I don't like getting involved in political threads but on this I have to.
All information presented is mostly unverified testimony printed verbatim by the press from untrustworthy sources on both sides. It's difficult to tell what is fact and what is not. A lot of early reports in this war turned out to be false information and the rush to immediate news notification rather than quality journalism means that the headline changes context very quickly from the first cut to what people read and remember. (I wrote an extensive suite of software to track this)
Wait and see. Do not judge too early. Take nothing as verbatim from anyone without evidence.
Don't be unknowing partisans of an information war. Veracity takes time.
This has been one of the deadliest conflicts for journalists in history. The number of killed journalists is very safe data, since the names are known and the cause of death is typically relatively well researched.
The story told by the data is that these journalists are overwhelmingly killed by Israeli forces, in some cases with prior notice of the press being where it was.
So if the IDF wants the press to tell the true story on the ground maybe let them do their work without killing them? The quesrion is: at which point do we have to stop assuming incompetence and start to assume malice (at least in parts)? For me personally that point has been months in the past.
This will be a stain on Israel for the rest of history.
I don't disagree with you there at all. That again backs up my point. There is a lot of information and evidence to back those cases up. Which should be the universal standard that we hold everyone accountable to.
This information didn't just appear out of nowhere. It took time to collate, source and verify.
> This information didn't just appear out of nowhere. It took time to collate, source and verify.
Could you try to rely less on using vague innuendo on HN? If you have reasonable doubt in a theory and/or additional/missing information that isn't purely anecdotal that lead you to your statement consider sharing it on here. If you don't have any information consider the option that your opiniom might not be as much supported by the ground truth as you probably like it to be.
Journalists like these are professionals that are paid to work in a conflict zone, if they are killed, of course their death will be noted. It works like this in literally every conflict on earth and there are international organizations that monitor violence against journalists because they are an fundamentally important pillar of any free society.
The question is why the technologically advanced IDF kills journalists at rates higher than in any other conflict zone on earth. This isn't a statistical anomaly that can be simply hand-waved away. It describes the nature of this conflict with numbers that are written with blood.
Anybody who defends the killing of journalists in a war zone is on the wrong side of history, period.
Hamas member gets a press west by hamas newspaper or the muslim brotherhood (quatar) then participates in hamas warcrimes like using ambulances as troop transports and gets humused. Nobody believes those loud lies anymore.. that whole narrative is falling apart.
You are defending the killing of civillian journalists in a war zone using unchecked propaganda — if you make bold claims, you gotta bring the receipts as well.
Is a journalist still a journalist if he’s launching rockets, carry a gun and grenades? Hamas and PIJ has filmed themselves wearing “press” vests while doing these things.
Many of the journalists in Gaza are Hamas operatives until they die. When suddenly their twitter or fb account is used to claim they’re a journalist.
You’re being lied to on a regular basis about nearly everything that comes out of Gaza. Aside from 3rd party medic accounts we have zero evidence of any of these supposed crimes. This is the most filmed war in history and yet after 3 weeks of claims by Hamas that GHF is shooting and booby trapping aid there is literally zero actual evidence to support that.
Please amend the Wikipedia-list on the topic with sourced information if you have the strong evidence required by your extraordinary claim.
In such a conflict both sides have incentives to twist reality, but since the names of the killed journalists are public you can do research and provide a valuable service to the public by ensuring the truth is out there. But this means "trust me bro" isn't going to cut it.
This has nothing to do with the point discussed. Unless of course you want to infer from your (unsourced) allegation that because press freedom is problematic in certain regions it is therefore okay for a foreign nation to kill said journalists, since they weren't free anyways. We would have to ignore the international journalists that got killed for this train of thought to work.
I hope you realize that this would be genocidal rhetoric. The kind of thinking that lead to the worst atrocities humanity has ever committed. But hey as long as it is happening to the dehumanized subhumans it is okay, right?
I think that is what the parent is alluding to, when it comes to waiting for more facts.
One of those facts might be intent or misheard orders. It might just be that this actually happened (as a war crime) but it is probably too early to tell.
Regardless of what happened, it helps to wait until more info comes out.
The "nuanced" rhetoric to add doubt that things may not seem like what they are, is tiresome at this point. neepi's comments seem reasonable, innocent until proven guilty, but it's simply a strategy to exhaust onlookers with bureaucratic formalities of investigation and prosecution under the masquerade of reasonable justice.
It's a cop out and putting one's head in the sand to the real atrocities of zionistic ambitions of usurping Palestinian land.
In America, if someone trespasses into one's home and the home owner kills the trespasser, the vast majority of the time, the owner is justified and there are numerous court cases we can point to. Recently, it has become clear to me that Palestinians are simply trying to defend their own property/land/humanity.
Israel's trespasses are finally seeing the light in the latest set of conflicts and folks reading this comment that are unsure should spend 30 minutes looking up the videos of the conflict.
