[HN Gopher] Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war
        
       Author : Qem
       Score  : 207 points
       Date   : 2024-03-05 13:44 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (cpj.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (cpj.org)
        
       | macawfish wrote:
       | I appreciate that this is on here and I hope we can collectively
       | handle it. Tech isn't isolated from this situation, as difficult
       | as it is to admit and talk about with civility and care. A US
       | military software engineer even self immolated recently in
       | protest of what's happening.
       | 
       | I don't see what's happening in Gaza as being culturally
       | particular to the specific identity groups involved here. It's a
       | very human situation and we are all at risk of falling into these
       | kinds of collective behaviors.
        
         | McNutty wrote:
         | Strongly disagree. This platform for tech news should not
         | become a place for political posts, nor even for posting
         | regular news headlines. Yes we know that reddit sucks but stop
         | trying to make hn into reddit.
         | 
         | Also the community can't handle it, just look at the handful of
         | comments we already have here.
        
           | dang wrote:
           | HN's standard about this question has been stable for many
           | years: some stories with political overlap are both
           | inevitable and in keeping with the mandate of the site. The
           | question, when it comes to the biggest political topics, is
           | which stories clear that bar.
           | 
           | I've posted about this many times, including quite a few
           | explanations specific to the current topic:
           | 
           | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39435324 (Feb 2024)
           | 
           | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39435024 (Feb 2024)
           | 
           | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39237176 (Feb 2024)
           | 
           | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38947003 (Jan 2024)
           | 
           | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38749162 (Dec 2023)
           | 
           | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38657829 (Dec 2023)
           | 
           | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38657527 (Dec 2023)
           | 
           | Here are links to lots of past explanations I've given about
           | the principles we use to decide these questions more
           | generally:
           | 
           | https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que.
           | ..
           | 
           | https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.
           | ..
           | 
           | https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.
           | ..
        
             | leereeves wrote:
             | If this topic merits discussion on HN, can you do something
             | about the flagging? It seems like someone is flagging every
             | comment to prevent discussion.
        
               | dang wrote:
               | Edit: oh, you were asking about comments. In my haste I
               | missed that and thought you were asking about
               | submissions.
               | 
               | There are lots of comments in this thread that aren't
               | flagged, so discussion isn't being prevented. It's true
               | that a lot of the earlier comments were flagged, but that
               | was (or should be) because they were flamebait. It's one
               | of the downsides of internet commenting that the
               | flameiest and most reflexive comments appear first in a
               | thread--because those reactions are the quickest to flare
               | up. Better, more reflective comments always take longer
               | [1]. This goes 1000x for a topic like this one,
               | unfortunately.
               | 
               | [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=t
               | rue&sor...
               | 
               | -- original reply --
               | 
               | I've answered that several times in the links I listed;
               | can you take a look and, if there's something specific I
               | haven't addressed, let me know?
               | 
               | (I don't mean to be dismissive--it just takes a
               | surprising amount of time to write those things and I
               | can't do it at the moment.)
        
             | hersko wrote:
             | Hey Dang, huge fan of HN.
             | 
             | How do you reconcile HN's political neutrality and the fact
             | that almost every overtly political story that hits the
             | front page about certain subjects[1] are blatantly biased
             | on one side?
             | 
             | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39435324
        
               | dang wrote:
               | I think it's a legit concern and it worries me too.
               | 
               | We can only go by the articles that users submit, and
               | then only the subset we see, which is a function of (a)
               | randomness and (b) users bringing specific cases to our
               | attention. If there's a bias in the stories that have
               | made HN's front page, that bias is present in the
               | underlying data (I mean this stream of articles) to begin
               | with. Why might that be? Well, there are a lot of
               | possible reasons and people would most likely dispute
               | about those as much as they do about the underlying
               | topic.
               | 
               | For what it's worth (which may not be much), all I can
               | tell you is that we want deeply, and are trying hard, to
               | be even-handed. At the same time, we're not going to
               | apply some sort of mechanical both-sides balancing
               | because, although it might make things superficially
               | easier in the short term, I don't think it would be in
               | the spirit of the site, and we don't do that about
               | anything else.
               | 
               | The even-handedness I'm talking about is probably a lot
               | easier to notice in our moderation of comments, so far,
               | than of the articles. I feel pretty confident that we've
               | done a good job of that [1], more than I am about the
               | articles. Perhaps that's because there have been
               | thousands of comments, but only a handful of frontpage
               | articles, on the topic. One consistent lesson of HN is
               | that you can't draw general conclusions from a handful of
               | datapoints (even though everyone always does; it seems to
               | be unavoidable). It takes a lot more than that before
               | reliable patterns show up.
               | 
               | What matters to me is that there be principles underlying
               | the moderation decisions and that they get applied
               | equally. This isn't fully achievable because there's
               | always interpretation involved--we don't get every call
               | right. But I think the principles, at least, are the
               | right ones for HN (I've explained what these are in the
               | links mentioned above), and I'm always open to hearing
               | arguments about how to apply them more even-handedly.
               | When people make a fair point, such as xyzelement did
               | about the submitted URL of the OP
               | (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39621225), we're
               | happy to change something. Another example that sticks in
               | my mind is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39146630
               | from a few weeks ago. That was about title, not URL, but
               | the principle is the same.
               | 
               | I don't know how satisfactory this answer can possibly be
               | but I hope it's at least clear that I hear you and care
               | about the question.
               | 
               | [1] That is, when people break HN's rules in the
               | comments, such as by posting flamebait or snark or
               | personal attack, we flag and/or reply and/or ban
               | irrespective of what the commenter is for or against. It
               | might not appear that way to many readers who have strong
               | passions on a topic, but it's not as hard to do as one
               | might assume, especially after 10 years of practice.
        
               | hersko wrote:
               | Thanks for the response. I guess i just don't understand
               | why some political stories make it through, when the vast
               | majority (like this one[1]) are rightfully flagged.
               | 
               | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39622270
        
               | dang wrote:
               | If you look at the links I listed in my GP comment, I've
               | posted quite a few explanations of how and when we turn
               | off the flags on an article. If there's a question I
               | haven't answered there, I'd like to know what it is.
        
