Hamas and reporters

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4422.htm


They even admit to intimidating and deporting reporters that don't toe the party line.

You guys still think the reporting out of Gaza is honest?

 

[Bronzeage]

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4422.htm


They even admit to intimidating and deporting reporters that don't toe the party line.

You guys still think the reporting out of Gaza is honest?

If I was a military commander, besieged and under hostile fire, the first thing I would do is shut down all sources of information my enemy could access. It would be like having an artillery spotter in my own camp. I remember when Saddam was shooting Skuds at Israel. The first thing Israel did was shut down all reporting about them.

 

[funinspace]

The Falklands war...and the Brit's use of the media...hum

 

[arkirk]

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4422.htm


They even admit to intimidating and deporting reporters that don't toe the party line.

You guys still think the reporting out of Gaza is honest?

Anybody the Israelis would let into Gaza would be highly suspect. They would very likely be interested in the location of Hamas armaments. What the woman in the video said seems to make sense.

 

[TacticalLoco]

Thank goodness we can rely on the US and Israeli sources, Fox News and Loren to be fair and balanced.

 

[whichphilosophy]

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4422.htm


They even admit to intimidating and deporting reporters that don't toe the party line.

You guys still think the reporting out of Gaza is honest?

The issue as claimed by Hamas, is they are filming locations where rockets are fired from. This is quite a normal security initiative, even if most of the rockets would be launched from hand held (mobile) launchers.
However the term honest reporting on any world issues is often seen as an oxymoron

 

[Loren Pechtel]

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4422.htm


They even admit to intimidating and deporting reporters that don't toe the party line.

You guys still think the reporting out of Gaza is honest?

Anybody the Israelis would let into Gaza would be highly suspect. They would very likely be interested in the location of Hamas armaments. What the woman in the video said seems to make sense.

Israel doesn't decide who to let in. At most they might decide to not let someone into Israel in the first place but you can still cross from Egypt.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4422.htm


They even admit to intimidating and deporting reporters that don't toe the party line.

You guys still think the reporting out of Gaza is honest?

The issue as claimed by Hamas, is they are filming locations where rockets are fired from. This is quite a normal security initiative, even if most of the rockets would be launched from hand held (mobile) launchers.
However the term honest reporting on any world issues is often seen as an oxymoron

It's not just where they are fired from but not taking the Hamas line on reporting.

 

[Bronzeage]

Anybody the Israelis would let into Gaza would be highly suspect. They would very likely be interested in the location of Hamas armaments. What the woman in the video said seems to make sense.

Israel doesn't decide who to let in. At most they might decide to not let someone into Israel in the first place but you can still cross from Egypt.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4422.htm


They even admit to intimidating and deporting reporters that don't toe the party line.

You guys still think the reporting out of Gaza is honest?

The issue as claimed by Hamas, is they are filming locations where rockets are fired from. This is quite a normal security initiative, even if most of the rockets would be launched from hand held (mobile) launchers.
However the term honest reporting on any world issues is often seen as an oxymoron

It's not just where they are fired from but not taking the Hamas line on reporting.

This is a pointless line of discussion. Hamas has good reasons for controlling journalist's reports from Gaza and every other military in the world does exactly the same thing in these conditions. Whatever faults Hamas may have, trying to portray them as bad or evil because they control reporters, just doesn't wash.

 

[ZiprHead]

Wasn't there an incident in the Iraq war II where a CNN reporter was reporting the position of US forces? I seem to remember that was quite a big issue.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Anybody the Israelis would let into Gaza would be highly suspect. They would very likely be interested in the location of Hamas armaments. What the woman in the video said seems to make sense.

Israel doesn't decide who to let in. At most they might decide to not let someone into Israel in the first place but you can still cross from Egypt.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4422.htm


They even admit to intimidating and deporting reporters that don't toe the party line.

You guys still think the reporting out of Gaza is honest?

The issue as claimed by Hamas, is they are filming locations where rockets are fired from. This is quite a normal security initiative, even if most of the rockets would be launched from hand held (mobile) launchers.
However the term honest reporting on any world issues is often seen as an oxymoron

It's not just where they are fired from but not taking the Hamas line on reporting.

In Military terms the Hamas line seems logical. When I was living in a a British army base working as a civilian. One of my colleagues took some photos of a helicopter landing (in peace time) and the Military police immediately warned him about taking photos. It's natural to restrict access to military locations even in peace time.

