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.