No. No it doesn’t. Preemption - in the military sense - could be used both offensively and defensively. If you are about to invade a country you could preemptively attack their parliament and barracks’ to make your invasion easier.
Comment on MBFC Credibility - High
Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoThe word pre-emptive implies self-defense.
Israel is “preemptively attacking” the entire region.
Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
Hezbollah started firing missiles at Israel on October 7th and hasn’t stopped since. Of course Israel has a right to defend itself against these and attack their infrastructure.
Do you want Israel to just accept incoming rocket fire from Lebanon?
Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
israel was bombing Lebanon and Gaza far before October 7 where history magically starts.
Furthermore israel assasinated a Hezbollah top leader in Beirut. That was an escalating attack. Lebanon is defending itself right now.
Spzi@lemm.ee 3 weeks ago
You expect a military force to sit tight, not move, not shoot, while they know the enemy is about to attack?
Because, the enemy “is defending itself”?
I’d love to hear that rally speech with which you would motivate your soldiers to just eat incoming rockets without using the tools they have to prevent being attacked.
Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I expect headlines to say “israel strikes Lebanon”. Not “israel pre-emptively self defences in Lebanon”.
You expect a military force to sit tight, not move, not shoot, while they know the enemy is about to attack?
I’d expect israel to accept a ceasefire in Gaza which is a condition given by Iran and Hezbollah to prevent retaliation. That is, if israel wanted to achieve peace. Which it doesn’t.
oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
The only reason ever for Israel to fight in Lebanon was, that it was attacked from its territory. Hezbollah has prepared for this war for over a decade. Destroying Israel is pretty much the only purpose of Hezbollah.
Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Defensing against israel is the only purpose of Hezbollah.
Hezbollah was created as a response to israel terrorism.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
“Casting attacks as” implies they are reporting on what the IDF is claiming though, and doesn’t confer additional editorial meaning beyond that. Of those four it’s the only one with a semblance of journalistic integrity.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Far too many people only skim the headline and maybe the first paragraph of the article and then assume they need don’t need to know anything more.
To include the perspective of Israel in a headline purporting to be neutral is instilling a bias in the mind of such readers no matter how many quotation marks and “Israel says” they use and they KNOW IT for a fact.
When it comes to Israel, the NYT has about as much neutrality and journalistic integrity as they do wrt cops: almost none.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
You’re blaming them for malice in what should be fairly attributed to the stupidity and laziness of the general population, though. If you seriously think they should be writing their headlines with the idea of summarizing the Lebanon/Israel situation in one sentence, you’re probably not their target audience. Including a reference to the statements made by israel in the headline of an article about what israel has said is not unreasonable, regardless of your personal opinion about how that might reflect their bias. It stands that the NYT, of all those headlines, the the only one that doesn’t openly bias themselves towards israel by directly quoting the IDF, and even casts reasonable skepticism on the statements made by the IDF. If you don’t understand that, it’s not really their fault.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
No. The first rule of storytelling, whether it be fiction or journalism, is “know your audience”. The NYT knows their audience and chooses to deliberately mislead people.
That’s not what I’m saying, no. What I’m decrying is their deliberate decision to influence perceptions by including a biased perspective in the headline rather than just a concise summation of what objectively happened.
Pretty ironic that you would accuse me of constructing a strawman in the same sentence wherein you just constructed one yourself, however hypothetical you might have dressed it up.
Yeah, you’re fundamentally missing what the article is about. It’s about what the IDF has DONE. Or at least it would have been if the NYT weren’t failing their profession by acting as stenographers for a genocidal and notoriously dishonest regime.
My opinion, while clear to anyone paying attention, has nothing to do with the fact that including the official IDF version of events in the headline shows clear bias. That’s just objectively true, and would also be if the version of the story was that of Hamas or even the ones whose side I’m ACTUALLY on: the innocent civilians caught between a terrorist group and a genocidal apartheid regime.
That’s the opposite of the truth. To directly quote them in the headline is as naked a bias that they could possibly show, short of the times where they go a step further and don’t even treat it as a quote but just unassailable truth. Like in that awful “Screams Without Words” propaganda piece they still haven’t retracted.
Putting quotation marks around a quote isn’t expressing skepticism. It’s the bare minimum of ass covering required to not risk getting sued for repeating the words of others as their own.
Clearly I’m not the one failing to understand anything, and neither are the NYT. If they were completely new to how journalism works and didn’t have an editor, like you, I might have considered it an honest mistake.
They AREN’T new, though, and they DO have a (presumably highly skilled and experienced since it’s one of the most prestigious jobs in journalism anywhere) editor, though, so there’s no way that they aren’t aware of what such a headline is and does.
To quote the otherwise completely irrelevant Maude Lebowski: don’t be fatuous, Jeffrey.
chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
It’s true that it’s biased in favor of Israel, but I’d say a biased headline isn’t as bad as a misleading one which isn’t as bad as a lie.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It’s misleading by being biased in favor of the IDF who are notorious for being fundamentally dishonest at all times including this one.
So congratulations, you got your triumvirate of shoddy journalism right here.
Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I’m not sure if you’ve genuinely misunderstood me, or if you are commenting facetiously. Assuming good faith: Casting, is not a vague term, although you are correct that it does not imply they are quoting the IDF (who they are not quoting here). It’s meaning is quite explicit in this context. That people may not understand is more the fault of the dire state of literacy in this country than it is of the person who wrote this fairly reasonable headline.
Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
My comment was a bit poorly worded i’m taking the L on this one. NYT did indeed have a small disclaimer.