               | hayst4ck wrote:
               | Saying something is biased on one side and therefore
               | wrong or unfair is incorrect because it denies the idea
               | of objective truth.
               | 
               | If there is no such thing as objective truth, then nobody
               | has any foundation upon which to make any judgements, and
               | therefore power alone becomes the ultimate arbiter or
               | conflict.
               | 
               | The idea that there is no objective truth is a core tenet
               | of fascism.
               | 
               | So in a "curious" place you would expect openness to new
               | explanations, but you would also expect one-sided-ness
               | because there _is_ an objective truth to approach and the
               | purpose of curiosity is to approach that truth.
               | 
               | If there is no objective truth, there is no reason to be
               | curious.
               | 
               | If there is an objective truth, then there is no reason
               | to complain about one-sided-ness because what matters is
               | our best approximation of the truth.
               | 
               | A quote from Yale professor of history Timothy Snyder's
               | book: _On Tyranny_                    To abandon facts is
               | to abandon freedom.        If nothing is true, then no
               | one can criticize       power, because there is no basis
               | upon which           to do so. If nothing is true, then
               | all is           spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for
               | the most blinding lights.
        
           | Qem wrote:
           | For me this article raised a estimation problem that I deem
           | as interesting as the German tank problem[1]. I took a crack
           | at it. Wish to see what people with better statistical
           | knowledge than me think of the data and the conclusions. I
           | think my maths/stats intuition for problems like this is OK,
           | but I lack rigour.
           | 
           | [1]. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tank_problem
        
           | ciconia wrote:
           | > This platform for tech news should not become a place for
           | political posts, nor even for posting regular news headlines.
           | 
           | What's a political post? What's "regular news"? And where do
           | you draw the line? If not interested, you can just move on
           | and ignore. There's plenty of AI articles all over the front
           | page.
        
             | McNutty wrote:
             | What is the appropriate number of times to "just move on
             | and ignore" before finally deciding to say something
             | because the integrity of hn as a platform is at risk?
        
               | boringg wrote:
               | I don't follow your logic. How does having to be part of
               | some political conversation make the site lose its
               | integrity?
               | 
               | You have it completely the opposite by forcing into the
               | conversation you destroy the integrity of the site.
               | 
               | There is nothing in this conflict that requires HN
               | community to have to take a position. This isn't world
               | war II or anywhere near that level of global concern.
        
           | whatshisface wrote:
           | We know and work with Israelis and former Palestinians, and
           | it is difficult enough to navigate the stresses without the
           | added complexity of each side reading totally different news
           | outlets and never talking about it in the same forums. I
           | always try to handle this stuff at work (and political issues
           | are _absolutely_ part of the lunchtime tapestry that impacts
           | the cohesion of engineering teams) by sticking to the facts,
           | but we need to agree on some shared reality for the facts to
           | be a safe  "home base" for diplomatic answers to the tough
           | questions we can't avoid... I think it is very important for
           | some amount of news to leak into the common spaces, as long
           | as we can keep from arguing about it on a level higher than
           | its veracity or importance.
        
           | alexvoda wrote:
           | I believe it is impossible to disentangle non-politics (tech
           | included) from politics because that in itself is a political
           | stance.
        
           | immibis wrote:
           | Unfortunately, everything is politics and politics is
           | inescapable. "Ignoring politics" is _also_ a political action
           | and a political statement.
        
         | l3mure wrote:
         | Yeah, there's plenty of relevant tech angles, whether that's
         | Israelis utilizing AI to pick targets while acknowledging they
         | know exactly how many civilians they're going to kill in the
         | process [1], Israeli spyware being used to hack people
         | everywhere in the world, etc.
         | 
         | [1] https://www.972mag.com/mass-assassination-factory-israel-
         | cal...
        
       | ciconia wrote:
       | > Around 10% of Gaza's journalists have been killed versus 2.5%
       | of healthcare workers.
       | 
       | One possible explanation is that journalists have a much higher
       | probability of being close to where the fighting is, than
       | healthcare workers.
        
         | g-b-r wrote:
         | That healthcare workers comparison does indeed not make much
         | sense, it should be healthcare workers involved in retrieving
         | the injured, which are indeed at very high risk (even though
         | theoretically they shouldn't be targeted)
        
         | simpletone wrote:
         | 10% would be considered an extremely high death rate for
         | soldiers involved in the fighting. Even 2.5% for healthcare
         | workers is ridiculously high.
         | 
         | Would be interesting to see what the death rates for
         | journalists, medics, soldiers, etc was in afghan war, iraq war,
         | vietnam war, etc. I highly doubt any reaches 10%.
        
           | JumpCrisscross wrote:
           | > _10% would be considered an extremely high death rate for
           | soldiers involved in the fighting. Even 2.5% for healthcare
           | workers is ridiculously high._
           | 
           | Hamas based their operations where conventional rules of war
           | prohibit fire. That makes comparing casualty rates incredibly
           | difficult. (To my knowledge, nobody else has done this so
           | comprehensively. Though given its success, I expect it to be
           | emulated. Which unfortunately means prohibitions on bombing
           | hospitals, schools and places of worship are now obsolete.)
        
             | licebmi__at__ wrote:
             | >Though given its success, I expect it to be emulated.
             | 
             | I'm wondering by what metric do you define success.
        
               | hersko wrote:
               | A lot of civilians being killed by the enemy driving
               | global condemnation.
        
               | falcor84 wrote:
               | Are there any other examples from history where the goal
               | of combatants was (or at least appeared to be) to
               | maximize the destruction of their own side? If so, what
               | were the outcomes of these?
        
               | JumpCrisscross wrote:
               | > _Are there any other examples from history where the
               | goal of combatants was (or at least appeared to be) to
               | maximize the destruction of their own side?_
               | 
               | Every false flag operation designed to rally support for
               | a conflict.
        
               | falcor84 wrote:
               | I'm not quite clear on what you're implying here, but in
               | any case I would prefer to find an example of a prolonged
               | war rather than an isolated false flag operation.
        
               | golergka wrote:
               | Gaza civilians are not on the Hamas "side".
        
               | bawolff wrote:
               | I mean, they have managed to hurt israel's position on
               | the world stage & economy quite significantly relative to
               | their actual military power.
               | 
               | Hardly seems worth it to me, but i guess you could argue
               | that is success of a sort.
        
             | hmcq6 wrote:
             | This is unfounded.
             | 
             | I'm still waiting on a single shred of evidence to drop
             | about the AP building from 2-3 years ago
             | https://apnews.com/article/israel-middle-east-business-
             | israe...
             | 
             | > Which unfortunately means prohibitions on bombing
             | hospitals, schools and places of worship are now obsolete.
             | 
             | Even if Hamas _was_ fighting from hospitals and schools
             | that is not how this works. Israel would be required to
             | give those schools and hospitals warning first which they
             | have not been doing.
             | 
             | And assuming (incorrectly) that Israel was following the
             | rules of engagement and giving the civilians warning, why
             | are they hitting the refuge camps with 2000lb dumb bombs?
             | Why not guided bombs?
        
