nytimes.com
www.nytimes.com

With Israel’s expanded assault looming, Zeitoun already resembles other parts of Gaza that have been largely flattened in the war.

    • 3abas@lemmy.worldEnglish
      12·
      2 days ago

      No. And the NY TIMES covered and continues to cover for them, downplaying at every opportunity, and still describing it as a war.

    • 8uurg@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      2 days ago

      It says ‘a neighborhood’ not 'one neighborhood '. Furthermore, in the article, it specifically mentions it represents other neighborhoods in Gaza.

      A neighborhood provides an example of the disregard for innocent human lives behind the Israeli attacks, with visual proof provided by satellite imagery, even if it is one of many.

      Stating one neighborhood would imply it is the only one. While the NY Times does not have the best track record, it is needlessly reductive for an article that shows what is happening in Gaza. Especially as a picture of a neighborhood can actually be more impactful than the whole: close enough that you can see individual places where people leave, far enough to see the extent of destruction.

        • Andy@slrpnk.netEnglish
          2·
          2 days ago

          This is a weird take, because everyone within Israel – both critics and supporters – more or less acknowledges that this is a vindictive ethnic cleansing campaign.

          Most Israeli Jews support it because they would like Gaza’s people and infrastructure to be erased. Some oppose it, often because they recognize that the damage to Israel’s standing is a catastrophe. But this claim that it’s a legitimate war with legitimate aims is not something anyone in Israeli society says except to international audiences.

        • 8uurg@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          2 days ago

          I would love if things weren’t as bad as they looked, but…

          Most of the destruction of buildings in Gaza is of empty buildings with no inhabitants. The IDF blows up or bulldozes buildings when they find booby traps in them, have tunnel entrances, provide military advantage, were used for weapons storage or command, were used as sniper or RPG nests, block lines of sight, to clear security corridors, space for military camps and operations, and so on. The list of reasons is long and liberally applied by the bulldozer operators and sappers on the ground.

          (emphasis mine) While destroying military targets is fair, pretty much every building blocks line of sight, including civilian housing, shops, hospitals, and so on. If applied liberally, this essentially amounts to destroy all buildings. Having your house (and nearby facilities, like shops, schools, hospitals) bulldozed will have a severe negative impact on your ability to live, even if you don’t die in the bulldozing or destruction of your house.

          The IDF warns before major operations and then almost all civilians leave the area. The evacuation of Rafah is a good example for this. There are also targeted attacks, usually by air, in non evacuated areas, but these are only responsible for a small fraction of the destruction.

          (emphasis mine) While the IDF does do this, and this avoids immediate death for many, it still deprives people of human right to housing. Furthermore, a warning does not provide those who evacuate / flee with housing, food and water - for these there are currently significant shortages, while acting on the warning will have a severe negative impact on being able to provide for oneself - one can only carry so much. A disregard for innocent human lives isn’t just civilian deaths, it is also the deprivation of resources that one needs to live.