Foreign press: Hamas didn't censor us in Gaza

[alsame]

Foreign press: Hamas didn't censor us in Gaza, they were nowhere to be found
Reporters who covered Operation Protective Edge in Gaza dismiss Israeli accusations of giving Hamas an easy ride.
By Anshel Pfeffer | Aug. 8, 2014 | 3:54 PM

On Wednesday night Benjamin Netanyahu briefed the foreign press, summing up four weeks of warfare in Gaza. “Now that the members of the press are leaving Gaza and are no longer subjected to Hamas restrictions and intimidation,” he said,” I expect we will see even more documentation of Hamas terrorists hiding behind the civilian population, exploiting civilian targets. I think it’s very important for the truth to come out.”

The prime minister’s voice betrayed no rancor but his words masked a deep frustration in his office over what one adviser called “a conspiracy of silence” by the foreign correspondents reporting from Gaza for the past month. “They have remained silent over how no one digs too deep into the Hamas side or into how they use civilians as human shields,” the adviser said. “That’s how they get an opportunity to cover Gaza, and it creates an imbalanced picture, which is bad for Israel. We should be trying to expose that.”

Netanyahu’s expectations have yet to be fulfilled. Of the 710 foreign journalists who crossed into Gaza during Operation Protective Edge, only a handful have claimed they were intimidated by Hamas or produced hitherto unpublished footage of rockets being fired from civilian areas, such as the pictures filmed by Indian channel NDTV, which were shown at the Netanyahu briefing. Maybe such footage will still emerge — all the foreign correspondents interviewed for this piece insisted that it doesn’t exist, and not because they wouldn’t have liked to obtain such pictures.

“It’s a phony controversy,” said one reporter who spent three weeks in Gaza and, like most who were interviewed, asked to remain anonymous. “This is a post-facto attempt to claim the media’s biased and Netanyahu [is] therefore infallibly right."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.609589

[Fred Sanders]

1. Bibi remains silent about violating the nations highest court order not to use human shields.

"I think it’s very important for the truth to come out.”, says Bibi.

I agree.

[malaise]

2. To be kind

Tell Bibi, the war Criminal, to go 'war criminal of a Dick' Cheney himself!

[Fred Sanders]

3. Bibi remains silent about hiding the truth about the 3 killed Israeli teenagers, for political gain.

[Fred Sanders]

4. Bibi remains silent about the tunnels being mainly dug and owned by private businessmen.

[Fred Sanders]

5. Bibi remains silent about his own Likud Party Charter calling for the extermination of Palestinians.

[sabrina 1]

34. He also remains silent about the IDF fighting in court to have the right to use Human Shields.

[JDPriestly]

6. If the Indian video is accurate, Hamas shoots rockets from heavily populated areas

knowing that Israel's technology will respond by attacking near or on the spot from which the rocket came. The locations from which the rockets are shot are camouflaged so that the Israelis cannot differentiate them from the surrounding area. The Israelis hit civilian areas because that is where Hamas shoots its rockets from. That's how I understood the Indian video. Makes sense to me. But I don't know if it is true. Gaza is not a big area. It might be difficult to find a place to shoot off rockets that was not near housing or civilian activity like a school or hospital.

[frylock]

7. so when these rockets are fired from heavily populated areas..

do you believe that the perpetrators remain at the site and await IDF retaliation, or do you think that they leave the scene?

[JDPriestly]

8. The video shows them leaving the scene. The idea of the bombing, I guess is to destroy the rocket

launching site.

Both sides need peace. The Palestinians who sent rockets, suicide bombers and built tunnels especially targeted civilians.

The fact that Hamas shoots rockets knowing it will attract Israeli return fire and then leaves the scene shows cowardice.

They need to sit down and negotiate peace. How much killing do they need before they understand that the cost in lives for getting everything they want is too great? They have to give up some things to get others. That is what happens in negotiations. Goes for both sides.

The big issue is whether Hamas and other Palestinian groups would enforce a peace agreement. It may be that the Palestnians are so lacking in unity that they cannot keep a peace agreement.

[frylock]

9. i agree, and in no way condone the tactics of hamas..

however, it's my belief that the IDF knows that the launch site has been abandoned, and that they use the excuse of destroying the launch site to engage in collective punishment. there's no reason why a tactical squad can't swarm the site and destroy any equipment left behind.

