Journalist killed by sniper -- why no outrage?

[Jarhyn]

Do we need any of this to recognize the fact that multiple pundits and political figures of the Israeli Government have stated outright on camera that Hamas is the enemy, and used rhetoric implying even children were to be seen as the enemy?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Do we need any of this to recognize the fact that multiple pundits and political figures of the Israeli Government have stated outright on camera that Hamas is the enemy, and used rhetoric implying even children were to be seen as the enemy?

If you don't view children as terrorists and don't indiscrimantly bomb them you let the terrorists win. Or something.

 

[Jarhyn]

Do we need any of this to recognize the fact that multiple pundits and political figures of the Israeli Government have stated outright on camera that Hamas is the enemy, and used rhetoric implying even children were to be seen as the enemy?

If you don't view children as terrorists and don't indiscrimantly bomb them you let the terrorists win. Or something.

Stated that *Gaza* is the enemy, not Hamas, Derp...

 

[Jarhyn]

Do we need any of this to recognize the fact that multiple pundits and political figures of the Israeli Government have stated outright on camera that Hamas is the enemy, and used rhetoric implying even children were to be seen as the enemy?

If you don't view children as terrorists and don't indiscrimantly bomb them you let the terrorists win. Or something.

Stated that *Gaza* is the enemy, not Hamas, Derp...

Anyway, multiple interests in the state of Israel declared all of Hamas the enemy and made it a theocratic fascist push, and to declare being against that as being antisemitic is antisemitic.

The Israeli Government and all the interests in Israel aligned to this action against Gaza are demanding Jews the world over bind their very religious and cultural identity to a genocide, to consent to this binding, by calling those who reject it antisemitic.

At the core of it, Israel has their own version of Fox News and this is what they are shouting for: the eradication of the people of Gaza entirely, by religious justification. And politicians in their governing bodies and ranking officials agree with this position to the point where Gaza is a bombed out shell and they're shutting off water and preventing access to food in Gaza.

They are expanding this project.

Frankly I hope global warming turns the whole region into an uninhabitable desert.

 

[Elixir]

Anyway, multiple interests in the state of Israel declared all of Hamas the enemy and made it a theocratic fascist push, and to declare being against that as being antisemitic is antisemitic.

“No puppet! You’re the puppet!”
Israel’s interest has become Netanyahu’s interest, a mini-mirroring of what’s happening here. Our mini dictator is about to be let off the hook for his thirty something felonies, but the convictions will be on his record. Bibi’s still in personal ass-saving mode, while his Murkin counterpart has moved on triumphantly and is ramping up for his rampage through DC and his imminent attack upon the justice system that dared convict him for a few of his crimes. It’ll be like revenge for Sherman’s tour of Atlanta.
Trump is and always has been a fraud. Bibi was a politician who just kinda got in the habit of tolerating a little corruption when it suited him. Now he’s in hot water, if he loses office for any reason. So that’s “Israel’s interest”.

 

[Jarhyn]

Anyway, multiple interests in the state of Israel declared all of Hamas the enemy and made it a theocratic fascist push, and to declare being against that as being antisemitic is antisemitic.

“No puppet! You’re the puppet!”
Israel’s interest has become Netanyahu’s interest, a mini-mirroring of what’s happening here. Our mini dictator is about to be let off the hook for his thirty something felonies, but the convictions will be on his record. Bibi’s still in personal ass-saving mode, while his Murkin counterpart has moved on triumphantly and is ramping up for his rampage through DC and his imminent attack upon the justice system that dared convict him for a few of his crimes. It’ll be like revenge for Sherman’s tour of Atlanta.
Trump is and always has been a fraud. Bibi was a politician who just kinda got in the habit of tolerating a little corruption when it suited him. Now he’s in hot water, if he loses office for any reason. So that’s “Israel’s interest”.

https://www.reddit.com/r/UnitedNations/s/LT42jJaEyN

To my point: when you proclaim your whole culture is to be bound up in nazi ideology, you smear your own culture.

 

[bilby]

"Why no outrage"?

Way to miss the point. The question, in this and all other media coverage, is "Why any outrage?".

The news has devolved into an outrage machine; Only stories that outrage the viewers are reported. It's not healthy to be constantly outraged by stuff that happens to, or between, total strangers.

 

[Politesse]

Oh I am outraged- whenever anyone makes a whataboutist argument.

