The reason I've submitted this to HN is that it is an example of credible suspicions that journalists attempting to provide information to the outside world from within Gaza are being targeted by the military. The targeting of the sources of information itself seems an appropriate topic for HN, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of military operations.
I recall hearing that most modern nations have certain limits on civilian casualties for each military target which usually vary depending on the target's strategic and political importance. IIRC for Bin Laden it was said to be around forty, i.e. it would have been acceptable to the US command for up to forty civilians dying in an operation or strike that would have been guaranteed to also kill Bin Laden. For low value targets these might go as low as zero or just a fraction (i.e. being able to kill N combatants would justify also killing N/X civilians).
Allegedly the IDF also has these limits for their operations in Gaza and elsewhere but the numbers just happen to be significantly higher, e.g. three digits for Hamas leaders. The casualty numbers reported by the Gaza health authority are generally considered credible by journalists and outside observers despite the clear ties to Hamas (which is unavoidable because Hamas is literally the government in Gaza). The conceit seems to be less about whether the numbers are accurate (they're certainly at least accurate in terms of orders of magnitude) but whether they matter.
If you follow this logic, the behavior of the IDF makes a lot more sense. Literally flattening entire parts of Gaza is just par for the course. If the stated goal is to wipe out all of Hamas to the point that they can never pose a threat again (as Netanyahu has been cited in friendly news sources) this means even casualty numbers in the tens or hundreds of thousands would be acceptable if they can accomplish that goal. Of course this causes problems for supportive leaders of allied nations that have much lower values for acceptable casualties.
In this context, I'm not sure if there is conclusive evidence that the IDF is deliberately killing journalists (even if there may be credible allegations around individual incidents) but it seems clear that even if they don't specifically target journalists they seem to be less preoccupied with avoiding them because the "cost" of a dead journalist is lower than it is for e.g. the US armed forces (which doesn't exactly have a stellar reputation in this regard either). If your models tolerate the deaths of, say, 100 people to kill a handful of Hamas, eventually some of those people will have been journalists (or children or foreign aid workers, etc).
EDIT: I also recall a recent news story about the IDF using AI models to determine new potential targets and presumably the expected number of casualties factors into the equation. This brings back memories of Obama (or was it Bush?) being shown "baseball cards" of potential targets during the War on Terror - presumably likewise including probabilities of "collateral damage" as the US used to call it.
I don't see anything in that link that looks like a "credible suspicion". It doesn't even pretend to present evidence beyond the fact that a journalist was killed in a war zone.
> It doesn't even pretend to present evidence beyond the fact that a journalist was killed in a war zone.
While he was working on news coverage over a warzone, the first attempt at his life was not while on duty. He was sitting with his family at home when it got bombed, killing everybody except him. In fact, many reporters were killed/maimed this way, not only while in duty, but while at home. For me that is pretty solid evidence of intentional targeting of journalists to avoid proper coverage of conflict.
Israel's entire assertion is that their real target is hiding among civilians. In such a war, there is no such thing as "off duty".
To make his case he'd need something like a statistical model that reporters were more likely to be targeted than other civilians. Or be able to demonstrate that Israel did not believe that there were legitimate targets in the area. Or something. Just "I went to a war zone and got killed" isn't even pretending to be evidence.
This war is shitty; everything about it is shitty. It's even shittier than other wars, which is really saying something. But just reiterating your preconceptions about who is worse than whom doesn't take in a direction that's less shitty.
It's not a war, it's genocide, and to call what you don't have the integrity to face the "preconception" of others is just rich.
It doesn't matter "who is worse", it matters if your ally and/or the party you are directly materially supporting is committing genocide. Hamas isn't the standard, not being a Nazi is.
"The 10 weeks of war in Gaza have taken a heavy toll on journalists, with at least 64 reporters and media workers killed, the Committee to Protect Journalists said on Friday."
“Dahdouh was hit by shrapnel on his upper arm and managed to reach Nasser hospital, where he was treated for minor injuries, the network reported.
The correspondent – whose wife, son, daughter and grandson were killed in an Israeli airstrike in October – said the Al Jazeera crew had been accompanying civil defence rescuers.”
The man lost his entire family, continued working, got hit by shrapnel, and watched his cameraman die.
My heart goes out to him. What an unfathomable course of events.
8 comments
[ 0.29 ms ] story [ 35.3 ms ] threadAllegedly the IDF also has these limits for their operations in Gaza and elsewhere but the numbers just happen to be significantly higher, e.g. three digits for Hamas leaders. The casualty numbers reported by the Gaza health authority are generally considered credible by journalists and outside observers despite the clear ties to Hamas (which is unavoidable because Hamas is literally the government in Gaza). The conceit seems to be less about whether the numbers are accurate (they're certainly at least accurate in terms of orders of magnitude) but whether they matter.
If you follow this logic, the behavior of the IDF makes a lot more sense. Literally flattening entire parts of Gaza is just par for the course. If the stated goal is to wipe out all of Hamas to the point that they can never pose a threat again (as Netanyahu has been cited in friendly news sources) this means even casualty numbers in the tens or hundreds of thousands would be acceptable if they can accomplish that goal. Of course this causes problems for supportive leaders of allied nations that have much lower values for acceptable casualties.
In this context, I'm not sure if there is conclusive evidence that the IDF is deliberately killing journalists (even if there may be credible allegations around individual incidents) but it seems clear that even if they don't specifically target journalists they seem to be less preoccupied with avoiding them because the "cost" of a dead journalist is lower than it is for e.g. the US armed forces (which doesn't exactly have a stellar reputation in this regard either). If your models tolerate the deaths of, say, 100 people to kill a handful of Hamas, eventually some of those people will have been journalists (or children or foreign aid workers, etc).
EDIT: I also recall a recent news story about the IDF using AI models to determine new potential targets and presumably the expected number of casualties factors into the equation. This brings back memories of Obama (or was it Bush?) being shown "baseball cards" of potential targets during the War on Terror - presumably likewise including probabilities of "collateral damage" as the US used to call it.
While he was working on news coverage over a warzone, the first attempt at his life was not while on duty. He was sitting with his family at home when it got bombed, killing everybody except him. In fact, many reporters were killed/maimed this way, not only while in duty, but while at home. For me that is pretty solid evidence of intentional targeting of journalists to avoid proper coverage of conflict.
To make his case he'd need something like a statistical model that reporters were more likely to be targeted than other civilians. Or be able to demonstrate that Israel did not believe that there were legitimate targets in the area. Or something. Just "I went to a war zone and got killed" isn't even pretending to be evidence.
This war is shitty; everything about it is shitty. It's even shittier than other wars, which is really saying something. But just reiterating your preconceptions about who is worse than whom doesn't take in a direction that's less shitty.
That assertion doesn't hold water.
https://twitter.com/muhammadshehad2/status/17317722618482647...
https://twitter.com/muhammadshehad2/status/17330661183302657...
It's not a war, it's genocide, and to call what you don't have the integrity to face the "preconception" of others is just rich.
It doesn't matter "who is worse", it matters if your ally and/or the party you are directly materially supporting is committing genocide. Hamas isn't the standard, not being a Nazi is.
The correspondent – whose wife, son, daughter and grandson were killed in an Israeli airstrike in October – said the Al Jazeera crew had been accompanying civil defence rescuers.”
The man lost his entire family, continued working, got hit by shrapnel, and watched his cameraman die.
My heart goes out to him. What an unfathomable course of events.