The same Israeli soldier has posted video clips showing soldiers arresting dozens of men, women and children who were stripped, blindfolded and handcuffed in areas across Gaza.

  • DarkGamer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Not a credible source.

    According to Ehud Rosen, MEMO generally supports Islamist positions within Palestinian politics. According to Andrew Gilligan, the Middle East Monitor promotes a strongly pro-Muslim Brotherhood and pro-Hamas viewpoint. Anshel Pfeffer described MEMO as a “conspiracy theory-peddling anti-Israel organisation”. Our review shows that the Middle East Monitor has a left wing bias in the use of loaded words and also in story choices that promote Islamic positions. We could not find any instances of the Middle East Monitor failing fact checks, but they do sometimes source to questionable media outlets and hence garner a Mixed factual rating.

    • Maalus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      “We couldn’t find any instances od it failing fact checks” then why the fuck is it “a mixed factual check”?

      • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        9 months ago

        They’re using a dude from “The Telegraph” in their criticism section.

        The Telegraph is a right wing pro israel tabloid that tells you all you need to know.

        MBFC is has some really pathetic sourcing for their “debunking”.

        On MBFC pro israel sites are highly factual, pro Palestinian sites are “mixed”.

        • ???@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          9 months ago

          I am so close to waging a war on MBFC. Not a single one of them is actually an expert… And they think it’s a “strength” that they made up an unscientific system to rate things.

      • bamboo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        Because that entire site is just one guy’s opinion presented as if it were objective fact. The claims credibility of sources reflects the guy’s biases and opinions and nothing more.

      • DolphinMath@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        If you want an actual answer….

        Middle East Monitor is a pretty small outlet, and not every source on MBFC has an extremely detailed report. It’s a valuable tool, but I would never call it definitive.

        Ad Fontes doesn’t list them at all, which isn’t really surprising given the reach and size of MEMO.

        Also, from MEMO’s website, they don’t try to be unbiased.

        About Us

        There has been a growing need for supporters of, in particular, the Palestinian cause, to master the art of information gathering, analysis and dissemination. This requires well organised, focused and targeted operations. Such initiatives are virtually non-existent in the West today.

        The Middle East Monitor (MEMO) was established to fill this gap.

        Edit: Upon further reading, I can’t help but notice none of their articles have author names attached.

    • isles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      9 months ago

      Anshel Pfeffer

      Pro-Israel Anshel Pfeffer doesn’t like pro-Arab messaging? Color me shocked

    • Deceptichum@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      9 months ago

      It is a credible source and meets the requirements set out in this subreddit.

      Being criticised by right wingers does not take away the credibility, if anything it only adds to its.

      Stop posting misinformation.

      • DarkGamer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s “mixed” factual reporting, which is literally the minimum acceptable in this forum to not be removed, and has high anti-Israel, pro-Islamist bias. Citation above. It’s not what I’d consider a good source. Pointing this out is not, “misinformation.”

        • Deceptichum@kbin.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Oh no anti-Israel! How could anyone be against Israel. Every news source should be a pro-Israel mouthpiece or its garbage!

          Mixed is the same rating The Guardian gets.