This isn't a whatabout argument. Rather, I'm pointing out the very different reaction to a sniper killing a journalist when there's no possibility of blaming Israel.

Threads on iidb expressing outrage about Palestinian snipers: 1

Threads on iidb expressing outrage about non-Palestinian snipers: 0

You can relax, my friend. So far, your "side" is winning the outrage contest by quite a margin.

 

[ZiprHead]

Palestinian journalist shot in the head ’by PA’ in West Bank

A Palestinian journalist was shot and killed in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, where the PA has been carrying out raids against Palestinian fighters.

www.newarab.com

Very simple: the sniper was Palestinian, no way to pretend it was Israel.

(And while the article doesn't actually say so I have a strong feeling this is part of the Hamas/Fatah conflict.)

Bad guys kill journalist. Dog bites man.

Good guys kill journalist. Man bites dog.

 

[Arctish]

Oh I am outraged- whenever anyone makes a whataboutist argument.

This isn't a whatabout argument. Rather, I'm pointing out the very different reaction to a sniper killing a journalist when there's no possibility of blaming Israel.

What different reaction? Are you under the illusion that every non-natural death in that region is picked up and reported worldwide?

I'm comparing this case to the one where a reporter was hit by what might have been a stray IDF round. Tons of analysis trying to prove it was Israeli--but the sound analysis that supposedly put the range right at where the IDF troops were was based on an incorrect microphone position and if true actually proves the opposite. Tons of news coverage.

Now, a journalist dead by what is unquestionably an intentional shot and the response is tons of so what. Why does this case draw so much less attention? The only distinguishing feature is that Israel can't be blamed. There's no PR machine blasting it out.

Are you talking about the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh?

If so, you have misremembered. IDF officials admitted that there were shots fired by a nearby IDF soldier towards the journalists, and that it appears he was the one who killed Abu Akleh and wounded one of her colleagues.

If not, please link to a report of the shooting you are talking about.

 

[Arctish]

Just going on what was in the article, there are stark differences between the murder of Shireen Abu Akleh and Shatha al-Sabbagh, the most obvious being that

1. Abu Akleh was an American citizen and therefore her death was much more likely to garner attention in the American media, while al-Sabbagh was a Palestinian in the Jenin refugee camp and therefore much less likely to be of interest to them.

2. Abu Akleh was wearing a blue Press vest and standing among a gathering of journalists and reporters, also wearing identifying vests, some of whom were also shot; al-Sabbagh was wearing civilian clothes and the only other people in danger were family members.

With that said, al-Sabbagh's death is a gross violation of human rights and possible war crime that deserves more outrage than it appears to have garnered. The article doesn't say why she was targeted, and the authorities might not know, but the report in Loren's link said the sniper kept firing shots to keep people away from her body. It might have been an assassination or it might have been an unsanctioned murder by a murderous asshole.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the first instance there is initial doubt as to the shooter but in the 2nd case, there isn’t. Seems that difference explains the interest.

There still is doubt as to the shooter in the first case--the sound analysis that was supposedly the clincher actually ruled it out.

And that doesn't explain the condemnation in the first case but not the second.

Yes it does: controversy or mystery sells more than an open and shut case in these instances.

Really, this Trumpian in victimhood claiming.

The initial reporting was simply that Israel did it. As usual, it took time for the facts to come out--the IDF was involved in a firefight with fighters that the cameras must have actively avoided pointing at (the standard reaction for a news cameraman will be to swing their camera towards things that are happening) and then the sound analysis got busted.

Fundamentally, it comes down to it's "news" if it blames Israel.

Your explanation rebuts your Trumpian conclusion.

I don't even see how that is supposed to be a meaningful reply.

There was combat in the area--but not on camera. That's not how reporters operate. That is how propaganda producers operate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The initial reporting was simply that Israel did it. As usual, it took time for the facts to come out--the IDF was involved in a firefight with fighters that the cameras must have actively avoided pointing at (the standard reaction for a news cameraman will be to swing their camera towards things that are happening) and then the sound analysis got busted.

Fundamentally, it comes down to it's "news" if it blames Israel.

Terrorists kill innocent person usually doesn't make the news because it isn't particularly news-ish, rather it is expected. Also, this is hardly the first time that the media will report on an initial case and let it float away. The media can suck like that, but people generally don't want nuanced, long-term reporting.