Israel blocking aid, murdering medical personnel with impunity, the before/after of Gaza, the list of crimes perpetuated by the government is undeniable at this point.
"Look, children may be dying and maybe we're killing them but we need to verify and we need more time. Because first of all what were they even doing there? Oh and also this is our Land anyways and there were no deaths nobody died there aren't even any children in gaza!"
at the point, advocating for neutrality in the face of overwhelming evidence of war crimes day after day after day is a pretty clear indication of not being concerned.
News outlets tell Israeli officers where their journalists intend to be, and they wear jackets that identify them as members of the press. Preventing the journalists from dying is really a matter of communicating to each other, and using visual identification before engaging in direct fire. Both the officers and enlisted have the opportunity to cancel an illegitimate fire mission. Something doctrinal is responsible for this behavior.
Given the unconscionable number of journalists who died at the IDF's hands, it seems like Israel is indeed using the transparency info from journalists to locate and target them with airstrikes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_...
So if a journalist decides to wander away from the potemkin village they get denied access. The journalists going on these ridealongs are not doing journalism. This tactic, which america pioneered in response to vietnam war coverage, is designed to only allow journalists who will tell the right kind of narrative.
This person, a Palestinian, was not attacked for documenting something he wasn't supposed to. That's not the claim in the article. He is said to have documented the "the aftermath of Hamas’s massacre on the Gaza-border communities.” but that doesn't seem to be directly relevant.
The context is a protest: "Haruf says he was attacked without cause after leaving a prayer protest broken up by Israeli security forces in the Wadi Joz neighborhood." not the journalistic activities.
I'm not justifying this FWIW, just that it doesn't prove what you're trying to prove. If anything the publication of this article in Israel shows Israel has freedom of press.
also:
"The Border Police later announced that it had suspended the two officers involved in the incident and that the Department of Internal Police Investigations has opened a probe into the matter."
"The Union of Journalists in Israel condemned the incident and said it was “shocked by the violent attack” on Haruf.
The union said the incident was “the 37th attack on Arab journalists since the beginning of the war” on October 7, when Hamas-led terrorists launched their murderous assault on southern Israel, killing 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking some 240 hostages of all ages.
The union, in a December 15 statement, said “most of the attacks [were] carried out by the security forces. This is a reality that dramatically harms freedom of the press and the ability of journalists to perform their duties.”"
Is this perfect? no. Is Israeli press generally free, attacks/criticizes the government, brings to light bad things that happen, and follow up on them? yes.
Haaretz is the last news organization I would expect to knowingly spread anti-israel disinformation. If these guys are telling you what Israel is doing is bad then it's bad.
Yes, and one of the more prominent ones at that. If they had a bias in this, I would expect them to be biased in favor of Israel not against it. If even they are saying Israel is committing these war crimes then I'm inclined to assume that the evidence must be very compelling.
Just for the record, this is almost certainly wrong in the sense you mean it.
Haaretz is a (far?) left, anti-current-government newspaper. It's not outside the mainstream or anything - it is considered largely credible, and its articles are taken seriously - but most people in Israel would find it funny that you assume it wouldn't be biased against Israel. Lots of Netanyahu supporters routinely consider it a "traitorous" publication.
I think its articles should be taken seriously, but you can't simply assume it's automatically right and not "biased". Think of it the way an American Democrat would think of Fox or something - the news org definitely has a viewpoint.
Lots of people still believe that "critical of the government" is not the same as "biased against the country." That's an explicitly authoritarian belief and a disastrous framework to work within. It's antithetical to the concept of human rights and notable historical documents such as the American Constitution.
The bias of a mainstream publication that's considered "traitorous" by genocidal authoritarian ethnonationalists is, given historical consideration, likely to be toward justice.
I don't think you can frame a media outlet based on which administration is currently in power. Anything and everything an administration says is propaganda, and hence untrustworthy.
I.e. your claim that it is leftist requires some justification.
Yeah, sure, if you are a Nazi, everything to the left of you is going to look "left", and likewise if you are a Communist, everything to the right is going to look "right", that doesn't make your viewpoint reality, however.
I don't think I'm framing Haaretz based on the current administration.
I'm a leftist - I identify far more with what Haaretz is doing than most other news orgs. I'm personally very angry that other orgs, even ones that are "centrist" or "anti-current-government", are not covering the stories that Haaretz is covering, and barely covering the tragedies happening in Gaza. It's common in most countries during wartime, but it's deeply wrong IMO.
That all said, saying Haaretz is on the left is like saying Fox News is on the right. It's common knowledge.
And here, I just looked it up, this is from Haaretz's own About section:
"Haaretz has built a reputation for in-depth reporting, insightful analysis, and a liberal and progressive editorial stance on domestic issues and international affairs."
So they are framing themselves as liberal and progressive.
This nutcase general has faced consistent accusations from soldiers under his own command over the last year for over a dozen incidents alone.