               | nsguy wrote:
               | Israel has ordered hospitals to evacuate, e.g.:
               | https://healthpolicy-watch.news/who-calls-for-israel-to-
               | resc...
               | 
               | I think you're generally wrong on the "they have not been
               | doing" comment. Israel has been giving warnings, and
               | those warnings were intentionally being ignored to
               | maximize the damage to Israel's reputation. But if you
               | have some comprehensive data here I'd be interested in
               | seeing it.
               | 
               | From my observation the pattern has been Israel giving
               | warnings/ordering evacuations with the response being "it
               | can't be done" only to end with significantly more
               | difficult conditions.
               | 
               | Israel did demand that the entirety of Northern Gaza be
               | evacuated from civilians (including those "camps" you
               | mention, more below, and including all those hospitals)
               | which was again pushed back on as "impossible" or
               | physically prevented by Hamas which in turn caused
               | increased civilian casualty rates _and_ the eventual
               | almost full evacuation under significantly more difficult
               | conditions.
               | 
               | The use of the terminology "refugee camps" is also
               | confusing. Some of what the media refers to as "refugee
               | camps" are permanent settlements, effectively cities,
               | where the population consists of many 1948 refugees. Not
               | what most people think about when they hear "refugee
               | camps". As to why heavy bombs are used I'm not an expert
               | but potentially to penetrate deeper and there might be
               | other reasons.
               | 
               | All that said, I think it should be acknowledged that
               | some of the methods Israel is using are likely to try and
               | achieve some psychological advantage against the enemy. I
               | don't think this that's necessarily a violation of
               | international law given that warnings were given. It's
               | within the realm of what I would call a military
               | objective (demoralizing the enemy forces and destroying
               | their infrastructure).
        
               | adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
               | if Russia says that everyone in the UK has to leave the
               | UK that doesn't give them the right to bomb every
               | hospital in the UK
        
               | nsguy wrote:
               | That's true but if the UK military intentionally embeds
               | in all UK cities, in civilian clothes, and launches
               | rockets at Russia from those cities, and the UK sends
               | raids into Russia to kill Russians and then retreats and
               | mixes with civilian population in the UK, what do you
               | feel is a legitimate move or tactic by Russia to defend
               | its citizens in this hypothetical situation?
        
               | rakoo wrote:
               | And what if Russia had been colonizing Scotland, then
               | Wales, then half of England, only left disjointed pockets
               | of UK residents not allowed to vote, being watched 24/7,
               | being beaten, harassed and killed by settlers under the
               | watch of Russian army, and then being beaten when going
               | to the funeral of their dead, being robbed of their
               | natural resources, having to go through checkpoints to
               | see their family, London being half the UK capital and
               | half the Russian capital but actually Russia says the
               | entirety of London is, Russia bombing neighbour
               | countries, all of this illegal and happening for 75 years
               | and no one in the world does anything because the richest
               | country in the world blindly supports Russia ?
               | 
               | Context, always.
        
               | almogo wrote:
               | That's absolutely not a reasonable comparison.
        
               | hmcq6 wrote:
               | I didn't say that Israel has never ordered an evacuation.
               | I pushed back on the commenter who stated that finding a
               | militant in a hospital or school makes it a valid target.
               | 
               | > From my observation
               | 
               | Well from Human Rights Watches observation:
               | 
               | > Human Rights Watch has not been able to corroborate
               | them, nor seen any information that would justify attacks
               | on Gaza hospitals. When a journalist at a news conference
               | showing video footage of damage to the Qatar Hospital
               | sought additional information to verify voice recordings
               | and images presented, the Israeli spokesperson said, "our
               | strikes are based on intelligence." Even if accurate,
               | Israel has not demonstrated that the ensuing hospital
               | attacks were proportionate.
               | 
               | https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/14/gaza-unlawful-
               | israeli-ho...
               | 
               | > I don't think
               | 
               | Again, giving a warning doesn't make it ok to bomb a
               | school. Notice how the HRW quote mentions the attack not
               | being "proportionate"? That's why I seek advice from the
               | experts.
        
               | jonbodner wrote:
               | You are aware of Human Rights Watch's history with
               | Israel, right? Here's a taste:
               | 
               | https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2009/07
               | /fu...
        
               | leereeves wrote:
               | > the organization's senior Middle East official, Sarah
               | Leah Whitson, attempted to extract money from potential
               | Saudi donors by bragging about the group's "battles" with
               | the "pro-Israel pressure groups."
               | 
               | What's wrong with that? Any honest observer will have
               | battles with groups who want to spin the truth.
               | 
               | I'd say one of the biggest problems in the US political
               | system right now is that we don't have enough
               | organizations willing to battle against our own partisan
               | pressure groups (without siding with any of them).
               | 
               | Perhaps that's what's troubling: so many of our
               | organizations have taken sides that it's difficult to
               | understand an organization that hasn't.
               | 
               | As for raising money in Saudi Arabia: they were raising
               | money from private supporters there, not the Saudi
               | government. Do you think no one in SA supports human
               | rights?
               | 
               | Or, if the suggestion is that HRW is siding with the
               | Saudis, take a look at:
               | 
               | https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/north-africa/saudi-arabia
        
               | bawolff wrote:
               | When it comes to international law, i think human rights
               | groups are more like the "prosecuter" than a neutral
               | party. They have an interest in this conflict that is not
               | the same as Israel's.
               | 
               | When HRW says Israel is bad, i think its a bit like when
               | a cop says the person they arrested is bad. It may very
               | well be true, but i wouldn't put it as a sure thing until
               | some sort of trial is done.
               | 
               | P.s. in regards to "porportionate" - keep in mind that
               | has a special definition in international law that is
               | different from how people use it in normal conversation.
        
               | erokar wrote:
               | > They have an interest in this conflict that is not the
               | same as Israel's.
               | 
               | You are quite right, Israel's interest is to kill and
               | displace the Palestinians, crush them as a people. Very
               | few human right groups would have an interest that aligns
               | with that.
        
               | bawolff wrote:
               | Israel would and has claimed otherwise.
               | 
               | Maybe you don't believe them, but if the goal is to
               | determine truth its probably better to start from a place
               | of assuming innocence and change views based on evidence,
               | not the other way around.
        
