They were dragged from the vehicle - marked “TV” in red tape - searched and pushed against a wall.
Mr Tutunji and Mr Abudiab said they identified themselves as BBC journalists and showed police their press ID cards.
While attempting to film the incident, Mr Tutunji said his phone was thrown on the ground and he was struck on the neck.
Fuck, and here I thought “okay, maybe a honest mistake, tensions are running high”. But nope, pure malice.
IDF killed a Reuters reporter earlier today with Helicopter. They’ve blown up the Al Jazeera offices during previous wars and shot Shireen Abu Akleh dead while she was clearly marked as press.
This is no mistake. There is a pattern of suppressing and killing journalists who don’t report the story in their favor.
Don’t forget “Collateral Murder”:
On July 12, 2007, a series of air-to-ground attacks were conducted by a team of two U.S. AH-64 Apache helicopters in Al-Amin al-Thaniyah, New Baghdad, during the Iraqi insurgency which followed the invasion of Iraq. On April 5, 2010, the attacks received worldwide coverage and controversy following the release of 39 minutes of classified gunsight footage by WikiLeaks. The video, which WikiLeaks titled Collateral Murder, showed the crew firing on a group of people and killing several of them, including two Reuters journalists, and then laughing at some of the casualties, all of whom were civilians. An anonymous U.S. military official confirmed the authenticity of the footage, which provoked global discussion on the legality and morality of the attacks.
What’s your point? “Collateral Murder” was the US military. Just whataboutism?
Both things are bad.
The biggest issue with that was the US denying involvement until the video was released. The actions of the helicopter crew make sense in context when watching the video.
There were RPGs and rifles in the group that was 100 yards from US ground forces that had been under attack by small arms fire and RPGs. The camera equipment appeared to be additional weaponry, and the reporters wore no identifying gear and had not informed the military of their location.
When a cameraman pointed his camera at US troops, the long telephoto lens appeared from the chopper to be an RPG, so the gunner fired on him and on the support van that drove up on scene.
When boots arrive at the scene, the soldiers find weapons and cameras, and immediately try to evacuate the wounded children. It should be noted that one of the journalists who died died at the hospital. If they were really trying to cover things up at that point they would have made sure he died at the scene.
The video proves that the US lied about what happened, but also very clearly demonstrates that there was zero intentional killing of journalists.
Thanks for the background info.
Are people still saying Israel is the good guys? Do good guys do this?
Do good guys kill Reuters cameramen?
Do good guys bomb hospitals?
Do good guys commit genocide?
Yes, they are. My CEO sent out an email this morning about how he’s saddened by “the attacks on Israel” and glad “all our Israeli employees are safe”. He closed with “we stand with Israel”. No mention of any sadness or fucks given for all the dead Palestinian civilians.
God I remember during the George Floyd protests our CEO sent an email statement that was basically “blue lives matter”. I was happy to leave that company.
No good guys in wars.
Heh, I had a similar reaction when reading a similar email. There certainly have been “Horrific terrorist attacks”. Except from all sides… for many decades…
Our CEO was careful and only mentioned support for the Israeli employees and didn’t mention any conflict.
And we’re donating to the Red Cross. I think it makes sense.
There was a controversial and sexist bait letter someone at Google wrote before being let go and it was heavily propped up by right wing media as an example and justification that everything Google does from now on is left wing because they’re cancelling this poor sexist man.
My first long term job’s company instructed HR to print out the letter and give a strong endorsement of it for seemingly no reason. It basically just read to me as, “Women have strongsuits other than business success like emotions and raising children and their lack of pay is actually justified and good.” that they wanted to come from our female head of HR as opposed to our do nothing remote from Florida male CEO. These rich people are no smarter than anyone else, they just use bigger words as they stick their foot down their own throat.
CEO suddenly emailed out a “terrorism is never ok” email early this week expressing concern and acknowledging the pain of the Hamas attacks…as if anything has occured in a vacuum there in the last 60 years.
I do not apologize for the murders by Hamas over the weekend, just as I do not for the now even more retaliatory murders by Israel this week or any killings on either side for decades. Montagues and Capulets both were assholes.
