> the single deadliest conflict for journalists in all known conflicts in the history of the world, according to the Costs of War Project

Does that sound like “par for the course”?

By that measure, every other army in every other war prior has done better.

This “war” (genocide) is not normal.

There were three hostages in his father’s apartment. He was also staying there, but the home belonged to his father.

But ok, have a look at what went down that day:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuseirat_rescue_and_massacre

> the Israeli military killed at least 276 people and injured over 698

Or if you don’t want to believe anybody but the IDF, “The Israeli military acknowledged fewer than 100 Palestinian deaths”

In order to what? What was the cause of the murder of 276 (or 100) people?

To rescue 4 hostages.

Well, I should say more likely in retribution for the holding of those hostages… the air strikes that killed the majority of people appear to have happened AFTER they had extracted the hostages.

Even if we accept the claim at face value, it's just a total. It includes Hamas fighters who were trying to kill fleeing hostages and their rescuers, and anyone killed by them.

In any case, Israel has a responsibility to try to rescue its citizens that were kidnapped. The moral culpability for collateral damage lies with the terrorists who kidnapped and held civilian hostages, and then fought to prevent their rescue, not with the rescuers.

If some terrorists kidnapped several American citizens on US soil, and the US determined that any rescue plan would risk disproportionate harm to the country that kidnapped them, would you expect the US to just give up and ignore the hostages?

So, if your neighbour kidnaps a canadian citizen, and mark carney blows up your entire neighbourhood - that’s on your neighbour? Really? You believe that? Like, yeah - we would all wish our neighbour hadn’t kidnapped someone, but i’m pretty sure the moral culpability for murdering an entire neigbourhood is on the ones who sent the bombs.

But ok - the moral culpability is on the kidnappers. Let’s roll with that. So by that logic, it seems like israel is responsible for everyone who was killed on oct 7th. I mean, they were holding thousands of palestinian civilians without charges prior to the attacks. That seems like, again by your logic, that it justifies the killing of israeli civilians

So pick one: oct 7th was israel’s fault and hamas is culpable for the deaths that have followed, OR oct 7th was hamas’ fault, and israel is culpable for the deaths that have followed.

Oct 7th and the deaths that followed both being on hamas is not a logically consistant position.

In this scenario it would not be some random Canadian doing the kidnapping, it would be a team of soldiers under official orders from our president. So Carney can't collaborate with Trump to surgically rescue the Canadians, because Trump was the one who had them kidnapped in the first place, and is actively holding them hostage.

In that case, yes absolutely, I'd put the blame squarely on Trump if Canadian rescuers operated in my neighborhood, and it got destroyed during the fighting as US soldiers tried to prevent the hostage rescue.

> holding thousands of palestinian civilians without charges

Every country on the planet detains suspects before formal charges are filed. But sure, we can assume Hamas had some valid casus belli, it doesn't really change things.

> it justifies the killing of israeli civilians

Nothing justifies targeting civilians. Hamas didn't incidentally harm some civilians while attempting to free prisoners, they went out of their way to systematically kill, rape and kidnap as many Israeli civilians as possible.

Well I am glad we can agree on that, at least. When the israeli missles were aimed at the apartment blocks, during the raid we are discussing, that was quite literally targeting civilians. And I agree it was un-justified. As was the distruction of all the hospitals in gaza. As was the attacks on clearly marked aid convoys. As was the numerous air strikes on tent cities. Because all of these are targeting civilians, quite literally putting them in the cross hairs and firing, and as you said - nothing can justify that.

So Israel carried out some airstrikes at the same time that Hamas fighters were trying to kill the fleeing hostages and their rescuers, but you're claiming that the two were unrelated? Israel wasn't targeting the terrorists trying to kill them, but murdering unrelated civilians just for fun in the middle of the rescue operation? Any evidence behind this extraordinary claim?

We only have their word they were “under fire”, and no idea if the shots were coming from in the building.

Like the journalist and his family who were killed. Did they have weapons, were they a threat to the soldiers in any way when they were killed? Afaik the idf doesn’t even claim any about that. For all we know they were also being held there against their will - unlikely, but why would i carry water for a gov that’s shown it doesn’t mind killed 100-300, including 3 of their own, to extract 3 people.

Does it matter who owns the apartment? It seems likely based on this description he could be deemed as participating.

Like in normal domestic law, if someone is kidnapped, and the fbi raids the apartment where the kidnapped person is being held, i imagine everyone living in the apartment is going to jail. Who owns the apartment isn't really relavent.

Maybe he deserved jail. Maybe he didn’t. We’ll never know because he was executed by special forces.

So unless you have some clear evidence that the definition of journalist is different in other conflicts, you’re just making excuses.

I do not know how many journalists were killed in most conflicts. I do know more than 242 were killed during world war 2, so on its face the claim seems false that it is the deadliest war for journalists in the history of the universe.

The only way their claim can possibly make sense is if they are using different definitions between wars. I'm assuming that to give them the benefit of the doubt. The only alternative explanation i can see is they are straight up lying.

I don't know enough to verify related claims, like deadliest for journalists post world war 2. However given the source seems to be blatently incorrect, i'm not really inclined to believe them on related claims.

I said that the nature of journalism has changed since ww2, because there’s a lot more citizen-journalism - which probably means there are more journalists around to be killed today than during most conflicts in history. So it doesn’t actually surprise me that the highest number would be from a conflict post-2010.

Before the most recent invasion of Gaza started, there was an interview with an Israeli general about the imminent invasion. And when the question came up about what lessons Israel was drawing from other urban conflicts like the Battle of Fallujah, the response was a very indignant we-don't-need-to-learn-anything. Small wonder that the IDF claims to have achieved unprecedentedly low civilian casualty ratios in their invasion of Gaza when in reality, they're commensurate with WW2 ratios and well above the urban assaults of the US's Iraq War.

Which one? There was five, and they generally were pretty bloody.

For the second battle of Fallujah (seems like the one you are talking about), US estimated that most civilians had already left the city. However that is somewhat disputed with some people claiming usa used that as an excuse to claim everyone left in the city was a combatant.

To quote the guradian:

> Before attacking the city, the marines stopped men "of fighting age" from leaving. Many women and children stayed: the Guardian's correspondent estimated that between 30,000 and 50,000 civilians were left. The marines treated Falluja as if its only inhabitants were fighters. They leveled thousands of buildings, illegally denied access to the Iraqi Red Crescent and, according to the UN's special rapporteur, used "hunger and deprivation of water as a weapon of war against the civilian population".

Another guardian quote:

> "There were American snipers on top of the hospital shooting everyone," said Burhan Fasa'am, a photographer with the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation. "With no medical supplies, people died from their wounds. Everyone in the street was a target for the Americans."

> The war against ISIS in Iraq in the 2010s?

So according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Iraq_(2013%E2%80%932017... there was 200,000 killed and 5 million displaced.

To quote from the human rights section of the article "Iraqi government forces and paramilitary militias have tortured, arbitrarily detained, forcibly disappeared and executed thousands of civilians who have fled the rule of the Islamic State militant group", which doesn't sound great.

So i think it raises the question of if the Americans were really better than the Israelis or just better at the PR game.