I agree about terrorists kill innocent not being news. But authorities kill reporter is unusual and thus is news. So why is it a big news story when supposedly Israel did it, but a nothing when it's Fatah? Why the different treatment?

I do agree the media stinks at followup. I'm not particularly faulting them for failing to cover the fact that the evidence of Israel's guilt turns out to be deeply flawed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Oh I am outraged- whenever anyone makes a whataboutist argument.

This isn't a whatabout argument. Rather, I'm pointing out the very different reaction to a sniper killing a journalist when there's no possibility of blaming Israel.

What different reaction? Are you under the illusion that every non-natural death in that region is picked up and reported worldwide?

I'm comparing this case to the one where a reporter was hit by what might have been a stray IDF round. Tons of analysis trying to prove it was Israeli--but the sound analysis that supposedly put the range right at where the IDF troops were was based on an incorrect microphone position and if true actually proves the opposite. Tons of news coverage.

Now, a journalist dead by what is unquestionably an intentional shot and the response is tons of so what. Why does this case draw so much less attention? The only distinguishing feature is that Israel can't be blamed. There's no PR machine blasting it out.

Are you talking about the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh?

If so, you have misremembered. IDF officials admitted that there were shots fired by a nearby IDF soldier towards the journalists, and that it appears he was the one who killed Abu Akleh and wounded one of her colleagues.

If not, please link to a report of the shooting you are talking about.

Yes, that's the one.

Bullet--inconclusive, both sides have guns that could have fired it. But the fact that they were slow to produce it strongly suggests it's not a ballistic match. They normally promptly produce evidence which will be damning, if it's not prompt it should be treated as probably false.

Range--this is where the problem is. There was a detailed sound analysis that showed the shot to have been fired from the distance the IDF troops were at. Oops, the mic in question wasn't on her and was actually far enough away that the sound analysis excludes the IDF.

Situation--it was reported as one shot. Definitely false, there were multiple rounds.

I don't believe it will be possible to prove this conclusively one way or the other but it sure looks like she caught stray Palestinian fire.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just going on what was in the article, there are stark differences between the murder of Shireen Abu Akleh and Shatha al-Sabbagh, the most obvious being that

1. Abu Akleh was an American citizen and therefore her death was much more likely to garner attention in the American media, while al-Sabbagh was a Palestinian in the Jenin refugee camp and therefore much less likely to be of interest to them.

2. Abu Akleh was wearing a blue Press vest and standing among a gathering of journalists and reporters, also wearing identifying vests, some of whom were also shot; al-Sabbagh was wearing civilian clothes and the only other people in danger were family members.

With that said, al-Sabbagh's death is a gross violation of human rights and possible war crime that deserves more outrage than it appears to have garnered. The article doesn't say why she was targeted, and the authorities might not know, but the report in Loren's link said the sniper kept firing shots to keep people away from her body. It might have been an assassination or it might have been an unsanctioned murder by a murderous asshole.

The shooter was Fatah. The shooter clearly intentionally targeted her.

Abu Akleh was not hit by sniper fire despite the initial reports. She was hit by one round out of a burst of fire from an ordinary assault rifle, not a sniper rifle, and there is no evidence of targeting.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

The initial reporting was simply that Israel did it. As usual, it took time for the facts to come out--the IDF was involved in a firefight with fighters that the cameras must have actively avoided pointing at (the standard reaction for a news cameraman will be to swing their camera towards things that are happening) and then the sound analysis got busted.

Fundamentally, it comes down to it's "news" if it blames Israel.

Terrorists kill innocent person usually doesn't make the news because it isn't particularly news-ish, rather it is expected. Also, this is hardly the first time that the media will report on an initial case and let it float away. The media can suck like that, but people generally don't want nuanced, long-term reporting.

I agree about terrorists kill innocent not being news. But authorities kill reporter is unusual and thus is news. So why is it a big news story when supposedly Israel did it, but a nothing when it's Fatah? Why the different treatment?

I do agree the media stinks at followup. I'm not particularly faulting them for failing to cover the fact that the evidence of Israel's guilt turns out to be deeply flawed.

You make a big fuss about one journalist being killed, and also claim that the death of just one reporter is big news, and yet according to the International Federation of Journalists, and also other sources:
Since the beginning of the war in Gaza, at least 166 journalists and media workers have been killed, several have been injured and others are missing. The IFJ is working closely with its affiliate, the Palestinian Journalists' Syndicate (PJS) to verify information in real time.
[Bolding in copied quote].