The idea any organizational head from some random industry in a foreign country could even understand the basic dynamics, let alone decades of murder and loss on both sides, and still make a statement that would in any way walk a line of objectivity is so startlingly naive it boggles the mind. And other than their fucking irrepressible egoism, they would claim they’re doing this for their employees? Company? Just STFU when you don’t know the field of play!
Not sure there’s such a thing as “good guys” anymore.
deleted by creator
I think the person you’re replying to is being facetious or at least centric based on your comment. Saying no good guys, alluding to the fact that the actors involved are all guilty of atrocities in some way. Not that they’re trying to be “politically correct”, but then again, I could be entirely wrong… ¯\_༼ •́ ͜ʖ •̀ ༽_/¯
I think the person you’re replying to is being facetious
I think the point is nobody anywhere is the “good guys”. Every country is evil in many ways.
I think that is giving them a free pass. No country is perfect but Israel is now ramping up a campaign of genocide which puts them among the worst
I’ve been considering putting thems/yous on my work signature.
I don’t think the Netanyahu regime are the good guys, but I didn’t think the Trump regime were the good guys either. I don’t endorse blaming a nationality for the actions of shitty leaders, especially shitty leaders who have directly undermined democracy in their countries.
Wild to me that you conflated Netanyahu and Trump, rather than Israel and Hamas. But either way, I agree.
I don’t think what Hamas has done is “cool, chill and dope”, but I certainly understand living under the violence of apartheid and becoming violent yourself.
Especially when your prayer, worship and protest are met with military action by your “supervisor”(?)
What else are you supposed to do if you’re a Palestinian? They can’t even live a normal day of peace, that doesn’t exist for them.
Wild to me that you conflated Netanyahu and Trump, rather than Israel and Hamas.
I consider Netanyahu and Trump to be elements of the modern international neofascist movement, aka “illiberal democracy”.
Makes sense. I just thought it was a little out of left field.
No, right field
Or, currently, the Killing Fields
Those were from communist extremists though.
It’s so hard though, people really want to pick a side and I get that because it makes it much easier to think about and emotionally deal with but the reality is it’s a painfully complex situation.
The same question exists for Israelis, the only reason they aren’t being massacred is because of their hugely expensivel security systems and the fact every citizen does three years of military service - if their whole existence wasn’t focused on protecting themselves there would be a very different political climate and far better people in power.
And yes it’s easy to say ‘they shouldn’t be there in the first place’ but that’s also very reductive, a lot of things in history shouldn’t have had to happen but it’s too late now - what are they supposed to do just stop existing? Of course that is what a lot of people want to happen, the countries funding Hamas and Hezbollah for example…
The hard truth is Israel would never be in the position Palestine is, they’re either strong enough to defend themselves or they all get killed - I wouldn’t want to be in either sides shoes.
I think a defining moment of your comment was at the end, when you said, “ they’re either strong enough to defend themselves or they all get killed - I wouldn’t want to be in either sides shoes. “
One IS strong enough to defend themselves and the others are the ones getting slaughtered.
The one that can defend themselves? Israel
The one that can’t? Gaza
But you agree if Israel couldn’t defend themselves they’d have all been killed long ago?
What are they supposed to do just sit idle and accept that powerful nations are going to continue to train, supply and support terrorists attacking them? That they’ll never feel safe and will regularly have to accept the deaths of loved ones in terror attacks?
I don’t think Israel is acting well but also I have experienced the reaction of people when terrorists attack the city they live in and simply can’t believe any nation would respond much better - and again I want to say that im only talking about the Israelie perspective and likewise were any other nation in the position of Palestine they would react pretty much how Palestine is reacting - and of course you can go back and say well this happened because of this and that happened because of that… At a certain point it’s of course England’s fault but they had literal boats full of emaciated victims of histories most brutal oppression with no where to put them that wouldn’t cause decades of chaos and violence.
The raw truth is history is ugly and messy, the Jewish people have been victims for centuries so it’s really not hard to see why a portion of them are going to be very obsessive about self defence. Why a portion of them aren’t going to have patience for the 763rd group of people to say they should be pushed into the sea and eradicated entirely.