 

[EricK]

Israel doesn't decide who to let in. At most they might decide to not let someone into Israel in the first place but you can still cross from Egypt.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/4422.htm


They even admit to intimidating and deporting reporters that don't toe the party line.

You guys still think the reporting out of Gaza is honest?

The issue as claimed by Hamas, is they are filming locations where rockets are fired from. This is quite a normal security initiative, even if most of the rockets would be launched from hand held (mobile) launchers.
However the term honest reporting on any world issues is often seen as an oxymoron

It's not just where they are fired from but not taking the Hamas line on reporting.

In Military terms the Hamas line seems logical. When I was living in a a British army base working as a civilian. One of my colleagues took some photos of a helicopter landing (in peace time) and the Military police immediately warned him about taking photos. It's natural to restrict access to military locations even in peace time.

It seems to me that the point being made by the OP is not about whether or not Hamas is acting correctly or rationally or differently to how other governments or military organisations would behave; but rather given the way they are acting, is it correct or rational for us to believe the reports coming out of there.

Knowing that both sides are quite prepared to lie suggests to me that anybody who assumes that some report is true simply because it aligns with their current worldview is displaying worrying amounts of confirmation bias.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wasn't there an incident in the Iraq war II where a CNN reporter was reporting the position of US forces? I seem to remember that was quite a big issue.

After the rocket flies it's not exactly a secret location.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems to me that the point being made by the OP is not about whether or not Hamas is acting correctly or rationally or differently to how other governments or military organisations would behave; but rather given the way they are acting, is it correct or rational for us to believe the reports coming out of there.

Knowing that both sides are quite prepared to lie suggests to me that anybody who assumes that some report is true simply because it aligns with their current worldview is displaying worrying amounts of confirmation bias.

Exactly. I'm showing that those who want to report from Gaza have to do what Hamas wants--and remember, this is just what they admit to.

 

[Bronzeage]

After the rocket flies it's not exactly a secret location.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems to me that the point being made by the OP is not about whether or not Hamas is acting correctly or rationally or differently to how other governments or military organisations would behave; but rather given the way they are acting, is it correct or rational for us to believe the reports coming out of there.

Knowing that both sides are quite prepared to lie suggests to me that anybody who assumes that some report is true simply because it aligns with their current worldview is displaying worrying amounts of confirmation bias.

Exactly. I'm showing that those who want to report from Gaza have to do what Hamas wants--and remember, this is just what they admit to.

Well, yeah. And, just what every other government does in a war zone. Does the fact that reports from Gaza must be read through a credibility filter make other reports more believable? This really just an elaborate poisoning the well campaign, warning everyone that Hamas taints all reports, before we hear the report.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

After the rocket flies it's not exactly a secret location.

- - - Updated - - -



Exactly. I'm showing that those who want to report from Gaza have to do what Hamas wants--and remember, this is just what they admit to.

Well, yeah. And, just what every other government does in a war zone. Does the fact that reports from Gaza must be read through a credibility filter make other reports more believable? This really just an elaborate poisoning the well campaign, warning everyone that Hamas taints all reports, before we hear the report.

Most of the people on here are taking those reports as true. There would be no need to prove them tainted if that wasn't happening.

(For example: According to Hamas it's almost all civilian casualties. According to the IDF it's about 50:50--and in past conflicts the IDF numbers have stood up pretty well, the Palestinian numbers have not.)

 

[Togo]

Well, yeah. And, just what every other government does in a war zone. Does the fact that reports from Gaza must be read through a credibility filter make other reports more believable? This really just an elaborate poisoning the well campaign, warning everyone that Hamas taints all reports, before we hear the report.

Most of the people on here are taking those reports as true. There would be no need to prove them tainted if that wasn't happening.

(For example: According to Hamas it's almost all civilian casualties. According to the IDF it's about 50:50--and in past conflicts the IDF numbers have stood up pretty well, the Palestinian numbers have not.)

There are clearly great difficulties in getting accurate numbers immediately after a bombing. However, the overall casualty numbers, in the long run, are fairly accurate on both sides. The sources you posted to suggest otherwise turned out to support this. The main difference is that Israel labels everyone who any sort of past or present Hamas connection (such as government employees) as a legitimate target, irrespective of how old the connection is, and what they were doing at the time. This gives rise to inflated numbers of 'military' targets, which are generally then disputed.

