AP statement on Israeli attack on building housing AP office

[Lyndon]

Why is it that right wing commentators want to justify attacks on the international media, have they got something to hide?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why is it that right wing commentators want to justify attacks on the international media, have they got something to hide?

The one I mentioned only explained the international law. He pointed out that Israel still needs to justify their claim. As he said, paraphrasing The law is clear. The details are messy.

In other words if Israel can prove their claim the attack was valid. Odds are that they can't or won't.

 

[Lyndon]

I think there would be Hamas members in every residence, still doesn't justify bombing them, There are probably Nazis in the US congress building, does that justify bombing it?

 

[Kooky]

A CNN commentator made some interesting points on war crimes. Israel may have been guilty of a war crime here. If they cannot provide evidence that supports their claims what they did was a war crime. If they can provide the evidence for their claims then the buildings were valid military targets. He also pointed out that there is no doubt that Hamas is guilty of war crimes. He gave several specific examples and it is a problem for the media that they do not hold Hamas up to the same standards as they are trying to hold Israel to. Hama has directed unaimed rockets at civilian cities. That is a war crime. Their armed forces have worn civilian clothes to blend in with the other civilians. That is a war crime. He points out that it is clear that Hamas is guilty of war crimes. Israel be guilty of a war crime for this event. And the commentator was David French.

David French (political commentator) - Wikipedia

TLDR: Military and law expertise, conservative but not crazy conservative. For example did not support Trump.

In total war, civilian infrastructure has historically been fair game when it supported the enemy's efforts to communicate and control, specifically media and radio infrastructure. The US bombarded Serbian TV and radio stations during the War in Kosovo, and civilian infrastructure was a target for US air strikes during the early phase of the War in Iraq.

Likewise, the targeting of production sites that serve an ultimately military purpose have been fair game for bombardment since WW2, and the US engaged in this in copious amounts during the Korean and Vietnam Wars.

So both Hamas and the IDF are playing by the original WW2 playbook of strikes against the civilian population and civilian infrastructure for military-political purposes.

 

[rosends]

Then there is this article

Israel gave US evidence of Hamas operating out of building

 

[Subduction Zone]

In total war, civilian infrastructure has historically been fair game when it supported the enemy's efforts to communicate and control, specifically media and radio infrastructure. The US bombarded Serbian TV and radio stations during the War in Kosovo, and civilian infrastructure was a target for US air strikes during the early phase of the War in Iraq.

Likewise, the targeting of production sites that serve an ultimately military purpose have been fair game for bombardment since WW2, and the US engaged in this in copious amounts during the Korean and Vietnam Wars.

So both Hamas and the IDF are playing by the original WW2 playbook of strikes against the civilian population and civilian infrastructure for military-political purposes.

You might not have noticed this but we have advanced in ethics since the Vietnamese wars. The standards used in Iraq were those of international law. The times that we violated it, such as cases of prisoner abuse, resulted in prosecutions.

If you want to claim that Israel is guilty of war crimes you need to do more than just shout about how they bombed that building. Tell me, what should be done to the AP if Israel's claims are verified?

 

[Kooky]

You might not have noticed this but we have advanced in ethics since the Vietnamese wars.

Who is "we"?
Militaries in war? Certainly not.

What has happened since the Vietnam War was that militaries became acutely aware of PR and international media as a possible new front in future wars, and went to great lengths to ensure they would be in as much control of the narrative of future wars as feasible. The 2nd Gulf War was the hallmark of this period of total military control over international media, when the atrocities inflicted upon civilians and military personnel were almost completely absent from publicized war imagery and media reports until long after the war had ended.

The standards used in Iraq were those of international law. The times that we violated it, such as cases of prisoner abuse, resulted in prosecutions.

Most atrocities against civilians by US troops went unprosecuted, or even unacknowledged by US media, let alone the US military.

If you want to claim that Israel is guilty of war crimes you need to do more than just shout about how they bombed that building. Tell me, what should be done to the AP if Israel's claims are verified?

I never said anything about war crimes. It is evident to me that civilian killings are within the boundaries of international law as long as the operating military claims them to be "collateral" in nature, meaning that they knew they would hit civilians but didn't care - as opposed to the direct targeting of civilians which every military will be accused of but deny to media that was ever their intention, unless so colossally unable to control their media narrative that they just happen to be painted that way. With most of its PR staff nonexistent or unable to properly work with media on a professional level, Hamas tends to often fall in the last category.

 

[Shaul]

So you claim that the A.P. President was lying?

There is nothing in what I wrote that said he was lying. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Are you suggesting that the President of the AP never ever lies or omits mentioning things inconvenient to its purposes? He didn’t say whether AP knew Hamas was operating out of that building or not.

 

[Lyndon]

Are you suggesting that Israel and the IDF never lie about Hamas, and are not lying, it seems to me AP has much less reason to be lying on this.

 

[Shaul]

it was specifically designed to destroy all the media companies expensive electronic equipment, used to make, edit and transmit programmes, The Israelis actually refused to give the media 10 extra minutes to remove any of their equipment, if you believe this has anything to do with Hamas in the building and not quashing media freedom, you would believe anything Israel tells you.

