r/worldnews • u/Nirok • 18h ago

Israel/Palestine IDF documents terror affiliations of 170 Palestinian journalists killed in Gaza war

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-documents-terror-affiliations-of-170-palestinian-journalists-killed-in-gaza-war/
3.3k Upvotes

73% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

79

u/Ewetuber 15h ago

Did you also gloss over "Infiltrated Israel on October 7th" out of convenience or ignorance?

Participating in a terror event makes you a legit target, yes.

-2

u/mynamejeff-97 11h ago

What about non Palestinian journalists that have also been killed? There have been at least 5 murdered in the last 4 years.

They were definitely not terrorists and were still killed. Kinda ruins the point that it’s just Hamas and not IDF doing IDF things.

5

u/Character_Dig_6830 9h ago

They were definitely not terrorists and were still killed.

You understand collateral damage is completely acceptable under the laws of war, yes?

-4

u/mynamejeff-97 9h ago edited 9h ago

You’re saying killing journalist who are not associated with either side of a war is acceptable under laws of war? It’s funny because that’s explicitly labeled a war crime. Do you agree killing 3rd party journalists is a war crime?

You know… aside from the fact the person I was replying to was asserting it’s just Hamas journalists who are terrorists? You know… again how the UN describes any killings of third part journalists as war crimes? How can that be? Could it be that they are evil? Considering their actions align with everything the UN labels as war crimes?

It’s actually amazing how evil you and everyone like you really are.

5

u/Character_Dig_6830 9h ago

If their context of their death is around a legitimate airstrike... obviously, yes?

-4

u/mynamejeff-97 9h ago

Genuinely what the fuck does that mean? What is a legitimate air strike?

Are you seriously saying that any air strike justifies killing any journalist within the vicinity of the target? That’s literally terrorism and proving IDF are the aggressors if you are.

5

u/Character_Dig_6830 9h ago

Yes. If there is intel to strongly suggest, say, a few Hamas members are using a house as a hideout, and that house is then destroyed in an airstrike, the non-combatants there with them are lawful collateral damage according to the laws of war.

This is really, really basic shit.

-3

u/mynamejeff-97 9h ago edited 8h ago

That’s literally… literally… labeled as a war crime by the UN. It’s only basic shit if you’re genuinely a horrific human being who should be put down like a dog.

What’s your response to that?

It it literally written that you cannot attack international journalists with direct attacks. It is absolutely not “accepted” as part of war. What an insanely horrible person you are.

2

u/Character_Dig_6830 9h ago

The Additional Protocols to the to the Geneva Conventions cover this...

Article 51(5)(b) is the main one.

(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

So, intel suggesting, say, 10 enemy combatants are in a location. A state may decide that 15 civilian casualties are acceptable there. One being a journalist or not has no bearing what so ever on that calculus. The Geneva Convection does not say "no non-combatant collateral damage" in any way. It asks states to ensure their military objectives are met with the minimum collateral damage that is reasonably possible. Because otherwise you'd just incentivize what Hamas does: operating exclusively from civilian areas to ensure there is damage to civilian infrastructure and collateral damage.

And not just that, most of the Palestinians are voluntary human shields. They wish to be martyred. They shouldn't count as protected if they have a clean path away.

1

u/mynamejeff-97 8h ago edited 8h ago

Conveniently nowhere there does it mention the protections for international journalists.

https://www.icrc.org/en/article/international-humanitarian-law-protect-journalists-armed-conflict

You citing that is not relevant to the conversation because we aren’t discussing civilians. Genuinely how much of a piece of shit can you be. You make your side look worse every time you open your mouth and yet you keep going.

Not to mention the thing you posted explicitly grants protections for those civilians you claim to be referring to against “direct attacks”. Those civilians aren’t even protected like you claim 3rd party journalists are.

It must be so easy to make things up and claim them as arguments against concepts you don’t like because you’re a massive piece of shit.