The sheer amount of times that Israel's [1] lies [2] have been exposed [3] again and again [4], in the current conflict and from before, leads to the only conclusion that IOF's claims that benefit their narrative must be assumed false until proven true by independent investigation. Their own investigations frequently prove their own initial claims are false.

Moreover, "murky definition of a journalist" is a weasel word if I've ever seen one. It matters not if someone is a seasoned journalist (many of which have been killed as well) or new. In some cases, these new journalists are the only ones revealing the horror of the genocide Israel is conducting inside of Gaza right now.

The scale of war crimes and targeting of noncombatants by Israel in this genocide is unprecedented.

[1] https://theintercept.com/2024/02/07/gaza-israel-netanyahu-pr... [2] https://hebhjamal.substack.com/p/a-list-of-israeli-lies-prop... [3] https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-27/ty-article-op... [4] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/information-missteps-led-...

Do you have a refutation of the specific claim regarding Al Jazeera journalists doubling as Hamas agents?

Where is the burden of proof here?

I generally think that militaries and governments in international relations, and especially regarding warfare, are not trustworthy; they will lie if it helps them. Israel in particular focuses on information for the Western public (which I'm sure they would agree to; they even have a word for it, and especially in this war (they are well-organized and there is plenty of recent journalism about it). I don't think Israeli - or Hamas - claims are credible on their own.

Is there some other basis for this claim?

This was honestly the first I heard of it, so no opinion yet. That said, OP put forward evidence and the comment I responded to basically put forward that governments lie.

> the comment I responded to basically put forward that governments lie

I appreciate you seeking something substantive, but in this case, doesn't that simplistic assertion still effectively discredit government claims?

I remember reading US government claims re Afghanistan and Iraq - where they were under much less pressure than the Israeli government today: Did that strike kill civilians? The answer was always 'no' until someone could prove 'yes' - you learn that the 'no' didn't mean anything.

https://twitter.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1756728159158812921 This tweet has many photos of the above journalist participating and commanding a Hamas exercise, I think these are pretty incriminating.

https://twitter.com/idfonline/status/1745158775567175764 This tweet contains an Islamic Jihad document listing another journalist as a member

Twitter/X, especially for an issue like this one, is not at all a credible source IMHO. Disinformation and misinformation on Twitter is a cliche; it's overwhelming.

These are photos published by the IDF, not random users on X

even if you don’t trust the IDF, you could easily verify if those are the photos of the same journalist by looking at them.

That doesn't tell us whether the photos are actually from the IDF, whether they were modified, where and when they were taken, what the context for the photos is, whether the narrative added to the photos (the one you are asserting and apparently someone else originally put forward) is accurate. It's just two collections of bits that someone posted online.

People are easily misled by those things, including you and me. We don't have time or skill or resources to do the verification. But one efficient solution is for someone to develop those skills and resources professionally, and to spend the time to use them. Those people are called journalists, among other things.

Stop reading X, which we can't interpret accurately (as is extremely well demonstrated billions of times) and start reading something professionally verified. That's my advice, at least.

If you are pro-Israeli, realize that Hamas uses X to mislead and influence public opinion. If you believe there is truth to Israel's position, then X - probably the world's leading mechanism for disinformation and misinformation - is a threat to Israel.

These are official IDF accounts, the photos are said by the IDF to be found on the journalist laptop and have backing articles published by journalist who received the same information from the IDF.

Psychological warfare campaigns are usually done under false flag, so I doubt this is the case

Look at the images and judge for yourself

I never understand how people will make the case that the other side is evil without showing that their side isn't also evil.

Yes, sure, Israel is committing war crimes. This whole thing started because Hamas attempted to commit textbook genocide and has 80% support along the West Bank population.

The US set half a million Japanese on fire for less. There is not a country in the world that wouldn't be doing what Israel is doing in Israels position.

> not a country in the world that wouldn't be doing what Israel is doing in Israels position

Many would do it better. To my knowledge, there have been zero prosecutions of misbehaving soldiers on the Israeli side. Netanyahu should be removed from power—his chaos created the opening for Hamas, and he’s tainted as a partisan in America. And insisting on a permanent military occupation of Gaza is such a stupid thing to commit to ex ante.

Find me a list of countries which have suffered a proportional death toll in civilians to a terrorist attack and have a response as measured as what you're describing.

In terms of dead per total population this would be the equivalent of 13 9/11s.

Find me a list of countries that ethnically cleansed a population of millions and put them under occupation and treat them like less than humans. You know that history of human being did not start in 2023.

Israel is not in a normal conflict. It is an occupation force and their government seeks to prevent Palestinians from having their state and some elements want to destroy them once and for all.

Edit: sorry I thought that you did not want to go in pointless discussion. Cannot delete that now.

>Find me a list of countries that ethnically cleansed a population of millions and put them under occupation and treat them like less than humans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1508wboZXk

Closer and dearer to Palestine one only need to look at how the Copts are treated in Egypt, the Kurds in Turkey and the Marsh Arabs in Iraq.

>You know that history of human being did not start in 2023.

Very good, so you should remember that the Palestinians are under occupation because of the failed pan-arabic genocide against the Jews of 1948 and the many attempted rematches since.

>Israel is not in a normal conflict. It is an occupation force and their government seeks to prevent Palestinians from having their state and some elements want to destroy them once and for all.