If we could draw a line under history and say the past doesn’t matter that would be great but of course it’s not that simple, it’s never simple.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Look up the 2012 ceasefire, then ask yourself why Israel didn’t lift the blockade as they said they would.
Do good guys commit genocide?
I was arguing with someone about that. Their unwavering position was that population in Gaza is growing, so it cannot be a genocide. UN genocide definition was wrong in their eyes. I tried to compromise to call it “only” ethnic cleansing, they seemed unimpressed. Then they called me a tankie.
Just take that in: it’s not a genocide because not enough evil sand people died. What the actual fuck?
What the fuck. Who are they listening to? I have also heard the “UN genocide definition is wrong” argument - but because it’s incomplete. The UN definition is too strict to categorize all genocides into.
Shooting from tbe hip on this exact stat, but 10 - 15% of the population of Gaza is over 25. Gaza is basically 2 million children and teenagers. Whom all have PTSD.
36% are over 25.
Does the term “good guys” make sense outside of comic book movies?
When the news reports deaths, Israeli’s are “killed,” and Palestinians “die.”
The BBC Arabic team and two reporters with Arab sounding names were treated poorly by police.
This could either be a case of racism, or targeting the media, and we don’t have enough data to determine which. Neither is a good look
those IDF soldiers would have to be pretty fucking stupid to accidentally do a hate crime on the large van marked “TV” when there are plenty of other people in beating range they could do a hate crime on with no consequences.
Hanlon’s razor be damned this was 100% on purpose.
Edit: and it’s not like Israel has a history of killing journalists or anything. Please don’t look up “Shireen Abu Aqla”, nothing to see there
Edit edit: Shireen ain’t the only one, ~20 in 20 years.
why would they have to be stupid?
Have you not been paying attention? Israel literally gets away with murder. day in and day out. People and countries are bending over backwards to ignore every atrocity, human rights violation, and warcrime, to paint them as a poor victim.
I guarantee they could have shot those BBC reporters, execution style, in the street, on film, and absolutely nothing would have come from it.
Exactly I can’t even recall the last time Israel paid a consequence for any of their crimes against the Palestinian people
You guarantee isreali police could have executed a handful of full British citizens on the street and nothing would happen? On top of that, British press.
You guarantee? Haha some people on this site.
They’re British not middle Eastern, unfortunately for equality and progression there’s actually a significant difference.
In the very recent past they shot an American-Palestinian journalist in the neck and then attacked people at her funeral and ripped the flag off her hearse
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=y11CVGz7toM
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Interesting read, I opted to look at the source material instead of the YouTube video because YouTube lol.
Apparently she was shot from 200+ meters away as a deliberate assassination which Isreal denied. A mass execution up close of all-british citizens would be treated differently because it’s a different situation
“Ah yes, you presented evidence that proves your point and disproves mine, but Im going to reject it so I don’t have to admit I’m wrong”
You do understand how hypocritical you sound? No one in their right mind looks at one source of information especially YouTube and thinks they understand the whole picture.
Plus, you’ll never cave in and check out independent sources because you’re blind to a proper debate. I can’t argue with someone like that
Well they are at “war” now so unfortunately mistakes happen like executing the press. /S
Seriously it’s not hard to see how they could upgrade from assassination to more close and personal assassination. They really havent faced consequences that would make them think to stop.
I mean, Israeli Police regularly did both before this conflict escalated again, so does it even matter?
This has been going on for years and years even when there is no particular conflict.
I can sort of understand both sides here.
When looking from one POV
innocent journalist.
vs.
crazy killing monsters who only live to kill Palestinians and once there are no Palestinians left there will be no meaning to their life.Second POV is
people responsible for safety of their country who expect Hammas to try to sneak by any possible means into their territory to continue in previous brutality.
vs.
possible terrorist in disguiseI am glad that Israel haven’t been doing something for the last 60 years which would radicalize Palestinians :)
This is the best summary I could come up with:
BBC journalists covering the attack on Israel were assaulted and held at gunpoint after they were stopped by police in the Israeli city of Tel Aviv.