               | nsguy wrote:
               | "Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical
               | purposes must be respected and protected in all
               | circumstances. They lose their protection if they are
               | being used, outside their humanitarian function, to
               | commit acts harmful to the enemy."
               | 
               | We've seen some evidence that hospitals are used outside
               | their humanitarian function.
               | 
               | It's true that even if the hospital loses it's protection
               | that does not mean that it's ok to just go ahead and
               | level it because of the presence of a single combatant
               | (and that hasn't happened, I'm pretty sure e.g. no
               | hospital in Gaza suffered a direct bombing attack e.g.
               | but it may be ok under certain circumstances to
               | completely level a hospital that is used for military
               | purposes if enough warning has been given), the
               | proportionality principles still applies. Proportionate
               | has a very specific meaning in terms of the Geneva
               | convention which most people aren't familiar with. I
               | agree that the IDFs actions must be proportionate in that
               | sense. The IDF claims its actions are. The IDF has
               | lawyers that evaluate actions against international law.
               | 
               | Human Rights Watch isn't necessarily an unbiased observer
               | here. Naturally they would not have access to the IDF's
               | intelligence and the IDF can be justified in not sharing
               | its intelligence to protect its sources.
               | 
               | My basic take is why is it beneficial for the IDF to
               | waste time and resources attacking hospitals that have no
               | military use? It's bad PR, it's wasted efforts that could
               | be directed somewhere else. Doesn't make sense. It's
               | possible it could be "more careful" in avoiding those in
               | certain situations. Is it the highest item in the
               | priority list (e.g. above the security of IDF soldiers),
               | probably not.
        
               | hmcq6 wrote:
               | > [It] Doesn't make sense
               | 
               | It does when your enemy is Amalek.
               | 
               | https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/south-
               | africa-is...
        
               | nsguy wrote:
               | There's certainly been no shortage of rhetoric on the
               | Israeli side to exact revenge for Oct 7th. Some of it
               | very extreme. The events of that day traumatized
               | Israelis.
               | 
               | I don't think most Israelis really think the Palestinians
               | are the biblical "Amalek". More like the children of
               | "Ishmael", i.e. "cousins". They likely do view Hamas
               | specifically as an entity that should be annihilated.
               | i.e. all 40k or so Hamas combatants killed or captured.
               | But even if we take this at face value it's still stupid
               | to waste energy on a place that's known to not be a
               | military threat while there are active military threats.
               | First finish the military threat.
        
             | phone8675309 wrote:
             | > Hamas based their operations where conventional rules of
             | war prohibit fire.
             | 
             | This has not stopped the IDF
        
               | sgift wrote:
               | Yes, and if you look up the rules of war you will see
               | that if you base your operations there the enemy is
               | allowed to attack it. Besides a desire to not kill your
               | civilian population that's another reason countries don't
               | do that. But Hamas doesn't care for civilians.
        
               | tacomonstrous wrote:
               | >But Hamas doesn't care for civilians.
               | 
               | Neither does the IDF by all available evidence.
        
               | psunavy03 wrote:
               | Protected sites lose their protected status under the law
               | of armed conflict if they are used to hide/support
               | combatants. Agree or disagree with Israel's targeting
               | policies; that's still the law and has been for decades.
        
               | archagon wrote:
               | If the law permits thousands of innocents to be
               | slaughtered, then maybe it needs to change.
        
               | vladgur wrote:
               | THe reason these "international laws" are accepted by
               | majority of modern nations is because they are somewhat
               | reasonable and allow parties to military conflicts to
               | wage military campaigns while attempting to minimize
               | civilian casualties.
               | 
               | If the laws are rewritten to state "you are never allowed
               | to attack a hospital or a school. No exception", then
               | what will follow is one party to the war will put their
               | military installation insides schools and hospitals and
               | the other party to the war to the war will say "these
               | geneva conventions are unreasonable and we wont follow
               | it"
               | 
               | In other words, nobody would respect Geneva conventions
               | if they are unreasonable
        
               | archagon wrote:
               | Regardless of any second-order effects, the truth on the
               | ground is that many thousands of innocents are suffering,
               | and I have a hard time seeing any societal configuration
               | where civilians can be legally blown up or starved en
               | masse as anything but immoral. If a terrorist government
               | is embedded in your population centers, it should not be
               | legal to raze those population centers in retribution.
        
               | colonCapitalDee wrote:
               | This a common misunderstanding of the international laws
               | of war, and international law in general.
               | 
               | In our personal lives the government can compel us to
               | follow the law with the threat of overwhelming force; if
               | I break the law I will be arrested, and regardless of how
               | much I fight back I will not be able to stop it. Laws in
               | our everyday lives are like commands from a parent to a
               | child; the government, as the parent, can and will compel
               | the child's obedience.
               | 
               | International law is different. If a state breaks
               | international law, there is no entity willing or capable
               | of using overwhelming force to compel obedience. States
               | have armies and some have nuclear weapons; the amount of
               | force required to compel a state to behave a certain way
               | is huge, and generating that force is extremely costly.
               | When states break international law there are
               | consequences, but at the end of the day violence is
               | generally not on the table.
               | 
               | Effective international law is a balancing act. An
               | international standard of warfare that placed extremely
               | strict standards on when it was permissible to kill
               | civilians would make fighting a war significantly harder.
               | No state would obey such a law because winning the war is
               | the absolute highest priority, making the law worthless.
               | Instead, laws of war try to outlaw actions that don't
               | affect the ability of a country to win a war. No chemical
               | or biological weapons (high explosives are more
               | effective), humane treatment of prisoners (discourages
               | the enemy fighting to the death), and no killing
               | civilians unless in the pursuit of a military objective
               | (if it's not in pursuit of a military objective, then
               | it's a waste of resources). The goal of the laws of war
               | is to prevent unnecessary violence, not prevent violence
               | altogether. It's a case of "perfect is the enemy of
               | good."
        
               | tekla wrote:
               | As it turns out, you can't say everyone is a noncombatant
               | in an area, and then place combatants there and think
               | everyone is ok with that.
        
             | immibis wrote:
             | What's the point of hiding soldiers among civilian targets
             | if Israel is just going to bomb the civilian targets? The
             | point of any fighter using human shields is that _the enemy
             | doesn 't fire because they don't want to hurt the human
             | shields_. If they're willing to kill the human shields,
             | they don't help you, so why bother with them?
             | 
             | This apparent myth rubs me the same way as "there's no food
             | because Hamas is stealing it" - really? All of it? For what
             | purpose?
        
               | Scarblac wrote:
               | > What's the point of hiding soldiers among civilian
               | targets if Israel is just going to bomb the civilian
               | targets
               | 
               | Getting international opinion to turn against Israel.
               | 
               | Thats the way Hamas can survive this, getting enough
               | pressure on Israel to make them stop.
        