The most obvious example in operation cast lead, which started with a massive 3am missile strike on several hundred police stations. Both sides agree how many people were killed, and their status. Israel claims that civilian police are legitimate military target, and most other sources do not.

 

[Bronzeage]

Well, yeah. And, just what every other government does in a war zone. Does the fact that reports from Gaza must be read through a credibility filter make other reports more believable? This really just an elaborate poisoning the well campaign, warning everyone that Hamas taints all reports, before we hear the report.

Most of the people on here are taking those reports as true. There would be no need to prove them tainted if that wasn't happening.

(For example: According to Hamas it's almost all civilian casualties. According to the IDF it's about 50:50--and in past conflicts the IDF numbers have stood up pretty well, the Palestinian numbers have not.)

In the big picture, the difference between 75:25 and 50:50, shrinks to insignificance, because all who are killed, are 100% dead. If we put real numbers on it, at 50:50, the IDF kills one woman, child or other noncombatant, for every Gazan fighter. With a population of 1.8 million in 139 square miles, it's difficult to imagine any uniformed troop(do they wear uniforms?) being very far from a civilian.

Quibbling over the numbers is pointless. It does not improve Israel's appearance in the world, whether it is 1000 children, or 500. If Israel cannot justify the losses on both sides, they need to find some other way to deal with the problem. Saying, "We didn't really kill that many people when we were shooting, bombing and shelling Gaza," just makes it seem like poor marksmanship.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Most of the people on here are taking those reports as true. There would be no need to prove them tainted if that wasn't happening.

(For example: According to Hamas it's almost all civilian casualties. According to the IDF it's about 50:50--and in past conflicts the IDF numbers have stood up pretty well, the Palestinian numbers have not.)

There are clearly great difficulties in getting accurate numbers immediately after a bombing. However, the overall casualty numbers, in the long run, are fairly accurate on both sides. The sources you posted to suggest otherwise turned out to support this. The main difference is that Israel labels everyone who any sort of past or present Hamas connection (such as government employees) as a legitimate target, irrespective of how old the connection is, and what they were doing at the time. This gives rise to inflated numbers of 'military' targets, which are generally then disputed.

Anyone with a present Hamas connection is a valid target. Why do you say they're wrong in counting them as combatants?

As for past--how many retirees are there? Especially since most of the casualties are young males.

The most obvious example in operation cast lead, which started with a massive 3am missile strike on several hundred police stations. Both sides agree how many people were killed, and their status. Israel claims that civilian police are legitimate military target, and most other sources do not.

Except the Hamas casualty numbers now reflect those "police."

 

[Togo]

There are clearly great difficulties in getting accurate numbers immediately after a bombing. However, the overall casualty numbers, in the long run, are fairly accurate on both sides. The sources you posted to suggest otherwise turned out to support this. The main difference is that Israel labels everyone who any sort of past or present Hamas connection (such as government employees) as a legitimate target, irrespective of how old the connection is, and what they were doing at the time. This gives rise to inflated numbers of 'military' targets, which are generally then disputed.

Anyone with a present Hamas connection is a valid target. Why do you say they're wrong in counting them as combatants?

Because the legitimate government of Gaza is Hamas, and the government employs teachers, nurses, administrators, civil servants, and so on.

Except the Hamas casualty numbers now reflect those "police."

As your own source revealed, they are included as policemen, as opposed to members of the armed brigades. Various members of Hamas may have reasons to include them or exclude them as martyrs rather than hapless victims, but there is no ambiguity around who they were, or how many there were.

The fact remains they were killed as part of a sneak attack in the middle of the night, simply for being members of the police force.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anyone with a present Hamas connection is a valid target. Why do you say they're wrong in counting them as combatants?

Because the legitimate government of Gaza is Hamas, and the government employs teachers, nurses, administrators, civil servants, and so on.

Except the Hamas casualty numbers now reflect those "police."

As your own source revealed, they are included as policemen, as opposed to members of the armed brigades. Various members of Hamas may have reasons to include them or exclude them as martyrs rather than hapless victims, but there is no ambiguity around who they were, or how many there were.

The fact remains they were killed as part of a sneak attack in the middle of the night, simply for being members of the police force.

What you are missing is that the numbers that Hamas says they lost include them.

When you give a soldier a cover job as a civilian he's still a soldier.