Muhannad Tutunji, Haitham Abudiab and their BBC Arabic team were driving to a hotel when their car was intercepted.
"One of our BBC News Arabic teams deployed in Tel Aviv, in a vehicle clearly marked as media, was stopped and assaulted last night by Israeli police.
Palestinian militant group Hamas launched an unprecedented attack on Israel on Saturday, killing at least 1,300 people.
Israel has told those in the north of the Gaza Strip - about 1.1 million people - to relocate to the south of the territory within 24 hours.
Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, told civilians to ignore the evacuation order, describing it as “fake propaganda”.
The original article contains 271 words, the summary contains 135 words. Saved 50%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Israel is doing exactly what the Hamas terrorists wanted them to do. Overreact.
Israel doing what it’s always done regardless.
Every year you hear of them killing a journalist or reporter, or two.
deleted by creator
Hah. Israeli police suppressing European press, “I cant believe Hamas done this”
Don’t know who’s down voting you, but yes, this is actually textbook strategy for insurgent warfare.
Little guy makes a move with the goal of provoking big guy to create a security clampdown and overreact. This feeds little guy’s PR and recruitment efforts, as well as potentially overstretching big guy’s resources.
I even have a recent and precisely on topic video that covers it:
https://youtu.be/UKvzOF-toIA?si=ge1cJA2H7_NtDJcu
He even references the ACTUAL DOD MANUALS that detail this strategy.
Yeah, especially considering the initial attack was likely somewhat related to trying to stop Israel and Saudi Arabia’s growing friendship, but can anyone name a country that wouldn’t demand vengeance after the atrocities at the music festivals and overrun communities?
The attack was designed to be brutal to force a brutal response, probably designed to be like that by Iranian religious fanatics who couldn’t care less about the Palestinian population as long as they’re a good weapon to use against Israel.
None of that justifies Israel doing awful things but it does make it harder to think about.
The other option is to be sad about the atrocities, not angry. Yes I know that basically doesn’t happen especially anymore with everyone on such high edge.
But, if we want to not immediately go this route every time to not play into the hands of terrorists then the answer is sad. Empathetic. Feel the pain and hurt of all the people lost and what it would take for someone to do something horrible. It needs to be a tragedy first and an excuse for a slapping contest after.
It won’t work on everyone but it’s a far better response, and will get people on the side of the victims more than the terrorists and then with a slower response less needless casualties.
But what leader have you seen been upset about this and not just excited to finally do something interesting like war? Empathy hasn’t been important to society for too long now.
Serious question- and I’m
It being argumentative- this is a question I have wrestled forth myself.What would proportionate response look like?
Probably something less than genocide and killing unaffiliated reporters
Agreed. So - what?
A well executed police raid to drag Hamas’ leadership out
This is 1,000,000% corruption coming from the head, so chopping off the head will go a long way towards ending Hamas’ problem causing.
Problem is that Netenyahu trying this is what got Hamas into power in the first place because he decided he wanted a replacement govt to be a hateable enemy so I’m not too hopeful
I think that sounds absolutely right. But I worry about while it sounds good from my armchair, to what extent it’s really possible given conditions on the ground and the hostages.
… How do you identify government leadership in a group that notably violates the Geneva conventions at least as often as Israel by going plain clothes and hiding in the civilian population? Do you think Israel has police forces in Gaza still?
Well we know who the literal president of Hamas is, start with him and work your way down the list of more and more obscure leaders
Additionally, Mossad is one of the most successful and widespread intelligence agencies in the planet. I don’t buy anyone saying they don’t already have lists a mile long and the resources to carry it out.
Others have pointed out but Mossad are a different branch of the Israeli intelligence apparatus than the folks who’d likely be handling this, but the point most likely stands either way that this whole incident represents an abject failure of intelligence ops in preventing a large scale attack.
Speaking out of my ass and for America, we would use our “intelligence” and latest spy equipment.
Edit: What did I say that is so upsetting?
It took us years to track down Osama Bin Laden.
That may have taken us years but I don’t think we have an open policy of shutting down whole cities with threat of annihilation.
