155

Israeli military says it can't guarantee journalists' safety in Gaza (news.yahoo.com)

submitted 1 year ago by TinyPizza@kbin.social to c/world@lemmy.world

41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Israel Defense Forces wrote to Reuters and AFP this week after they had sought assurances that their journalists in Gaza would not be targeted by Israeli strikes.

"The IDF is targeting all Hamas military activity throughout Gaza," the IDF letter said, adding that Hamas deliberately put military operations "in the vicinity of journalists and civilians".

The IDF also noted that its high-intensity strikes on Hamas targets could cause damage to surrounding buildings and that Hamas rockets could also misfire and kill people inside Gaza.

all 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] ShroOmeric@lemmy.world 72 points 1 year ago

Well, is this worse from when they shot journalists in the head? Or from when they shoot medics in the chest?
They are not even pretending to care, we need to asmit that Israel is not so much better than Ryssia at this point.

[-] filister@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I would even argue that they are worse.

[-] GONADS125@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Russia was using chemical weapons against civilians in Syria. At least Isreal hasn't done that (yet).

Not defending their genocide tho, just to be clear.

[-] filister@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yes, true, they just used white phosphorus in a highly populated area, which is very questionable to say the least.

[-] GONADS125@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

True, and 100% morally reprehensible.

[-] TheJims@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago

So they’re targeting Journalists what a surprise

[-] jonne@infosec.pub 19 points 1 year ago

And their families as well. The attack on the family of the Al Jazeera bureau chief could only have been deliberate.

[-] iyaerP@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

Yeah, the IDF deliberately targets journalists. We all know this.

[+] DarkGamer@kbin.social -20 points 1 year ago

the IDF deliberately targets journalists.

Citation? Some journalists have been hit but I haven't seen evidence they deliberately targeted them.

[-] TinyPizza@kbin.social 28 points 1 year ago

I guess a fair question to ask in return would be how accurate do you believe Israeli intelligence is at providing location data for bomb strikes in Gaza?

Channel 13 journalist Zvi Yehezkeli admits Israel purposefully and premeditatedly murdered the family of Al Jazeera Gaza bureau chief Wael Dahdouh: “Generally we know the target. For example, today there was a target: the family of an Al Jazeera reporter. In general, we know.”

I'm not sure what level of confirmation you're looking for here but I don't think the IDF is going to come out and say it. I guess a whistleblower?

[-] fubo@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago

In order to admit a wrongdoing, you have to be the party that committed it. If Fox News "admits" that Joe Biden is Satan, that's not an admission.

[-] TinyPizza@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago

So the bar that needs to be met is for Israel to self report on their own war crime. Ok, got it. Makes total sense now. Thanks.

[+] fubo@lemmy.world -6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No, I'm saying the above quote was a false statement. That's all.

[-] TinyPizza@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

So for Joe Biden to be Satan he would have to admit to being Satan? What about pictures of him with a tail or pitchfork? Second hand accounts of transformations? Let's open this up upon your analogy to better understand what works.

Should we listen to religious leaders if they point out he carries the mark of Satan? If there's other lesser demons about should we put more weight to their words if one of them says he's the king of hell? Is there a certain point where enough tangential evidence comes to light that we could say his possession of dark powers is likely?

Please explain for me.

[-] fubo@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Your quote:

Channel 13 journalist Zvi Yehezkeli admits Israel purposefully and premeditatedly murdered the family of Al Jazeera Gaza bureau chief Wael Dahdouh:

Is this Zvi fellow saying he himself murdered Dahdouh? If not, then it's not an "admission". It's just a "claim".

[-] TinyPizza@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

That's not what I asked. We're talking about acceptable burdens of proof for Joe Biden being the devil. What if the pope says he's the devil?

[-] fubo@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago

That wouldn't be "admitting" anything.

[-] TinyPizza@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

That's a quote from a website, it's not my language, and besides we're not talking about that. We are talking about burdens of proof, specifically what it would take to prove something, and that something being the hypothetical status of Joe Biden as president and devil. Stay on topic.

So what would it take in your personal opinion to prove he is the devil? Obviously not saying he is, but lay out a few scenarios.

[-] fubo@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago

It's all that I was talking about.

[-] TinyPizza@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

and we've moved on from that so lets get into it.

[-] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 1 year ago

That is a weird way of saying 'you were right, thanks for being patient and explaining it to me'

[+] DarkGamer@kbin.social -10 points 1 year ago

how accurate do you believe Israeli intelligence is at providing location data for bomb strikes in Gaza?

I have no idea. Do you?

I'm not sure what level of confirmation you're looking for here but I don't think the IDF is going to come out and say it. I guess a whistleblower?

A whistleblower would do it, so would operator footage or data, many forms of evidence would suffice. Right now all you have is a not-credible source wrote an article about an Israeli TV journalist I've never heard of who made a comment that he believes the IDF targeted the family of another journalist. Bold claim but this seems like hearsay. You might want to consider getting your news from more credible sources, like the news wire, AP or Reuters.

[-] TinyPizza@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well here's multiple pieces of reporting then as well as a Wikipedia section on this very topic.