[JDPriestly]

10. But if the IDF sent in a tactical squad, Hamas could hide among the civilian population and just

pick off the tactical squad one by one.

War is war. It results in horrible deaths.

The bombing of Dresden is the classic example.

http://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/000617

The point is to destroy the desire of a vanquished people to resist an imposed peace.

The Palestinians have the chance to negotiate peace, but they have to be willing to give up some of the things they want and hold dear. Same for the Israelis.

The bombing of Dresden is just one example of the inevitable devastation of war. Peace is always the better alternative.

When the will for peace becomes stronger than the will for war, when getting what you want is less important than preserving life, then things can improve.

Palestinians have to completely give up the goal of returning to what is now Israel, and Israel has to give up the idea of a Greater Israel. That's the first step toward peace. And then both sides have to enforce the peace and deal with many details like how to govern the portions of Jerusalem and other holy places that they both want to control. It won't be easy, but carnage and death are the alternative.

[frylock]

12. the bombing of Dresden was a crime against humanity..

it should never be used as an example to excuse the disproportionate retaliation that Israel has engaged in for over half a century. how has that tactic worked out for Israel thus far?

[Calista241]

19. Dresden wasn't an isolated example.

The only thing different about Dresden was the building material and weather conditions combined to start a horrendous fire that burned what remained of the city. The Allied bombing of Tokyo was even worse than Dresden.

Allied bombing missions took place of nearly every Axis city in Germany. Munich, Berlin, Hannover, Bonn and other cities all suffered equally destructive bombings.

[JDPriestly]

21. It isn't an excuse. To the contrary, it is an example of what happens when warring nations

refuse to settle their disputes. People die. That's what war means.

And the solution to war is peaceful negotiation and a willingness to give something up for peace. The willingntess to work together for peace is important.

[Spider Jerusalem]

15. The bombing of Dresden isn't a useful example.

Nor are Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All of those would be categorised as war crimes under the postwar revisions of the Geneva Conventions (Geneva IV, 1949.)

[JDPriestly]

16. War is in and of itself a crime. There is no way around it.

When one side has the capacity to win brutally and believes that there is no possibility to negotiate peace then, usually, throughout history, the side with the better technology, determination,, discipline and strategy wins and wins cruelly.

It is ALWAYS better to lose less and make peace than lose more and fight a war.

Both Israel and Palestine would be wise to negotiate peace. Both sides will see many more deaths unless they seize the moment and work for peace. That means enforcing a peace agreement, not just nodding their heads for the time being while crossing their fingers behind their backs.

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. Please stop pretending that both sides are equivalent.

Israel has, over decades, refused to adhere to the obligations incumbent upon it as an occupying power under the Geneva Conventions. Israel has flagrantly breached those obligations through transfer of Israeli civilians into occupied territory through the building of settlements; through collective punishment and illegal deprivation of property (see: demolition of the houses of families of persons accused but not convicted of "terrorism"; successive Israeli governments have negotiated in bad faith (Ariel Sharon refusing a settlement freeze as a condition of peace talks; Netanyahu saying he doesn't want a sovereign Palestinian state, and so on).

[JDPriestly]

20. And the Palestinians from the beginning refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist

under the UN charter.

The argument has been going on for 60 years. Children get killed. Nothing changes except that the Israelis take more and more land.

It's time to try a different approach. It's time to work for peace.

Don't tell me that one side or the other is right or wrong. There is blame on both sides. And the children growing up in fear and hatred have a right to know a better life.

The material deprivation is bad. The spiritual deprivation due to the hatred is worse. It is completely destructive.

The past cannot be changed. Palestinians and Israelis have to get along. They have to make peace or they will destroy each other. It's better to work toward peace. And that involves giving up the idea of "I'm right. I'm righteous." Regardless of all the wrongs. Both sides have mile-long lists of wrongs. Ultimately both will be destroyed and set back unless they find a way to change their attitudes and live in peace.

The whole world is being embroiled in the dispute. What can be gained that is worth all the deaths and all the fighting? It's time to negotiate peace.

Peace negotiations have never had the support of all the people in the area. That is what is needed to make them work.