These quick comments are not enough to do justice to these topics but I do not mean to upset anyone.
A lot has changed since 2001.
deleted by creator
Ground invasion to search and destroy Hamas, while securing and protecting civilians.
Well first of all military response, proportionate or not, is meaningless in such a conflict. Israel is feeding Hamas who’s in turn feeding Israel etc etc, so the answer is to work on securing peace rather than radicalize the Gazan population more (because God knows after this shit they’ll be out for blood), but if there needs to be a military response it should at least follow Israel’s own roof knocking policy, which they’re not following in these attacks, where they drops small non explosive rounds to warn civilians to evacuate before bombing their homes (which is also bad but less bad than indiscriminate murder). See also: Not using actual fucking white phorphorus, not bombing routes and locations they designated as safe, and definitely not bombing hospitals and ambulances. These are all things the IDF has been confirmed doing in the past few days. Usually the response to Hamas attacks is airstrikes, but the last time anything like what we’re seeing now happened was in 2014.
Ignoring morals and ethics and focusing mostly on historic precedent?
Firebombing a few city blocks. Possibly letting the angry young soldiers run wild on the civilian populace under the guise of getting “justice” for the civilians that hamas brutalized.
That is more or less “war”. You raid one of my towns, I’ll raid two of yours. Ends when one side has been beaten into submission.
Actively attacking third party civilians is not. The IDF has a very long history of doing this.
That is more or less “war”. You raid one of my towns, I’ll raid two of yours. Ends when one side has been beaten into submission.
Actively attacking third party civilians is not.
I don’t think I agree – This is an awesome blog post you should totally read if you’re interested in history. https://acoup.blog/2022/07/29/collections-logistics-how-did-they-do-it-part-ii-foraging/
I’d say anything post train you’re going to try to capture infrastructure to make war, so saying we’re sieging cities sounds more ancient to me.
If you read that post, you’ll see ‘foraging’ really meant robbing and brutalizing local populaces for their food since anything but the smallest sized army can’t feed itself for more than a few weeks. Not to mention once we are sieging a city and starving all the people out.
What are some modern examples of ‘letting your army run wild on the populace’? I know that happens quite a bit but I can’t think of any sanctioned ones unless we go to wwii Japan maybe? and that was more than a little wild. Seems like most of the time a platoon or w/e just goes berserker.
There is strategy and there is retaliation. Shockingly, retaliation usually results in a prolonged war and long term rebellion.
But if your goal is to hurt them for hurting you?
As for recent wars where soldiers commit horrific crimes against civillian populaces. Off the top of my head:
- EVERY army in WW2. Japan took it down to a science but The Allies and the rest of The Axis were no saints
- Vietnam with US soldiers commiting horrific atrocities against the Vietnamese people
- Pretty much every civil war in Africa
- The Yugoslav Wars
- Russia’s actions in Ukraine (every time they invade)
It is mostly that the US shockingly went hard on stopping troops from those kinds of massacres during the various invasions of the Middle East. That isn’t to say we didn’t find OTHER horrible shit to do but…
As for logistics and resupplies: Gaza is literally within Israel’s borders. Supply chains won’t be an issue.
I don’t think you can call My Lai ‘sanctioned’ or official even though it was done by a commissioned officer who was court martialed (but got off). Even then they gave the heli pilot that landed between US troops and a group of civilians about to get murdered a silver star – https://www.britannica.com/event/My-Lai-Massacre
Japan wwII definitely tactical and sanctioned but that one is weird because all of the military operated so independently.
I don’t know enough about your other examples. It makes sense though and I like the word you use ‘retaliation’
A good modern war planner isn’t going to waste energy on retaliation but when you get onto the ground and have a bunch of killers that don’t think of the enemy as all the way human (so you can convince them to do so much killing) retaliation would come up often. Also if you have some crazy strong man dictator, he may need retaliation to keep the image or drive his paranoia.
That the BBC would report on this unironically is noteworthy.
We gave Israel a free pass to treat people terribly. They treated our people terribly.
What else do they expect?
When you are use to bombs strapped to dogs and donkeys you stop trusting everyone.
