“Israel MUST open the borders and allow the United Nations to deliver supplies in sufficient quantities.”
“The United States, which has helped fund the Israeli military for years, cannot sit back and allow hundreds of thousands of innocent children to starve to death,” Sanders (Vt.) said in a statement. “As a result of Israeli bombing and restrictions on humanitarian aid, the people of Gaza are facing an unprecedented humanitarian disaster.”
Israeli forces have killed more than 30,200 Palestinians in Gaza—most of them women and children—while wounding over 71,300 others and displacing around 90% of the besieged enclave’s 2.3 million people. Children are now starving to death, and experts say adults, especially elders and other vulnerable people, will soon follow absent urgent intervention.
Honestly, I originally pulled the “Israeli aggression” quote from this AP article. It was also included in the NPR article I linked, but it is a widely reported fact.
We also have documented instances where deaths clearly include gunfire, which would not be considered “bombardments,” so it’s fair to assume a translation error resulting from a language barrier.
To clarify, the reason I said “It’s a factual and neutral statement,” is that Reuters prides itself on that being free of bias as much as possible. Whether or not they achieve that is up for debate, but it’s included in their Standards & Values..
I don’t think it’s fair to call any news source unbiased and I would be highly suspect of any who claim it of themselves. No one is completely free from the influences of society, money, and politics. Bias is a spectrum with no neutral position. Whatever you believe to be neutral is just a reflection of your own biases.
If there’s a translation error, then surely it’s more likely that the word “bombardments” is just being used as a generic stand in for “attacks with military weapons”. I don’t think that’s a reason to discard the part of the statement that clearly lays out how they are only attempting to count deaths they believe to be the result of “Israeli aggression” and not just counting all deaths and labeling them that after the fact. By limiting what they count they are, in a way, de facto reporting how they were killed; it was something they believed could be reasonably attributed to Israeli aggression. The lack of supporting data doesn’t automatically cast doubt, especially in circumstances where the data has been shown to be reasonably accurate in every other occasion. And any doubt that could be cast by such a deficiency isn’t some plot by Hamas to mislead people with inaccurate data.