What kind of life do Palestinians and Israelis want? More and more war?

[Spider Jerusalem]

22. Again, stop pretending that both sides are equivalent.

Israel's existence is a settled fact. However now, and for the past several decades, it's been Israel explicitly denying the right of the Palestinians to self-determination. It's been Israel illegally expanding settlements in occupied territory in violation of the Geneva Conventions. It's been Israel engaging in collective punishments and imposing de facto apartheid on Palestinians in the West Bank.

It's very clear that the Palestinians want an end to Israeli occupation, and increasingly clear that the Israeli government wants to make a two-state solution absolutely impossible.

[U4ikLefty]

31. They try hard, don't they? They're starting to get desparate in the face of world opinion.

The tide is turning

[AgingAmerican]

35. From the beginning? They were ethnically cleansed

Are you fucking kidding? In 'the beginning' they were ethnically cleansed from their land, farms and homes so the Jewish people could take them over. They were driven out of Palestine with whatever they could carry on their backs.

"refused to recognize the right of Israel to exist"
Over 700,000 of them were driven out in a forced exodus. 80% of the Arab population. Now tell us just who doesn't recognize whose right to exist? You have it backwards.

1948 Palestinian Exodus

[jaysunb]

13. Suicide bombers ?

Can you provide more info on this....I haven't heard or read of this in many years.

Thanks

[JDPriestly]

23. The Second Intifada

Regarding the numbers of Israeli civilian versus combatant deaths, B'Tselem reports that through April 30, 2008 there were 719 Israeli civilians killed and 334 Israeli security force personnel killed.[141] In other words, 31.7% of those killed were Israeli security force personnel, while 68.3% were civilians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Intifada

I remember reading about, for example, the bombing of a bus and other violent events within Israel aimed at Israelis.

This dispute has been going on for over 60 years. It's time that it end. It can either end with peace negotiations or one side will destroy the other. I think peace negotiations are preferable.

Palestinians have more to win and Israelis have more to lose in peace negotiations. I do not understand why Palestinians don't negotiate in good faith and enforce peace agreements.

[Spider Jerusalem]

29. Probably because Israel has never negotiated in good faith.

(See: Refusal to halt settlement expansions.)

If Israel would abide by any of their obligations under international law perhaps they could be trusted as a negotiating partner. They haven't and seem disinclined to.

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. Here's the thing, though.

Regardless of whether Hamas does in fact fire rockets from densely populated areas, the responsibility to avoid inflicting unnecessary civilian casualties lies with Israel.

8. But if Hamas is deliberately operating out of civilian areas, isn't it their fault when civilians get hurt, not Israel's?

No, that's not how the law works. All parties to a conflict have an obligation to protect civilians and abide by international law, even if the other parties fail to do so.

It is true that Hamas and other-Gaza based militants aren't complying with international law themselves. They target Israeli civilians in rocket attacks, commingle military sites and operations with civilian institutions, and, according to some reports, force people to remain in buildings after warnings from the Israeli military in order to serve as human shields. All of those are clear violations of the Geneva Conventions and customary international law.

However, there is no legal principle that states that two wrongs make a right. Israel and Hamas both have obligations to civilians, and those obligations persist, even if the other side violates them. So Israel still has to avoid causing disproportionate harm to Gazans, even if Hamas is knowingly putting them in danger. Likewise, even if Israel's operations during Operation Protective Edge violate international law, it's still illegal for Hamas to attack Israeli civilians.

Civilian protection is a basic right — not something that has to be earned through combatants' good behavior.

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/7/5975255/9-questions-you-were-embarrassed-to-ask-about-whether-the-war-in-gaza

[JDPriestly]

25. What are the Palestinian rockets aimed at? Military installations? Whatever they can hit?

Or civilian sites?

And the tunnels? What are they aimed at? Military installations? Anywhere they end up? Or civilians?

There is blame on both sides.

[Spider Jerusalem]

28. Can you even read?

Are you being deliberately thick, here? "blame on both sides". Fucksake. Sure, there's blame on both sides. But only ONE SIDE has the other under 47 years of military occupation. I don't really understand the thought process that allows one to think that there's an equivalent amount of blame between the side imposing a military occupation, on the one hand, and those resisting it, on the other.