               | someotherperson wrote:
               | It's just noise. Scaling this to other examples: _if
               | there was a school shooter inside a school, should the
               | school be bombed?_ The answer is a resounding no, but
               | with Gaza it turns into a yes.
               | 
               | This is why the common rhetoric given from politicians
               | and jingoists is that all of them are guilty and that no
               | one is innocent. Using the same example, the workers and
               | students of that school are de facto responsible because
               | they allowed that school shooter to enter the school.
        
           | boringg wrote:
           | Whats the confidence in the underlying data giving 10%?
        
             | Qem wrote:
             | That assumes upper bound of published figures, 130. Lower
             | bound is about 90. If 130 is 10%, 90 would be 7%. In my
             | estimation post I took conservatively wikipedia's count,
             | close to the lower bound.
        
         | moshun wrote:
         | For context, a total of 69 journalists were killed in WWII, 63
         | in the Vietnam war both of which lasted several years. As of
         | today March 6th 2024, the Gaza invasion has left 86 journalists
         | dead in less than 4 months. That is an amazingly high
         | percentage for the expected mean in a conflict.
         | 
         | Sources:
         | 
         | https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2024/israel...
         | 
         | https://www.icij.org/inside-icij/2024/02/over-75-of-all-jour...
         | 
         | https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/world/middleeast/30embed....
        
           | boringg wrote:
           | That may be true but a couple things have changed since those
           | very dated sample points. (1) Definition of journalist (2)
           | quantity of journalists (3) willingness to be on the very
           | front lines in order to get better stories (4) technology
           | enabling journalists thus being able to be more dangerous
           | spots. (5) _speculation_ - > journalists who are using press
           | credentials as cover
           | 
           | I'm neither way on the conflict but want to correct some of
           | your arguments assumptions that lead your conclusion astray.
        
             | henry2023 wrote:
             | Are we seeing the same percentage of journalists killed by
             | the Russian army in Ukraine?
        
               | boringg wrote:
               | Totally different war structure.
        
               | ethanbond wrote:
               | The onus of protecting journalists (and medical workers)
               | falls on the military regardless of how difficult the war
               | they're trying to prosecute is.
               | 
               | How many journalists did the US kill in 20 years of
               | OEF/OIF?
        
               | boringg wrote:
               | I'm not condoning the death of anyone.
               | 
               | I am however pointing out the very significant
               | differences between what the original comment is
               | referring to and what is happening and what might be
               | driving the largest (if true) difference in numbers.
        
               | ethanbond wrote:
               | I didn't say you were. I am pointing out a more directly
               | analogous war to demonstrate that similar militaries have
               | waged similar wars against similar adversaries for far,
               | far greater spans of time yielding far fewer journalist
               | deaths.
               | 
               | I am also pointing out that "this war is extra hard to
               | prosecute" is not actually justification for certain
               | actions. The difficulty of fighting the war falls on the
               | people fighting the war, including the difficulty of
               | protecting civilians during that war. What else would any
               | standards or laws mean if that _weren't_ the case? The
               | whole premise of these standards is to set a _ceiling_ on
               | what sort of awful conditions can be allowed during
               | warfare.
        
               | ryanwhitney wrote:
               | Thirteen for OIF: https://cpj.org/reports/2006/01/js-
               | killed-by-us-13sept05/
        
               | ninininino wrote:
               | > The onus of protecting journalists (and medical
               | workers) falls on the military regardless of how
               | difficult the war they're trying to prosecute is.
               | 
               | No it doesn't?
               | 
               | Just searched the International Criminal Court's English
               | document on war crimes, genocide, and crimes against
               | humanity for 'journalist' and found no results.
               | 
               | https://www.icc-
               | cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Ele...
        
               | ethanbond wrote:
               | 1. Onus doesn't mean legal requirement. Civilized nations
               | can be, should be, and generally are held to standards
               | far exceeding legal statutes.
               | 
               | 2. They DO have an actual legal obligation to protect
               | journalists as well, try searching for "civilian." If
               | they are _targeting_ journalists (read: civilians) that
               | would obviously be illegal.
        
               | ninininino wrote:
               | You said "protecting" and protection is far different
               | from "not target".
               | 
               | We have laws for an important reason, without them it's
               | up to any individual to decide for themselves what is
               | just at any given moment. What happens when Israel
               | decides that what's fair and just seems barbaric to you
               | or me? We agree on the rules ahead of time so that we can
               | act accordingly.
               | 
               | If you want war crimes to include "must protect
               | journalists", then I'd suggest your best chance at
               | realizing that goal would be to get the legal codes
               | modified.
               | 
               | You said journalists, not civilians. If you want to talk
               | about civilians now not journalists, that's a new topic.
        
               | bawolff wrote:
               | I think the argument is that its a lot easier to protect
               | journalists if there are very few journalists in the war
               | zone, so absolute numbers are the wrong way to look at
               | it.
               | 
               | Essentially base rate fallacy.
        
               | mateo1 wrote:
               | That's the point isn't it?
        
               | throwaway894345 wrote:
               | Most of the time (read: every time) when I see people
               | talking about journalist casualties in Gaza, they're
               | doing so to imply or support the claim that Israel is
               | deliberately targeting journalists, and when they compare
               | journalist casualties in Gaza with other conflicts, they
               | virtually never make mention of the relevant factors that
               | might cause more journalist fatalities apart from the
               | 'deliberate targeting' hypothesis. So no, usually the
               | point is not to compare the structures of war or
               | otherwise gain a greater understanding, it's usually to
               | suggest that journalists are being targeted.
        
               | wolverine876 wrote:
               | It's a very imperfect comparison, but at least it's a
               | factual basis. If you have better data, please share it.
        
               | karim79 wrote:
               | I agree. In Ukraine, combatants are not fighting from
               | within an overpopulated prison camp.
        
             | pvg wrote:
             | Yes if you google 'how many journalists died in WW2' in
             | Russian you get numbers from a couple of hundred to over a
             | thousand for the Soviet Union alone. The 69 number listed
             | at https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/world/middleeast/30em
             | bed.... is almost certainly just US journalists.
        
             | wolverine876 wrote:
             | > (1) Definition of journalist (2) quantity of journalists
             | (3) willingness to be on the very front lines in order to
             | get better stories (4) technology enabling journalists thus
             | being able to be more dangerous spots.
             | 
             | How have these things changed, and how have the changes
             | affected the number of journalists killed? The changes
             | could reduce the number.
             | 
             | My point is, we need much less speculation and
             | possibilities, and much more credible fact. CPJ provides
             | some credible fact.
        