Or the Israelis didn’t give them 10 extra minutes to let Hamas have more time to evacuate.

 

[Shaul]

You have to be pretty gullible to believe the Israeli excuses on this one, it was clearly an attack to paralyze the media operations by destroying all their equipment and locations.

Not only is it not clear it makes no sense. Israel could eliminate media access to Gaza without bombs.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is nothing in what I wrote that said he was lying. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Are you suggesting that the President of the AP never ever lies or omits mentioning things inconvenient to its purposes? He didn’t say whether AP knew Hamas was operating out of that building or not.

From APnews:

‘Shocking and horrifying’: Israel destroys AP office in Gaza

For 15 years, the AP’s top-floor office and roof terrace were a prime location for covering Israel’s conflicts with Gaza’s Hamas rulers, including wars in 2009, 2012 and 2014. The news agency’s camera offered 24-hour live shots as militants’ rockets arched toward Israel and Israeli airstrikes hammered the city and its surrounding area this week.​

“We have had no indication Hamas was in the building or active in the building,” AP President and CEO Gary Pruitt said in a statement. “This is something we actively check to the best of our ability. We would never knowingly put our journalists at risk.”

Pruitt described the news agency as “shocked and horrified that the Israeli military would target and destroy the building housing AP’s bureau and other news organizations in Gaza.” He warned: “The world will know less about what is happening in Gaza because of what happened today.”

“This is an incredibly disturbing development. We narrowly avoided a terrible loss of life,” he said, adding that the AP was seeking information from the Israeli government and was in touch with the U.S. State Department.

The building housed a number of offices, including those of the Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera. Dozens of residents who lived in apartments on the upper floors were displaced. [emphasis added]
​

 

[Lyndon]

And yet we are being told to believe that Israeli Military intelligence, hardly an unbiased party, knows better than the journalists that live in the building

 

[Shaul]

From APnews:

‘Shocking and horrifying’: Israel destroys AP office in Gaza

For 15 years, the AP’s top-floor office and roof terrace were a prime location for covering Israel’s conflicts with Gaza’s Hamas rulers, including wars in 2009, 2012 and 2014. The news agency’s camera offered 24-hour live shots as militants’ rockets arched toward Israel and Israeli airstrikes hammered the city and its surrounding area this week.​

“We have had no indication Hamas was in the building or active in the building,” AP President and CEO Gary Pruitt said in a statement. “This is something we actively check to the best of our ability. We would never knowingly put our journalists at risk.”

Pruitt described the news agency as “shocked and horrified that the Israeli military would target and destroy the building housing AP’s bureau and other news organizations in Gaza.” He warned: “The world will know less about what is happening in Gaza because of what happened today.”

“This is an incredibly disturbing development. We narrowly avoided a terrible loss of life,” he said, adding that the AP was seeking information from the Israeli government and was in touch with the U.S. State Department.

The building housed a number of offices, including those of the Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera. Dozens of residents who lived in apartments on the upper floors were displaced. [emphasis added]
​

The AP has had plenty of indications that Hamas used the building. Hamas thugs have entered the AP offices and launched rockets next to the building while AP reporters watched. Even a former AP spokesman admitted this. What the Media Gets Wrong About Israel
The AP carries water Hamas to maintain access to them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They said they received a warning. That dosent sound as if they are targeting journalists.

It sounds as if they were trying to hinder their ability to report on events without necessarily killing them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And international law is clear on this. If the military is using a civilian building it does become a valid military target.

What military was using this building?

Palestine doesn't have an armed forces.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The AP has had plenty of indications that Hamas used the building.

And you know this how? More to the point, why did you lie?

(Clearly your statement that "He didn’t say whether AP knew Hamas was operating out of that building or not" was a foolish and transparent fabrication.)​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From today's Haaretz ...

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Monday he hasn't yet seen any evidence supporting Israel's claim that Hamas operated in a Gaza building housing The Associated Press and other media outlets that was destroyed by an Israeli airstrike. Blinken said he has pressed Israel for justification.


Blinken spoke at a news conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, a day after The Associated Press’ top editor called for an independent investigation into the Israeli airstrikeover the weekend that targeted and destroyed a Gaza City building housing the AP, broadcaster Al-Jazeera and other media, saying the public deserves to know the facts.​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would say that you are probably correct here. It is a clear loss if they cannot support their claims. I doubt if they are that "anti-media". And international law is clear on this. If the military is using a civilian building it does become a valid military target. Warning the people was a courtesy since it allowed the Hamas operatives to get away with the civilians.

Another thought: what "international law" are you talking about?

If you're talking about tge rules governing wars between states, then it seems you're implying:

- there are two states involved,
- Israel is at war with the other state, and
- Sheikh Jarrah is part of - or at least held by - the other state.

Would you say all that is correct, as you see it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another thought: what "international law" are you talking about?

If you're talking about tge rules governing wars between states, then it seems you're implying:

- there are two states involved,
- Israel is at war with the other state, and
- Sheikh Jarrah is part of - or at least held by - the other state.

Would you say all that is correct, as you see it?

That is what it looks like. At least from the view,of the commentators.