Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war

cpj.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 968 posts

Re: Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war

#391

Post by leereeves »

jonbodner wrote: post #368
leereeves wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 organization…

Oh, you sweet summer child. Who do you think "private supporters" are in Saudi Arabia? And no, I don't think anyone with anything resembling power or wealth in Saudi Arabia supports human rights. HRW execs admit via email to the editor in chief of a nationally respected magazine that they raise money by bragging how tough they are on Israel. And then they are tough on Israel, and you think it's a principled stance. M…

HRW should be "tough" on any nation that violates people's human rights. That's their mission.

And it seems like they are. They're tough on Saudi Arabia too.

Re: Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war

#393

Post by g-b-r »

listless wrote: post #388
g-b-r wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can have a very wide range of nastiness

It is hell. Every time. Many men who return with PTSD do so not because of what they saw, but because of what they did.

I don't know for soldiers, but for those on the other side there are clearly different levels of hell

Re: Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war

#394

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

bawolff wrote: post #292
eropple wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It is always true that governments don't fully represent their people. Some do more than others, but i am not sure how it matters. The fact is that hamas was in control of gaza and taking military action on its behalf. Whether ordinary Gazans approve is besides the point other than perhaps making it more tragic. As an example, we don't say ukraine shouldn't defend themselves from russia because russian elections were…

If Ukraine, in response to Russia’s invasion, did something remotely equivalent to Israel’s actions so far, they’d rightly be condemned by most people. It matters whether gazans approve because people use their approval as pretext for bombing them.

Re: Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war

#395

Post by dang »

wolverine876 wrote: post #351
dang wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

dang - Productive and honest public discourse is arguably the most important issue in the world right now - arguably our greatest need. And that seems to depend on moderation. Ideally, with sufficiently effective moderation technique any groups could be brought together and talk it out. We'll never reach that ideal but my point is, moderation has incredible potential value. You've done a good job of it here, you're t…

I don't understand what you mean here:

> strict scrutiny is applied to some positions but not others

Can you explain?

Re: Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war

#396

Post by porkbeer »

philwelch wrote: post #300
ciconia wrote: post #25

> 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.

[flagged]

Okay, share some of that 'plenty'.

Re: Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war

#397

Post by porkbeer »

nsguy wrote: post #338
g-b-r wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As to the reliability of some more reputable news sources, anyhow... https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/04/cnn-staff-pro-...

Interesting since in my book CNN is very anti-Israeli. Maybe not as anti-Israeli as The Guardian. The "funny" thing is that if some consider you pro-Israeli and some consider you anti-Israeli that doesn't mean you're neutral. It all depends on your viewpoint. I feel that will take a long time to be able to actually look at the current events with perspective when we have more facts and less emotions. Right now we're…

CNN is openly and explicitly pro-israel.

Can you provide any examples for your claims otherwise?

Re: Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war

#398

Post by BriggyDwiggs42 »

mschuster91 wrote: post #367
eropple wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, I am both ideologically and morally more aligned with Israel (or the pre-Otzma-Yehudit-getting-an-ounce-of-power Israel anyway) than I ever could be with regards to Hamas. But "what's the alternative to doing an ethnic cleansing?" is "not doing a ethnic cleansing". Yes, that's harder. It involves more work, it involves more risk, and when the book closes, you don't get every last inch of what you want. It also…

[flagged]

It’s not a genocide yet I suppose, if you define such a thing purely by percentage dead, but it certainly seems like Israel would like to do a nice big genocide, and like what they’re doing shares many characteristics with the actions of a country engaging in a genocide. In agreement with the other commenter, the loss of life implicit in depriving so many people of homes, food, clean water, and medical care can’t be justified even if it results in the elimination of hamas after a long process of starving them out. I’m no expert, but I’d advocate a response that ensures Israel cannot be hurt by further attacks, cuts hamas off from arms or reinforcements, then negotiates the release of hostages. What they’re doing instead is needlessly murdering tens of thousands of innocents, and I can’t imagine that number remains in the double digits by the end of this.

Re: Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war

#399

Post by kaba0 »

ethanbond wrote: post #87
boringg wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally different war structure.

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?

So you don’t think there is a difference between a huge front across a country, and a tiny blob of very densely packed land, with a huge population density? Just something as simple as the chance of a bomb exploding near you is significantly higher in case of one.

Re: Journalist casualties in the Israel-Gaza war

#400

Post by kaba0 »

ethanbond wrote: post #126
ninininino wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

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.

Failing to protect and targeting is widely different, and it is not in good faith to claim the latter without evidence.
Post reply on HN