This NPR piece sums up the significance of the journalist death toll quite soundly, as well as speaking about alleged crackdowns on journalists. I found this part striking:

"This is unprecedented," Westcott said.
The committee's latest tally is most likely an undercount, as CPJ officials say they are also investigating at least 100 additional reports of journalists killed, missing, detained or threatened. Among those cases are reports of damage done to journalists' offices and homes, Westcott said.
"Based on preliminary reporting, we've also estimated that 48 media facilities in Gaza have been hit or destroyed," she said.

Here's a New York Times article from a week ago titled "Some Israeli Journalists Express Fear About Conveying Dissenting Views"
The first paragraph or so:

Last weekend, at least a dozen people surrounded the home of a left-wing Israeli commentator who had expressed concern about civilian deaths in Gaza, shouting “traitor” and firing flares in his direction.
This week, a prominent right-wing activist posted a video of himself shouting at and threatening members of a TV crew that was filming Israeli soldiers. Other journalists say they are getting threats and being harassed on social media.

Here's a 2021 article titled "Why Israel Blows Up Media Offices and Targets Journalists" by FreePress.org

Here is the CPJ(Committee to Protect Journalists) report titled "Attacks, arrests, threats, censorship: The high risks of reporting the Israel-Hamas war"

and here is the wiki page titled "Violence against journalists in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war"

Seems like a lot of deaths. Almost so much so that there's a questionable amount where a news org like Reuters would ask for some assurances that they wouldn't be targeted. This article is literally how a news org would say that, but not explicitly, so that they wouldn't automatically trigger reprisals.

“The situation on the ground is dire, and the IDF’s unwillingness to give assurances about the safety of our staff threatens their ability to deliver the news about this conflict without fear of being injured or killed," Reuters said in a statement in response to receiving the Israel military letter.

[+] DarkGamer@kbin.social -6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

None of this proves your claim, that the IDF intentionally targets journalists.

NPR article: Journalist fatalities are high, interesting but doesn't prove that they are targeting journalists. If numbers are higher than usual it seems likely that it's because they are bombing Gaza at a rate much higher than during the second intifada. Bombs are often indiscriminate even when used carefully. The IDF denies targeting them in that same article.
New York Times article: "Some Israeli Journalists Express Fear About Conveying Dissenting Views" - Some members of the Israeli public and right-wingers are angry about journalists who take the side of their attacker. Not sure why you linked this.
FreePress article (holy moly, another terrible source) This op-ed is full of opinions, and the only factual thing it cites is that IDF blew up the building that had AP's press bureau in it. Except, they first notified everyone to leave. which is the opposite of what one would do if they intended to kill journalists.
CPJ article: Interesting, examples of media being forcibly searched for weapons and escorted out of the area by IDF, examples of journalists being attacked by Israeli right-wingers (not the IDF,) mentions journalists who were arrested but with little context on why besides their relatives believing it was reprisal for social media posts, not great behavior towards journalists, but still not evidence the IDF intentionally targets them.
Wikipedia: Examples of violence against journalists in Hamas war - "Violence against journalists by Israeli forces" all journalists were killed by airstrikes, presumably collateral damage. "Claims of IDF targeting of journalists" the reporters called out appear to have been caught in the crossfire. I don't see any evidence presented that IDF intentionally targeted them, but there are certainly some organizations jumping to that conclusion.

Seems like a lot of deaths. Almost so much so that there's a questionable amount where a news org like Reuters would ask for some assurances that they wouldn't be targeted. This article is literally how a news org would say that, but not explicitly, so that they wouldn't automatically trigger reprisals. “The situation on the ground is dire, and the IDF’s unwillingness to give assurances about the safety of our staff threatens their ability to deliver the news about this conflict without fear of being injured or killed," Reuters said in a statement in response to receiving the Israel military letter.

While some of these incidents are troubling and showcase at least a lack of deference to journalists, and at most a hostility to them, correlation is not causation. It could just be this is an active war zone where people are killing each other, and they have other priorities besides guaranteeing the safety of journalists there to be critical of them at present.

[-] TinyPizza@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

It could just be this is an active war zone where people are killing each other, and they have other priorities besides guaranteeing the safety of journalists there to be critical of them at present.

You know how many journalists died covering the Ukraine/Russia conflict since 2014? 17. You know how many this year? 2.

I get that no bar of proof will be high enough for you outside of Israel literally admitting to it or someone escaping with inside proof.

I believe this number is quite telling though.

Since CPJ started tracking the killing of journalists in 1992 there have been 2225 deaths. This conflict accounts for 1/100 of that total in less than 3 weeks.

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You might be right, but that's a bold and very serious claim. I hope others insist on compelling evidence before accepting such suspicions as truth. If these air strikes are intentionally targeting civilian journalists I'd expect that would leave quite a paper trail and involved a lot of people. It would be just a matter of time before some solid evidence of it emerged. Until then, I'm more inclined to believe this is the fog of war in a very bloody escalating conflict than an elaborate conspiracy and cover-up.

[-] TinyPizza@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So again it's only a matter of time before they report themselves for war crimes or there's a whistle blower.

