Humanitarian who believes in the framework of international law.

Have strong opinions, but welcome all civil discussions.

Mastodon: @BrikoX@freeradical.zone

  • 502 Posts
  • 143 Comments
Joined 3 年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年7月9日

help-circle
  • We all know that most Zionists are Jews, but it’s not Judaism we’re objecting to it’s Zionism.

    It’s a fair distinction, but it doesn’t really apply here. From your first post you were talking about war crimes IOF commited, but this article is not about that.

    The point of the article is to compare Jewish Canadians military participation specifically and reveal the cause for why there is a big disaparity between them serving in Canadian armed forces vs Israeli. It’s not painting all Jews with the same brush.

    If the article was about Chinese Canadians or Japanese Canadians or Arab Canadians or any other ethnic minority it wouldn’t be because of hatred of those ethnic groups…

    And I agree with you that most Jewish institutions are Zionist. While Zionism is not a reflection of Judaism, these Jewish institutions exclusively target Jews. While you could call them Zionist it’s not unfair to call them Jewish.


  • It’s framed as “Jews have allegiance to the Jewish nation which compromises, and is stronger than their allegiance to Canada”. This is just basic anti-Semitism.

    That’s not the framing. It just highlighted the 3 to 1 disparity and came to the conclusion that mainstream Jewish institutions effectively indoctrinate these Jews into joining the Israeli military.

    “The vast majority of Canadian Jews do not join the Israeli military. However, mainstream Jewish institutions in the country — synagogues, schools, camps, etc. — generally valorize the Israeli military, pass this framing of it on to youth and offer opportunities for them to immigrate to Israel, which almost always entails becoming a soldier. Those who join the military are not on the fringes of their community, but rather have taken the direction by mainstream institutions to serve Israel to its furthest extent.”



































  • Is the “elite media” now is trying to “cultivating public consent” as the article says, or - as you say - do they try “to find middle ground”?

    Both. As you said in the first few words of your comment, my comment was also “Irrespective of the topic <…>” and instead a direct response to you, not the attached article.

    Look at how corporate media tried to justify US illegally kidnapping a president of a sovereign country. It’s against both US and international law, but media tried to manufacture consent for it by saying that Maduro was a bad guy.

    Now look at flight attendants union strike in Canada where corporate media represented the postion of the government, the airlines and called flight attendants unreasonable for inconveniencing the travelers by demaning that they get paid for full day of work instead of just when they are in the air. That’s clear anti-worker reporting that hurts working people and defends corporate interests.


  • Overall, they have a strong bias in narratives <…>

    Advocacy journalism is popular for a reason. When average corporate media tries to find middle ground position between someone working 2 jobs to survive and someone owning 10 yacths, it’s refreshing to hear postions that represent 99% instead of 1% of people.

    In this particular case, they are pretty open about what they stand for: https://breachmedia.ca/about/

    <…> it’s by definition neither independent nor quality media imo.

    It’s objectively independent as they are not funded by any single interest group, but actual readers. That doesn’t mean they don’t have their own opinions and perspectives.