65%
Uncertain

Post by @havivrettiggur

@havivrettiggur
@havivrettiggur
@havivrettiggur

65% credible (90% factual, 40% presentation). Factual claims about Hamas's internal killings in Gaza are supported by recent reports of clashes and executions. However, the presentation is heavily biased with significant omission framing, as it isolates Hamas's actions without contextualizing them within the broader conflict, including Israeli actions and ceasefire conditions.

90%
Factual claims accuracy
40%
Presentation quality

Analysis Summary

The content claims Hamas is currently killing Gazans amid internal conflicts, verified by recent reports of clashes and executions. Author's main finding: Western media and audiences ignore Hamas's role in perpetuating Gaza's suffering, ensuring future wars. Presentation is heavily opinionated with strong pro-Israel bias, omitting broader conflict context.

Original Content

Factual
Emotive
Opinion
Prediction
Hamas are even now killing Gazans and nobody cares. And that's a shame. Not for Israel. None of this helps Israel one bit. It's a shame because the thing you Westerners refuse to understand about Hamas - the thing you are incapable of seeing even when it's happening under your very nose, in part because your media won't show it - is the very thing that will have Gaza back at war before long, and always and forever. Hate Israel all you want. It won't help Gaza as long as Hamas still rules it.

The Facts

Factual claims about Hamas killings are supported by recent reports of internal clashes and executions in Gaza. Overall verdict: Partially credible - facts hold, but presentation is biased and omissive.

Benefit of the Doubt

The author's intent is to highlight Hamas's internal violence to counter Western narratives blaming Israel, advancing a pro-Israel agenda that portrays Hamas as Gaza's primary oppressor. Emphasized: Current Hamas killings and media bias; omitted: Ongoing Israeli military actions, humanitarian crisis scale, or Palestinian perspectives on internal conflicts, which could contextualize events as part of broader instability post-ceasefire. Selective presentation shapes perception by framing Hamas as the sole barrier to peace, ignoring mutual escalations and fostering a one-sided view of the conflict.

How Is This Framed?

Biases, omissions, and misleading presentation techniques detected

highomission: one sided presentation

Presents Hamas killings in isolation, ignoring Israeli actions and ceasefire context that contribute to Gaza's instability.

Problematic phrases:

"Hamas are even now killing Gazans and nobody cares""as long as Hamas still rules it"

What's actually there:

Recent clashes post-Israeli withdrawal (e.g., 27 dead in Gaza City, Oct 2025)

What's implied:

Sole ongoing violence by Hamas without external triggers

Impact: Misleads readers into viewing Hamas as the only aggressor, downplaying the full conflict dynamics and post-ceasefire chaos.

mediumomission: missing context

Omits reports of Gazan resistance to Hamas and broader humanitarian impacts, focusing only on Western indifference.

Problematic phrases:

"nobody cares""your media won't show it"

What's actually there:

Media covers both sides, including BBC reports on executions

What's implied:

Complete media blackout on Hamas actions

Impact: Creates false narrative of universal ignorance, amplifying perceived bias without acknowledging balanced reporting.

Sources & References

External sources consulted for this analysis

Want to see @havivrettiggur's track record?

View their credibility score and all analyzed statements

View Profile

Content Breakdown

1
Facts
1
Opinions
1
Emotive
0
Predictions