           | throwaway69123 wrote:
           | If your using other wars as a comparison like this what was
           | the journalist per capita and have you adjusted for the
           | prewar ratio per capita also. This seems like ham fisted
           | attempts at statistics otherwise
        
           | ars wrote:
           | And for comparison 715 were killed in Syria.
           | 
           | "Of the 715, the Syrian regime was responsible for the
           | killing of 553 journalists, including five children, one
           | woman, five foreign journalists, and 47 journalists who died
           | due to torture, while 24 journalists were killed at the hands
           | of Russian forces."
           | 
           | https://snhr.org/blog/2023/05/03/on-world-press-freedom-
           | day-...
        
             | bombcar wrote:
             | Five children journalists?
        
               | polygamous_bat wrote:
               | You've never seen a high school or a college newspaper?
        
           | screye wrote:
           | That's a remarkably small number. It makes me think
           | journalists weren't present in the warzone at all.
           | 
           | Irrespective of which side you support, Hamas is notorious
           | for colocating themselves among civilians. An elevated
           | civilian death count, including journalists is to be
           | expected.
           | 
           | However, the numbers being THIS high in this short a time is
           | alarming and tragic.
        
             | pests wrote:
             | > An elevated civilian death count, including journalists
             | is to be expected.
             | 
             | Is it???
        
               | brink wrote:
               | Yes? Use your basic reasoning. Hamas fights in civilian
               | clothing, they hide in civilian buildings, they hide in
               | hospitals. They use regular civilians as shields. This is
               | not your average fight; Hamas hates their enemy more than
               | they love their own country.
        
               | pests wrote:
               | Maybe another method is needed then?
               | 
               | If you can't tell innocent people from legit targets...
               | rethink the approach?
               | 
               | Here is my reasoning: they hide in civilian clothes, okay
               | let's not shoot civilians. They hide in hospitals, okay
               | let's not bomb hospitals. They use civilian buildings,
               | okay let's not bomb civilian buildings.
               | 
               | They use civilians as shields... let's not shoot the
               | shields.
               | 
               | How is that unreasonable?
        
             | immibis wrote:
             | You began the sentence with "Irrespective of which side you
             | support, Hamas" so you might not be aware that both sides
             | use human shields.
        
           | mschuster91 wrote:
           | The Gaza invasion is urban warfare at its finest (including
           | tunnel warfare, which is completely unprecedented), and the
           | collateral damage is made exponentially worse by Hamas using
           | hospitals, schools and residential areas as hideouts, command
           | centers and launch sites.
           | 
           | No matter what, the collateral damage of such a war scenario
           | is among the highest you can get outside of carpet bombing -
           | which is why international law bans (ab)using civilian
           | infrastructure for military purposes in the first place, and
           | taking hostages and (by multiple accounts) not giving them
           | access to healthcare is just as bad. _Every_ single death in
           | Gaza lies at the responsibility of Hamas - they knew what
           | they were up against from the beginning, and they could stop
           | the suffering of their people in an instant by releasing the
           | hostages.
        
             | eropple wrote:
             | The framing of Gazans as a whole as "Hamas's people" is at
             | best problematic; Hamas is an accelerationist and
             | revolutionary movement that believes that _dead Gazans
             | advance their aims_.
             | 
             | Israel seems pretty happy to help Hamas out with proving
             | out their theory right now, but it's important to note that
             | a Gazan could've been born and raised _literally to the age
             | of majority_ without getting a chance to vote on whether
             | they think Hamas is doing right by them.
        
           | CydeWeys wrote:
           | That 69 figure cannot be remotely close to accurate. Millions
           | of civilians died from mass bombing campaigns alone, which
           | certainly killed many journalists working for local outlets
           | in those cities!
           | 
           | Each atomic bomb on its own probably killed more than 69
           | journalists.
        
         | hmcq6 wrote:
         | That's a bad explanation because it relies on an assumption
         | about how the press in Palestine are operating on the ground
         | and I'm guessing no one on hackernews actually has that info.
         | 
         | We don't know that reporters are rushing into danger or hanging
         | out where the danger is going to be.
         | 
         | In fact, a lot of the "reporters" who we've been watching were
         | never war reporters to begin with. Motaz, for instance was an
         | aspiring travel photographer. Bisan was a filmmaker. Wael was
         | the cheif of Al-Jazera in Gaza.
         | 
         | They're (most likely) not seeking out death and war, they're
         | just reporting on the condition of their city, of their people.
         | 
         | It also ignores 75 years of history. CPJ stated this was the
         | deadliest conflict for journalists in the past 30 years.
         | Reporters Without Borders has accused Israel of intentionally
         | targeting journalists. Human Rights Watch signed a letter
         | stating the US needed to put pressure on Israel to stop killing
         | journalists. Amnesty international says Israel must be
         | investigated for the war crime of killing journalists.
        
           | addicted wrote:
           | This has also been one of the deadliest wars for civilians in
           | general. Also when you're using such a loose definition of
           | journalist obviously the deaths would be greater.
        
             | zizee wrote:
             | Are you saying this war has a higher civilian casualty
             | ratio that other wars? Sadly history shows that civilians
             | have been casualties of war at high rates compared to
             | combatants.
             | 
             | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio
        
               | someotherperson wrote:
               | I don't think they said that it was the highest, they
               | just said "one of." From that list, 2:1 or 3:1 is
               | certainly quite deadly.
        
               | falseprofit wrote:
               | That article suggests the average ratio to be 1:1, so yes
               | this war has a higher ratio.
        
             | ars wrote:
             | > This has also been one of the deadliest wars for
             | civilians in general.
             | 
             | That's not actually true. The ratio is similar to other
             | wars. Civilians die in war, they die a lot. War sucks. But
             | Gaza is not unusually deadly compared to other wars.
        
               | erokar wrote:
               | Compare it to the Russia/Ukraine war. Not even close.
               | 
               | In any case Israel is not conducting a war, they are
               | conducting a massacre.
        
               | ars wrote:
               | [delayed]
        
             | bawolff wrote:
             | > This has also been one of the deadliest wars for
             | civilians in general.
             | 
             | I don't think that is a true statement. Obviously it is bad
             | for civilians in any war, but there are other conficts that
             | have been much worse.
        
         | moomin wrote:
         | Quite a few died in their own homes.
         | 
         | Worth mentioning the IDF know where everyone in Gaza lives.
        
