“HonestReporting or Honest Reporting is an Israeli media advocacy group” [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HonestReporting

Well, TRT World, who spread this story, is extremely biased against Israel and in favor of Islamism. It’s a propaganda outlet for Erdogan. Other outlets repeating it - Al Jazeera, Middle East Eye, etc - are all propaganda outlets and extremely biased on the topic of Israel and Gaza.

And Honest Reporting’s description of this situation seems accurate. What evidence is there really? It seems like one person’s claim is being laundered through many pro Palestine news outlets. That’s basically what this Honest Reporting article says, and that part seems irrefutable.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 days ago | parent [-]

> TRT World, who spread this story, is extremely biased against Israel

Sure. I called that out, too [1]. Two bad sources doesn't a good source make [2].

> in favor of Islamism

Islamism in its formal sense [3] falls into the same category as Christian nationalism in Europe and America, Hindutva in India and the current governing ideology of Israel's government. I am not personally in favor of marrying religion and politics. But I'm not going to discard someone's opinion about something just because they believe that.

> What evidence is there really?

The Independent quotes a named doctor.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47557483

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism#Criticism

▲

SilverElfin 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Two bad sources doesn't a good source make

I agree with the principle. However, the Honest Reporting article isn’t actually making any particular claim and isn’t a “source” in the same way, right? Their article is just pointing out the flaws in the widely-circulated claims from pro-Palestine news media and reasons to be skeptical of those claims.

As for your comparison of Islamism to others - I feel it goes too far in framing these various movements as the same, as these all are different in their goals and the level of intolerance against other beliefs. One key difference - Islamism (the political movement) is much more prevalent among Muslims than Christian nationalism is among Christians. And it preaches the erasure of all other religions entirely. Sam Harris has spoken about this in length if you want to hear it from others. Hindutva isn’t the same as either Islamism or Christian nationalism, since it literally means “Hinduness”. The recent reframing of “Hinduness” into a pejorative is just a vague racist-tinged political attack against a long-colonized people (Indians) trying to keep their culture from being erased by other powers. The intersection of many eastern religions with politics, to whatever extent they exist, are far less of a threat to free societies than the supremacist versions of Christianity and Islam.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		> it preaches the erasure of all other religions entirely Within their relevant geographies, so does, it seems, the other movements. I agree that Islamism is currently more in power and more violent, extreme and ridiculous than those others. But again, I’m not discarding anything they say as a result of it. > Hindutva isn’t the same as either Islamism or Christian nationalism, since it literally means “Hinduness” As it’s practiced it has involved excusing and in many cases encouraging murderous riots. (Islamism parsed literally also sounds innocuous.) > a long-colonized people (Indians) trying to keep their culture from being erased by other powers This is revanchism. All extremists do it. Islamists and Christian nationalists want a return of their golden ages.