They'd dropped 6,000 bombs 2 weeks ago and reports say that bombardments have only intensified since then. Hell, at this very moment people are saying it's on a whole different level. I'm sure there's a paper trail and targeting data on all of that which will be meticulously preserved, thoroughly analyzed and made public. Not like it's just indiscriminate bombings...

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well whatever evidence it needs to be something more compelling than the number went up. More journalists died than is usual in an escalating war zone does not prove intent. "The IDF targets journalists," is a claim about intent.

Not like it's just indiscriminate bombings...

It's very discriminate, spelled out in Dahiya Doctrine:

the destruction of the civilian infrastructure of regimes deemed to be hostile as a measure calculated to deny combatants the use of that infrastructure and endorses the employment of "disproportionate force" to secure that end.

I expect Israel will probably level the Northern part of Gaza and move the wall, in hopes that distance will provide safety and to encourage Gazans to leave through Egypt once the gates reopen.

[-] TinyPizza@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I'm not sure how "discriminate" it can be when you're approaching the likely number of bombs dropped being on par with the total number of Hamas members (20-25 thousand). History will not look back on this kindly, no matter what debate will be left on what Israels "intent" was.

Even the US is pulling back support right now due to the humanitarian crisis that's unfolding.

[-] filister@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I will leave this here too: https://www.refworld.org/docid/498857ac31.html and https://rsf.org/en/recherche?text=Gaza

If this doesn't convince you that there is an intentional targeting of journalists working from Gaza I don't know what would.

And don't forget the killing of Shireen Abu Aqla, who then initially declined and then admitted. The same killing which was supposed to be independently investigated but this independent investigation never happened.

And don't forget that right now there is a complete internet blackout in Gaza. So the world would only hear the Israeli side of the narrative.

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

https://www.refworld.org/docid/498857ac31.html

Same incident was in the above article; a building was destroyed, Israel warned everyone there before they struck it and claimed Hamas was using the building. If killing journalists was their goal this doesn't seem like the way to behave, though it would certainly disrupt reporting.

rsf.org/en/recherche?text=Gaza

A search query for the term "gaza?" You expect me to read every article that matches that term on this site?
I clicked through a few, reporters killed in airstrikes in Gaza, some more buildings that had media organizations in them were hit among many others, some reporters harassed by IDF soldiers years ago, some journalists arrested. I don't see any of them offering evidence that IDF intentionally targets journalists (or their families which has been suggested elsewhere) with airstrikes, or that anyone intentionally shot journalists.

don’t forget the killing of Shireen Abu Aqla

Hard to forget something I've never heard of before.
And there it is, compelling evidence of a journalist being targeted by IDF! Thank you. I wish y'all had opened with that it would have saved me reading a lot of tangentially related articles.

A CNN investigation in May last year unearthed evidence – including two videos of the scene of the shooting – that there was no active combat, nor any Palestinian militants, near Abu Akleh in the moments leading up to her death.
Footage obtained by CNN, corroborated by testimony from eight eyewitnesses, an audio forensic analyst and an explosive weapons expert, suggested that Israeli forces took aim at the journalist.
While the IDF admitted for the first time last September that there was a “high possibility” Abu Akleh was “accidentally” shot and killed by Israeli fire, its Military Advocate General’s Office said in a statement that it did not intend to pursue criminal charges or prosecutions of any of the soldiers involved.

This seems like tacit if not explicit approval of killing a journalist by IDF, I stand corrected. They publicly apologized but did not punish the one who did it.

[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

This one seemed intentional: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/reuters-videographer-killed-southern-lebanon-2023-10-13/

They were nowhere near any legitimate targets.

[-] GONADS125@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They killed him after he uploaded a geotagged photo on social media. Hard not to be highly suspicious of it being deliberate...

That happened days after BBC journalists were pulled from their van (clearly marked press), and assaulted even after displaying their IDs to IDF. (Source) There's been so many other instances going back for years. It's blatant..

[-] grue@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

Gee, thanks for giving a warning after having already killed like two dozen of 'em!

[-] filister@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

They cut the internet as well so journalists would have a hard time reporting what's happening on the ground. The information war intensifies.

[-] TinyPizza@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

Also from the article

“The situation on the ground is dire, and the IDF’s unwillingness to give assurances about the safety of our staff threatens their ability to deliver the news about this conflict without fear of being injured or killed," Reuters said in a statement in response to receiving the Israel military letter.

Would you say that it's just indiscriminate bombing at this point or that it's more of a deliberate threat?

[-] BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 year ago

Both.

They want to “cleanse” Palestine, but they can’t have those pesky journalists reporting on all of their blatant war crimes

[-] fart@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

god it's so refreshing that the IOF doesn't have a posting presence on lemmy

[-] Shotgun_Alice@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Can’t or won’t.

[-] BassTurd@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

It's because they are also terrorists.

[-] TinyPizza@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Can't make an omelette without dropping a JDAM or two. Kitchen should have known better than to be harboring eggs.

this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023

155 points (96.4% liked)

World News

38968 readers

2352 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

quinten@lemmy.world

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world