[JDPriestly]

30. Had Palestinians accepted the partition, they would control a lot more land than they do now.

That is no excuse for refusing to negotiate in good faith for peace.

Think of the great things that Palestinians and Israelis could achieve if instead of fighting each other, they worked together. Palestinians have fought war after war and lost and lost. Negotiating peace is in their interests. So many lives lost. So much talent wasted. On war. It's shameful.

[Spider Jerusalem]

32. Israel has consistently failed to negotiate in good faith.

Israel refuses to stop expanding settlements. Israel refuses to abide by its obligations under international law. Whatever the Palestinians may have rejected 67 years ago has little bearing on the present situation or on decades of bad faith exhibited by Israel.

[Uncle Joe]

24. Yes but Netanyahu couldn't possibly have known that Gaza is one of the most densely packed

areas on the planet?

Or that relatively unarmed civilians old people, women , children, babies and men couldn't overpower a heavily armed Hamas, and other extremist armed groups, am I right?

He also couldn't have known that the 10 year kill ratio of the rockets being fired was something like .001% that would be impossible for him to know, don't you think?

[slipslidingaway]

27. Strange that missile strikes never hit near the hotel where foreign journalists were ...

staying and where the Indian news crew was located.

This is not to say I doubt the film shot by this crew, but you have to wonder why hotels where foreign journalists were staying did not suffer the same fate as the UN shelters.

[MFM008]

33. we can assume that

simply because there are no UNPOPULATED areas in Gaza. You cant do pinpoint strikes with WMDs.

[sabrina 1]

36. Where should the rockets be fired from? Do the Palestinians have the kind of military

bases or open, unoccupied spaces that they can defend themselves from? You do realize why rockets were fired in the first place after 19 months of no rockets? Netanyahu LIED about the tragic deaths of three young Israelis, he used that lie to attack Gaza and only then did Hamas respond. They had a right to respond to such an attack.

And are you aware that the IDF has fought in court to have the right to use human shields? I don't think Israel in a very good position to continue to try to use this particular talking point. Netanyahu tried it again today, attempting to influence the foreign press but he was roundly slapped down by the press.

The fact is that the Far Right Israeli Govt is bad for Israel. It gets harder and harder to defend them. Sometimes it's better to admit the truth and move on to try to fix what is wrong. Many of us here in the US have had to do that, it's hard in the beginning, but it is the right thing to do when great wrongs are being committed, no matter how much we wish it was not so.

[JDPriestly]

37. And if Israelis did not feel so frightened of and angry at the militant Palestinians,

the Israelis would elect a more liberal and better government. It is a vicious circle.

My belief is that the Palestinians hold the key to ending that vicious cycle. They need to negotiate for peace and punish any among the Palestinians who interfere with the peace negotiations.

It will be hard, but Israelis need peace. They are surrounded by Arab countries and if the Palestinians and Israelis could get along, both nations, both peoples would thrive.

The situation as it now exists is untenable.

Israel has the upper hand militarily. But Palestinians still refuse to negotiate peace.

I envision peace negotiations that would, as in Northern Ireland, from the get-go plot out slow, incremental changes and provide the means for building democratic institutions that work for Palestinians. Efforts to meet the imminent physical needs of Palestinians would be part of the solution, working slowly toward Palestinian self-reliance and independence.

The Palestinians need land and a lot of material aid. The Israelis need peace and security.

Each side would gain from a working peace.

If the troubles in North Ireland could be dealt with through negotiations, so can those in Palestine/Israel.

I'm oversimplifying what kinds of agreements would be needed. But every day that people lament what is going on and blame this side or that, lives are placed in jeopardy and the lives that the people on both sides of the dispute could and should have are not lived.

Here on DU people are taking the side of the Palestinians. In most of America people support the Israelis. It would be better to support peace on both sides and war and uprising on neither side.

How would we live here in California if our country were at war with one of our neighbors. Not as well as we live when we are at peace, I assure.

War is never the answer.

[2banon]

11. K&R

[Rex]

17. RWing groups are the shittiest kind of political parties in existence.

They love killing others and pretend it is always justified.

[oberliner]

26. Who were the reporters?

Did anyone go on record? Seems to be all anonymous.