Which state? Hamas has been in open rebellion against the Palestinian authority for 20 years.

I’d assume not otherwise he’d have linked to it too.

Another thing worth noting, some of the casualties mentioned in this site is of Palestinians journalists dying on October 7 and the following days, which only show how problematic their claims are.

As the airstrikes didn't start yet in Gaza, these obviously died inside Israeli territory after they crossed a border, so they can film a massacre among other horrifying acts inflicted upon civilians such as rapes and mutilations.

I don't think these are the same journalists that people think about when they imagine journalists, but rather the same kind of 'journalists' that filmed the isis decapitation videos

i've yet to see reporting on this that is not sourced directly from the IDF - who are accusing dead men based on "intel" that they've found after a bombing

Al Jazeera has been closer to neutral than not, avoiding, for example, overly emotional language or calling everything a genocide.

The IDF just makes up stuff to cover for its war crimes. It's obvious to everyone that isn't trying to deny this genocide and cover their conscience.

So you claim they also made up all the photos of that journalist training on an ATGM? https://twitter.com/AvichayAdraee/status/1756728159158812921

What about the others documented here?

What about journalists from before, even completely outside Gaza, like Shireen Abu Akleh, the American-palestinian journalist who was sniped while reporting?

There seems to be a long history of Israel targeting journalists exclusively and even their funerals

https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/not-just-shi...

The fact that journalists in war zones died doesn't mean these were "targeted exclusively" is there any evidence that Israel has targeted journalists intentionally that weren't involved in the fighting?

> is there any evidence that Israel has targeted journalists intentionally that weren't involved in the fighting?

Yes my dear, there's plenty. Many journalists had an airstrike called on their homes. Some were not in it at the time, others were killd with their families while not involved in the fighting or on the frontline. Many journalists also received direct threats from Israeli intelligence agencies pushing them to leave the country.

- https://cpj.org/2023/12/father-of-al-jazeeras-anas-al-sharif...

- Gaza journalist killed alongside 42 relatives, news agency says: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67350709

This just a sample. An airstrike is a targeted attack. Unless you can come up with evidence that they were targeting something else in each case?

Airstrikes also happen in the context of attacking an entire building or called during a firefight

I am not saying journalists weren’t targeted when they were involved in the fighting or part of Hamas.

I am saying whether you have evidence that journalists were targeted for being journalists like you are implying, and that is evidence i don’t think you have

You're the one claiming that journalists weren't targeted for being a journalist based on what? your hunch? Are you listening to yourself?

I'm not interested in your personal opinion and what you think. Maybe this and maybe that happened. If I wanted fiction, there are better options. I provided evidence of multiple documented cases and there are many more. If you can't refute them, you're blind just following your bias. Just be open about it.

I'm not interested in the stories your mind made up to feel better about murdering more civilians. I need reality.

The reality, like documented here and elsewhere, is that many journalists were targeted with airstrikes and received direct threats.

You're the one with the ridiculous claim here, that all these journalists that got blown up weren't targeted. Can you support that claim?

"Israel is deliberately starving Palestinians, UN rights expert says" (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/27/un-israel-food...)

"Intentionally depriving people of food is clearly a war crime. Israel has announced its intention to destroy the Palestinian people, in whole or in part, simply for being Palestinian. In my view as a UN human rights expert, this is now a situation of genocide."

Given their complicity with the October 7th attack, this is not a credible source. The ICJ is hearing the case—they maintain legitimacy.

The word has been diminished by deranged activists in the US, but in international law it is clearly defined.

The problem Israel has is it has either satisfied all of the criterion for a genocide, or it has satisfied all of the criterion for being apartheid state. There is no inbetween or alternative at this point, so which is it.

You can pick both if you like because it is both.

The ICJ said no such thing. Read the ruling. It said something along the lines of the "rights of the Palestinian people to be protected from genocide and the rights of South Africa to seek this protection are plausible".

The use of the word genocide in this context is just pure propaganda. There are plenty of conflicts with significantly higher human toil where this word is not used.

The ICJ did say that South Africa's accusation of genocide was plausible, which is also the reason they decided to proceed with the case.

This is what a professor of international law has to say about the case: https://www.ejiltalk.org/speaking-the-law-plausibly-the-inte...

And if over 30,000 dead Palestinians so far isn't enough for you, the intent is the central issue of genocide, though the Palestinian casualties will undoubtably rise.

It did not. Find me that language in the ruling. Some media said that, but not the ICJ. If the ICJ thought this was really plausible they would have ordered Israel to stop. They did not.

30,000 dead is way too much for me. Not for the Hamas apparently? For Israel going after all 40,000 Hamas combatants, is probably legitimate, as long as Hamas keeps fighting. I would so much prefer that all of the Israelis that have been killed and all of the Palestinians that have been killed still be alive.

Read the law professor's interpretation.

Are you suggesting Israel shoots journalists on sight? I get that Hamas is trying their best to muddy the waters, but that still doesn't seem like a reasonable response...

At the beginning of the war, Hamas combatants used that vest as a means of protection and to allow safe movement, which caused IDF snipers to pay extra attention to PRESS and most likely send them off. If you pay close attention to reports from Gaza, barely anyone is using a PRESS vest now (that's like holding an AK-47), beginning of the war everyone was using it.

> combatants used that (PRESS) vest as a means of protection

[citation needed]