 

[Elixir]

at least 166 journalists and media workers have been killed,

How many worked for Fox News?

 

[Arctish]

Oh I am outraged- whenever anyone makes a whataboutist argument.

This isn't a whatabout argument. Rather, I'm pointing out the very different reaction to a sniper killing a journalist when there's no possibility of blaming Israel.

What different reaction? Are you under the illusion that every non-natural death in that region is picked up and reported worldwide?

I'm comparing this case to the one where a reporter was hit by what might have been a stray IDF round. Tons of analysis trying to prove it was Israeli--but the sound analysis that supposedly put the range right at where the IDF troops were was based on an incorrect microphone position and if true actually proves the opposite. Tons of news coverage.

Now, a journalist dead by what is unquestionably an intentional shot and the response is tons of so what. Why does this case draw so much less attention? The only distinguishing feature is that Israel can't be blamed. There's no PR machine blasting it out.

Are you talking about the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh?

If so, you have misremembered. IDF officials admitted that there were shots fired by a nearby IDF soldier towards the journalists, and that it appears he was the one who killed Abu Akleh and wounded one of her colleagues.

If not, please link to a report of the shooting you are talking about.

Yes, that's the one.

Bullet--inconclusive, both sides have guns that could have fired it. But the fact that they were slow to produce it strongly suggests it's not a ballistic match. They normally promptly produce evidence which will be damning, if it's not prompt it should be treated as probably false.

Range--this is where the problem is. There was a detailed sound analysis that showed the shot to have been fired from the distance the IDF troops were at. Oops, the mic in question wasn't on her and was actually far enough away that the sound analysis excludes the IDF.

Situation--it was reported as one shot. Definitely false, there were multiple rounds.

I don't believe it will be possible to prove this conclusively one way or the other but it sure looks like she caught stray Palestinian fire.

Links to sources of information on bullet matching, range measuring, sound analysis, etc. -- Missing.

 

[Arctish]

The initial reporting was simply that Israel did it. As usual, it took time for the facts to come out--the IDF was involved in a firefight with fighters that the cameras must have actively avoided pointing at (the standard reaction for a news cameraman will be to swing their camera towards things that are happening) and then the sound analysis got busted.

Fundamentally, it comes down to it's "news" if it blames Israel.

Terrorists kill innocent person usually doesn't make the news because it isn't particularly news-ish, rather it is expected. Also, this is hardly the first time that the media will report on an initial case and let it float away. The media can suck like that, but people generally don't want nuanced, long-term reporting.

I agree about terrorists kill innocent not being news. But authorities kill reporter is unusual and thus is news. So why is it a big news story when supposedly Israel did it, but a nothing when it's Fatah? Why the different treatment?

Did you miss the fact Shireen Abu Akleh was standing among a group of her fellow reporters when they all came under fire? That Abu Akleh wasn't the only one shot? That all those reporters worked for different news agencies, were there to cover the fighting, and had ways to immediately get the word out that they'd been fired upon?

Did you even stop to think for one minute why the shooting of reporters witnesses by other reporters who came under fire from the same shooter at the same time, got quicker and more widespread coverage than the shooting of an off-duty reporter at the time when there were no other reporters in the area?

I'm guessing the answer is no.

I do agree the media stinks at followup. I'm not particularly faulting them for failing to cover the fact that the evidence of Israel's guilt turns out to be deeply flawed.

Show us the evidence and the reports of the investigation that found flaws, then we'll talk.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The initial reporting was simply that Israel did it. As usual, it took time for the facts to come out--the IDF was involved in a firefight with fighters that the cameras must have actively avoided pointing at (the standard reaction for a news cameraman will be to swing their camera towards things that are happening) and then the sound analysis got busted.

Fundamentally, it comes down to it's "news" if it blames Israel.

Terrorists kill innocent person usually doesn't make the news because it isn't particularly news-ish, rather it is expected. Also, this is hardly the first time that the media will report on an initial case and let it float away. The media can suck like that, but people generally don't want nuanced, long-term reporting.

I agree about terrorists kill innocent not being news. But authorities kill reporter is unusual and thus is news. So why is it a big news story when supposedly Israel did it, but a nothing when it's Fatah? Why the different treatment?

I do agree the media stinks at followup. I'm not particularly faulting them for failing to cover the fact that the evidence of Israel's guilt turns out to be deeply flawed.

Because it isn't something Israel typically does.