           | immibis wrote:
           | When the USA gave the IDF a list of Christian churches not to
           | bomb, suddenly they started getting bombed more quickly.
        
         | eeeehhh wrote:
         | This explaination wouldn't explain why the figure is so much
         | higher than when compared to other conflicts in the world.
        
           | gataca wrote:
           | many on this list have been shown to be hamas members, this
           | is propaganda
        
         | tehjoker wrote:
         | Alternatively, you can watch this documentary where journalists
         | wearing identifying gear away from the action were shot by a
         | sniper during the peaceful "March of Return" (2018). These were
         | the "Palestinian Gandhis" Israel supporters keep talking about.
         | They were massacred.
         | 
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnZSaKYmP2s
        
           | hersko wrote:
           | > peaceful "March of Return"
           | 
           | How is trying to storm a sovereign border peaceful? Pretty
           | sure if a mob stormed any normal government border they would
           | be shot.
        
             | JumpCrisscross wrote:
             | > _How is trying to storm a sovereign border peaceful?_
             | 
             | It's not. But it's not grounds for lethal force. Audible
             | warnings, warning shots and non-lethal rounds were the
             | right moves.
        
         | givemeethekeys wrote:
         | Another possibility is that they also had a second job working
         | for Hamas - so, on a list of "not really journalists".
         | 
         | For example, lots of men (all men?) in Saddam's Iraq had two
         | jobs - full-time dentists, and part time reserve units. They
         | could've been full-time journalists and still employees /
         | members of Saddam's party - not always by choice - there are
         | plenty of existential, social and financial pressures when you
         | live in a place like that.
        
           | wolverine876 wrote:
           | > Another possibility is that they also had a second job
           | working for Hamas - so, on a list of "not really
           | journalists".
           | 
           | I think we need less baseless speculation in this discussion.
           | Another commenter posted links to the Times of Israel, which
           | of course is very imperfect, but it's a start.
        
       | g-b-r wrote:
       | Besides the statistics I advise anyone to also look at the
       | reports of how the individual deaths happened, I've seen them
       | very little discussed in western media.
       | 
       | There's often enough evidence to show an extremely likely
       | deliberate killing (usually with weapons that Hamas doesn't
       | have).
       | 
       | Journalists have been killed outside of the Gaza strip as well.
       | 
       | Just make your own informed opinion.
       | 
       | Furthermore, there have been so few western journalists on the
       | ground because Israel (and Egypt) prevented them from entering, I
       | think this prohibition alone should be considered unacceptable in
       | the 21 century
        
         | JumpCrisscross wrote:
         | > _evidence to show an extremely likely deliberate killing_
         | 
         | Do you have examples?
        
           | g-b-r wrote:
           | https://cpj.org/2024/03/journalist-casualties-in-the-
           | israel-... is a good independent source to get started
           | 
           | (see also https://cpj.org/2024/03/attacks-arrests-threats-
           | censorship-t...)
        
             | bkirkby wrote:
             | there appears to be no effort by cpj to determine if the
             | journalists were killed by palestinians or israelis. is
             | that accurate?
        
               | blast wrote:
               | All the examples I looked at say killed by Israeli
               | airstrike or Israeli sniper.
        
         | loceng wrote:
         | It's also worth seeing if there's a historical pattern of
         | behaviour:
         | 
         | "One Martyr Down: The Untold Story Of A Canadian Peacekeeper
         | Killed At War" - https://legionmagazine.com/one-martyr-down-
         | the-untold-story-...
         | 
         | A Canadian Army Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener was assassinated
         | after the IDF "accidentally" bombed a United Nations post that
         | he was posted at - soon after he reported war crimes that he
         | witnessed the IDF doing.
        
           | adamckay wrote:
           | For context, Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener emailed [1] days
           | before saying that Hezbollah were using his positions and the
           | IDF was being forced to fire on them out of "tactical
           | necessity". This isn't as clear-cut as you're attempting to
           | paint it.
           | 
           | 1 - https://web.archive.org/web/20061010012455/http://www.can
           | ada...
        
             | loceng wrote:
             | From the same article:
             | 
             | A senior UN official, asked about the information contained
             | in Maj. Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail concerning Hezbollah
             | presence in the vicinity of the Khiam base, denied the
             | world body had been caught in a contradiction.
             | 
             | "At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported
             | in the area," he said. "So it was quite clear they were not
             | going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our
             | position was being fired upon.
             | 
             | "Whether or not they thought they were going after
             | something else, we don't know. The fact was, we told them
             | where we were. They knew where we were. The position was
             | clearly marked, and they pounded the hell out of us."
             | 
             | ---
             | 
             | This part states the area was being bombed prior to reports
             | of Hezbollah activity in the area, so yes - the confusion
             | will muddy it.
             | 
             | Nonetheless, he had recently reported IDF war crimes - and
             | the IDF at minimum coincidentally was responsible for
             | killing him; with this seemingly contradictory statement by
             | a senior UN official.
        
         | itsoktocry wrote:
         | > _Furthermore, there have been so few western journalists on
         | the ground because Israel (and Egypt) prevented them from
         | entering, I think this prohibition alone should be considered
         | unacceptable in the 21 century_
         | 
         | I think the prohibition is wrong, but what do you think "real
         | journalists" can offer people that isn't already being spread
         | around? We are _inundated_ with stories from this conflict;
         | what is CNN going to add to the conversation? Most of these
         | outlets are mouthpieces for their respective governments
         | anyway, their point-of-view is predictable.
        
