[atoav]

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.

[neepi]

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.

[atoav]

> 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.

[raxxorraxor]

There are indeed a lot of statistical anomalies in this conflict and your wrong side of history argument will very likely be wrong again.

Don't want to keep you from your hobby though. I don't think many comments in this thread do reach any sensible HN standards for that matter.

[ashoeafoot]

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.

[atoav]

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.

[amendegree]

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.

[atoav]

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.

[ashoeafoot]

The bold claim is that there can be free "press" in Afghanistan, iean or the isil caliphate. Theocrates will be total

[atoav]

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?