What is your holy threshold for evidence ? How can you "wait and see" if the press is not allowed at the food distribution site ? Basically, you are saying "wait and sweep it under the carpet".
Sorry, but the killing of unarmed civilians seeking aid has been reported half a dozen times by many different outlets. The IDF denials are getting quite absurd. The only one suffering from disinformation is you.
There is a point at which pleas to wait for "better" evidence can be construed as denials.
"There is ample evidence and this is not a new accusation, so your request to wait and see rings hollow and appears to be a de facto request to not pass judgement on Israeli crimes" is neither morally nor intellectually dishonest.
The lack of journalism in this conflict is a direct result of Israel forbidding press access and their targeting of Palestinian and other journalists. This deliberate effort enables them to then criticize the reporting which is done and cast doubt over sources.
Since October 7th sources from within Palestine have been accurate regarding deaths and actions. Often being attacked first and then quietly acknowledged later.
There is no reason to doubt the reporting of Israel’s paper of record, which though considered left wing writhing Israel, supports Netanyahu’s attacks on Gaza and applies rigorous journalistic standards.
I suggest you re-read it a few times. I am not defending any party in this conflict. I want the truth to be established carefully for the sake of everyone. Misinformation just ends up with more bodies stacked up on both sides.
So far all evidence points to bodies being piled on one side. With only few exceptions. Going on over year and half without clear rationale other than vaguely "butbutbut human shields butbutbut propaganda".
By avoiding to admit this you are indeed defending the attacker.
I’m amazed at how you managed to trivialise the deaths of 1915 people in that comment. All people matter on both sides and everyone deserves justice. That only comes if we make accurate prosecutions which requires evidence and due process.
And how dare you make accusations along those lines. Your attitude contributes to the problem.
Fine, what steps were taken to accurately prosecute these 1915 deaths? Are there any people indicted and undergoing fair trial for that? Can you name them? ICC did, but then got practically canceled. So who is to do it and when?
Oh you can't answer that easily without trivializing these deaths yourself. Accusing others, that are suspicious of all of this, of "attitude" is easier.
I haven’t accused anyone less than everyone. There are bad actors on all sides (this spans more than “both sides”).
As for enforcement and prosecution the ICC warrants were justified and the situation that remains is tragic. You can thank the US for throwing a spanner in those works.
I’m not sure why you keep trying to put words in my mouth. Perhaps to justify your partisan position rather than my entirely neutral one? Sure feels like it.
It’s only unlikely because it’s politically inconvenient for it to be unlikely as the nations preventing it don’t want to be judged by the same standards.
That is "only" the strongest motivation in politics. And it ensures any fair justice will happen long after it would have mattered. So deferring to it is not really morally neutral here.
So because Israel has a "long history of humanitarianism", we can dismiss evidence of Israeli war crimes as fictitious hit jobs? And once we've dismissed all evidence of Israeli war crimes, we can conclude that Israel has a "long history of humanitarianism"? Rinse, repeat — do I have that right?
The source is one of the biggest Israeli newspapers, by the way.
> The source is one of the biggest Israeli newspapers, by the way.
I think that's a bit misleading. Per Wikipedia, it has a ~5% readership, as opposed to the bigger papers that have a ~22% readership. It is one of the older and most established papers though, that is true.
Anecdotally, I don't think Haaretz is very widely read among the "average" populace, though I think it has a lot of cachet in intellectual (and of course Leftist) circles.
Thank you for your unbiased opinion shedding objective light on this incident and reporting. You have brought forth excellent evidence for dismissing this evidence.
I'm as prone to it as the next tech-influenced millennial, but we really need to consider the legibility of deadpan sarcastic mockery in an environment where people are inclined to sincerely hold outrageous beliefs.
Credulity is boundless, even (especially) in this world of open information warfare. Messages that require side-channels and discrimination with intentionally limited information are guaranteed to be misperceived and likely to have harmful memetic impact.
That's fair feedback! I struggled to tamp down on a snarkier response that read more like: "I am a direct beneficiary of one side of this debate. If we are to be intellectually honest then we need to be sure to cast as much skepticism as we can muster onto the other side."
Agreed though, earnestness is one of our most urgent shortages.
This rhetoric of “terrorists” is getting quite tiresome.
The world has been watching for over 2 years the atrocities occurring in Gaza and Israel and its people have has lost its credibility to its victimhood on the world stage.
This article is simply 1 extra reporting on a million of Israel’s offenses in the name of terrorism.
All information presented is mostly unverified testimony printed verbatim by the press from untrustworthy sources on both sides. It's difficult to tell what is fact and what is not. A lot of early reports in this war turned out to be false information and the rush to immediate news notification rather than quality journalism means that the headline changes context very quickly from the first cut to what people read and remember. (I wrote an extensive suite of software to track this)
Wait and see. Do not judge too early. Take nothing as verbatim from anyone without evidence.
Don't be unknowing partisans of an information war. Veracity takes time.