As a person that supports secular politics, both ideologies repulse me. The media I trust most to report on this topic are the people with the least to gain from it, the sort of people the parent might dismiss for not being "in the field" enough.
Israel's flaw is theocracy, which does not inherently equate them to their enemies but tragically condemns them to a similar path. Their army is stocked with religious adherents and their population is seeded with nationalist migrants. They're bankrolled by a foreign power that ensures their competency but one that doubts their altruism when acting independently. In effect it's a proxy war of chicken, with hundreds of thousands of innocent civilian lives caught in the middle.
That part I hate. The only thing I'd be willing to concede is that journalists are being suppressed domestically, even though journalist casualties in Gaza suggest a staggeringly different story. In lieu of direct evidence I'll shelf that, but still contend the rest.
Aside from that: Israel is not, in reality, a theocracy (it has theocratic forces in the same way the US and parts of Europe do). Nor is Israel is not "bankrolled by a foreign power"; it would be the preeminent military power in the region were foreign aid completely cut from it.
I am arguing that the distinction doesn't matter when both sides field individuals that behave with equal vitriol. Hamas-controlled Gaza is a neverending humanitarian trainwreck, comparing the strength of it's legitimized institutions to the country pillaging it is a farce. I'll admit that you're right about a lack of Hamas Times newspaper, if that's what you need to be happy.
> it has theocratic forces in the same way the US and parts of Europe do
Does it field serious non-theocratic armed forces? There are none that I'm aware of, but maybe Google is hiding something from me.
Almost the only issue I personally have with any of these discussions is that the tend to back out into some notion of Hamas being comparably legitimate (or, more often, comparably illegitimate) to Israel. This is why I keep saying that the argument I've made here is very narrow.
If it simplifies things for you: rewind the clock to October 6th. Israel has some measure of state control over the media. So does Hamas. Israel and Hamas are not comparable: Hamas is far, far worse. That's it, that's the whole argument. That this argument doesn't prove a bunch of other points (like, "Israel is therefore a liberal democracy") doesn't matter: I'm not making those points, and probably don't believe them.
I understand how message boards work but you're really going to have to take my word for it that this isn't some elliptical way to lay the groundwork for an argument that legitimizes Israel's current occupation of the Gaza Strip.
You say: “Hamas is far, far worse” but how? Israel has litterally just banned al Jazeera, I’m not aware that Hamas has e.g. banned the BBC. If your earlier point was that there was no Haaretz operating in Gaza, but how? Gaza is under occupation and a sever blockade, any media operation is bound to suffer under such circumstances. Free journals without state subsidies are hard in most economies, in impoverished regions like Gaza, much more so. And even if such press could thrive, Israel has been targeting journalists in Palestine even before Oct 7, this includes detention and even assassinations.
The state control which Hamas imposes upon journalism in Gaza is minute next to the state control which Israel imposes upon the same population. Hamas’s control is negligible. Yes they operate their own TV station and Radio. But they do not target journalists operating in Gaza, they do not detain and assassinate journalists, they do no not bomb offices of foreign media operators, they do not ban international media from broadcasting in their territory. Israel does all these things.
This is a rhetorical sleight of hand. I agree: Israel is far more repressive of Gazan journalism than is Hamas. The comparison is between Israel's own journalistic institutions in Israel and Hamas' in Gaza.
If you're wondering, though: it's because Hamas is intrinsically loathsome, and I find people mitigating or even defending it to be motivating.
I’m not super informed about journalism and news access in Gaza (reading about it here[2]), but I was under the impression that Gazans get news from all over the world, not just Al-Aqsa TV, including PBC from the West Bank (meanwhile I’m not sure al-Aqsa TV is available except via satellite in the West Bank). I can be wrong about this, but from what I’m reading it appears that the most widely circulated newspaper in Palestine is al-Quds (based in Jerusalem obviously) which is also circulated in Gaza.
In any case, the Gazans I follow on social media seem to have no problem getting news from non-Hamas sources. So whatever press restrictions Hamas is enforcing, it doesn’t seem to affect the news Gazans are actually receiving much, and if you compare that to the restrictions the Israeli military imposes and the destruction they cause, Hamas is a very minor player in limiting press freedom in Gaza.
1: https://apnews.com/article/israel-middle-east-business-israe...
You're making, as well, the argument that Gazans have access to real journalism (and may themselves practice real journalism) in spite of Hamas. I agree completely. I made a very narrow point about a comparison drawn between Hamas and Israel, that's all.
Israel’s press freedom within Israel is perhaps much better than Gaza’s press freedom within Palestine (as dictated by Hamas). But Palestinians still suffer much much much lower press freedom and Israel enforces several orders of magnitude worse press suppression if you include the cross national interference.
Your point is perhaps correct if we keep it narrow. However, I think it is wrong to keep it this narrow, because it obfuscates a very real democratic malpractice done by the state of Israel.
That Hamas is extraordinarily bad does not make Israel good.
I agree that there is a false equivalence, however I disagree with you that it is Hamas which is extraordinarily bad while Israel is relatively not as bad. The actions Israel employs against free press during this genocide are telling, and have consequences. There may be free press within Israel, however that free press does not have access to Gaza because the Israeli military does not grant them access. The targeting of journalists the Israeli military is guilty of also has consequences for the supposedly free Israeli press. If you are working in Gaza and you are afraid Hamas member will push you off rooftops if you publish a critical piece, well... if you are an Israeli journalist, you should indeed be very afraid if you are going to cover a story about Israel’s crime in Gaza. More then a few journalists have indeed be targeted and killed by the Israeli military for trying to do that, including international journalists.
What you should take from this is that it is the Israeli military that has the greater potential to lie about their crimes here, and there is no free press in this world (especially not in Israel) which can safely cover those lies.