however, for reporting purposes, it makes more sense to call it an Israel vs Palestine conflict. Calling it pro vs anti genocide means that you have taken the position of calling the conflict a genocide (which I agree with, it is genocide). But as the article states, Israel does not see this as a genocide and neither do a lot of governments.
AP describes the conflict as a war of Israel against Hamas. Not a war of Israel against Palestine. This could be interpreted as 1) diminishing the genocide and 2) reporting on one specific facet of the conflict ie Israel against Hamas forces, which it could be argued, is a different conflict than Israel against the Palestinian people. This also means that by the articles definitions, Palestinian supporters are different than Hamas supporters.
Their second position does not say one side is correct and one side is wrong. They say
Israel and their supporters, not the AP describe protests as antisemitic.
Critics, not the AP, say Israel is incorrect in their antisemitic descriptions.
If the article did what you wanted, it would be an opinion piece about how we need to call the conflict a genocide, and all future reporting should reflect this.
I don’t think this article is very supportive of the Palestinian people’s struggles. I also don’t think it supports the Israelis. It is tip-toeing the very fragile line of (falsely accused) antisemitism that they write about. It isn’t perfect, but it’s unfair to call it pro Israel.