           | nsguy wrote:
           | The Hamas may(?) have less leverage over foreign reporters.
           | For local reporters there's a history of Hamas threatening
           | and using violence against the reporters and their families
           | to get the kind of reporting they want.
           | 
           | I agree with the observation that many of those outlets are
           | mouthpieces for their respective government though.
           | 
           | Here are a few references to keep in mind when thinking about
           | journalists working in Gaza (or you can think about Russia,
           | Iran, North Korea, maybe China as being similar):
           | 
           | https://www.amnesty.ca/human-rights-news/gaza-hamas-must-
           | end...
           | 
           | "The Gaza Strip is a particularly inhospitable territory for
           | press freedom. Hamas and the Islamic Jihad harass and
           | obstruct journalists suspected of collaborating with Israel,"
           | - https://rsf.org/en/country/palestine
           | 
           | "Gaza: Journalist facing prison term for exposing corruption
           | in Hamas-controlled ministry" -
           | https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/02/gaza-
           | journali...
           | 
           | "The Palestinian authorities in the West Bank and Gaza are
           | arresting, abusing, and criminally charging journalists and
           | activists who express peaceful criticism of the authorities.
           | ... Both Palestinian governments, operating independently,
           | have apparently arrived at similar methods of harassment,
           | intimidation and physical abuse of anyone who dares criticize
           | them. ... The media freedom group MADA documented 192
           | incidents in 2015 in which Palestinian authorities infringed
           | on journalists' right to free expression through summoning
           | and interrogation, arrests, physical assault, detention, and,
           | in Gaza, forbidding journalists from reporting on certain
           | issues or stories. That was a 68 percent increase over 2014.
           | The pattern of abuse that MADA reported, including beatings,
           | torture, warnings to stop criticizing the government, and
           | seizing passwords to search social media accounts, is
           | consistent with the cases Human Rights Watch documented." -
           | https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/08/30/palestine-crackdown-
           | jour...
           | 
           | Isra Al-Mudalla, the head of foreign relations in Hamas's
           | Information Ministry said, "The security agencies would go
           | and have a chat with these people. They would give them some
           | time to change their message, one way or another." ... "Some
           | of the journalists who entered the Gaza Strip were under
           | security surveillance. Even under these difficult
           | circumstances, we managed to reach them, and tell them that
           | what they were doing was anything but professional journalism
           | and that it was immoral." -
           | https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-admits-intimidating-
           | fore... https://www.memri.org/tv/hamas-government-
           | spokesperson-we-de...
        
           | g-b-r wrote:
           | > We are inundated with stories from this conflict; what is
           | CNN going to add to the conversation
           | 
           | For example it could add informing a much wider span of the
           | population and so influencing the governments?
           | 
           | I guarantee you that not everyone is inundated with stories
           | from the conflict.
        
         | jll29 wrote:
         | War is nasty, it brings out the worst in people. Look at this,
         | listen to their laughter while conducting their "work":
         | 
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfvFpT-iypw (2007)
         | 
         | "The video shows Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, driver
         | Saeed Chmagh, and several others as the Apache shoots and kills
         | them in a public square in Eastern Baghdad after they are
         | apparently assumed to be insurgents. After the initial
         | shooting, an unarmed group of adults and children in a minivan
         | arrives on the scene and attempts to transport the wounded.
         | They are fired upon as well. The official statement on this
         | incident initially listed all adults as insurgents and claimed
         | the US military did not know how the deaths ocurred."
         | 
         | (We may not have such detailed coverage for Gaza that we have
         | for Baghdad, which is of course also caused by the lack of
         | journalists, since who is dead can no longer report.)
        
       | feedforward wrote:
       | Not only are the journalists being targeted and killed, their
       | families are being targeted and killed.
        
         | mcgeez wrote:
         | [Citation needed]
        
           | gkfasdfasdf wrote:
           | > Numerous members of Al-Dahdouh's family have been killed by
           | the Israeli military during the Israel-Hamas war. His wife,
           | seven-year old daughter, and 15-year old son were killed in
           | an Israeli airstrike on the Nuseirat refugee camp on 28
           | October 2023, in addition to eight of his other relatives. On
           | 15 December 2023, while Al-Dahdouh and his cameraman Samer
           | Abu Daqqa were covering the Haifa School airstrike in Khan
           | Yunis, they were hit by an Israeli missile, injuring Dahdouh
           | and fatally wounding Abu Daqqa. Despite the death of many
           | family members and his injury, he quickly returned to
           | reporting on the war after both incidents.[3] His son,
           | journalist Hamza al-Dahdouh, was killed by an Israeli
           | airstrike in Khan Younis on 7 January 2024,[4] and two of his
           | nephews were killed in an airstrike the following day.[5]
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wael_Al-Dahdouh
        
           | ryanwhitney wrote:
           | Is there irrefutable proof of it in the current conflict?
           | Unless something leaks from the IDF, we'll never know. But
           | there are well-respected news orgs and NGOs identifying
           | patterns of it.
           | 
           | "CPJ is deeply alarmed by the pattern of journalists in Gaza
           | reporting receiving threats, and subsequently, their family
           | members being killed," said CPJ Middle East and North Africa
           | Program Coordinator Sherif Mansour. "The killing of the
           | family members of journalists in Gaza is making it almost
           | impossible for the journalists to continue reporting, as the
           | risk now extends beyond them also to include their beloved
           | ones."
           | 
           | https://cpj.org/2023/12/father-of-al-jazeeras-anas-al-
           | sharif...
           | 
           | And Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/gaza-
           | strikes-kill-...
        
         | xyzelement wrote:
         | This seems like two hefty accusations to sling out as a matter
         | of fact.
        
       | ryanwhitney wrote:
       | Noting that Israel already had a history of killing well-
       | identified journalists outside of direct conflict; and lying
       | about it: https://forensic-
       | architecture.org/investigation/shireen-abu-...
       | 
       | Here's a wider review from the Committee to Protect Journalists
       | that predates the current conflict:
       | https://cpj.org/reports/2023/05/deadly-pattern-20-journalist...
        
       | xyzelement wrote:
       | Actually reading this article shows some heavy conjecture.
       | 
       | They talk about the existence of Pegasus software, and they talk
       | about the fact that generically, it has been used in the world to
       | track journalists.
       | 
       | They don't actually cite a single example of a Palestinian, much
       | less a journalist, being tracked through Pegasus. Likewise, they
       | say it "appears" that this data is then used for targeting but no
       | indication as to what makes it appear that way.
       | 
       | The article is basically "spyware exists" - and the rest is pure
       | speculation about how it could possibly be used but no evidence
       | (mentioned) that it's used that way.
        
         | dang wrote:
         | Thanks, that's a good point. The first few paragraphs alone say
         | "allegedly", "believes", and "thought to have".
         | 
         | I've changed the link from
         | https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/gaza-journalists-targeted-sp...
         | (the submitted URL) to https://cpj.org/2024/03/journalist-
         | casualties-in-the-israel-..., which it points to. I've also
         | changed the title to reflect the link change.
        
         | 2597123128 wrote:
         | [1] is a good source for a list of people, and an explanation
         | of how Citizen Lab determined the phones were infected by
         | Pegasus.
         | 
         | [1]:
         | https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2021/11/devices-o...
        
       | karim79 wrote:
       | What is striking about these casualties, is many of the reported
       | deaths also include large numbers of family members of the
       | deceased, killed at the same time.
       | 
       | So what is it then? The plausible deliberate targeting of the
       | journalists mentioned? Or just, plain old indiscriminate bombing?
       | Either ways, shame.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-03-06 23:01 UTC)