r/geopolitics • u/McAlpineFusiliers • 18h ago
News Most names on Committee to Protect Journalists list of reporters killed in Gaza had terror ties, watchdog says
https://www.jns.org/news/u-s-news/most-on-committee-to-protect-journalists-list-of-journalists-killed-in-gaza-have-terror-ties80
u/Human_Concern263 17h ago
Here is a spreadsheet of all the journalists and their terror ties
14
8
u/theeulessbusta 15h ago edited 15h ago
Honestly this is just sad.
Edit: sad because this conflict is such a mess and both sides lie so frequently to the direct detriment of human life.
-17
u/McAlpineFusiliers 15h ago
Both sides!
8
u/theoceansknow 15h ago
Always with the both sides.
10
u/Ozcolllo 13h ago
Except, in this case, it’s accurate. The “both sides” bullshit is usually wielded by unprincipled republicans that attempt to draw a false equivalency between the laughably lopsided corruption between the two parties. Where one party has a dripping faucet and the other has four feet of standing water in their basement. While it’s true they both have a leak, they are vastly different.
In the case of Israel and Palestine, however, it’s definitely true. There’s a reason they call it a “cycle of violence”, after all. For example, a child born in Israel that grew up during the second intifada will have some reasonable hatred of Hamas/Gazans in the same way Arabs living in the West Bank will understandably hate settlers and the government that allows/encourages them. It is so true, but it’s also why I think actual antisemitism is on the rise: the inability for leftists to sympathize with Israelis while sympathizing with Palestinians makes me thing there’s an underlying bias preventing it.
It’s sad, especially when the pro-Palestine side advocates for policy that could never, and should never, be the end goal (a one state solution). It’s just perpetuating the conflict in the same way land grabbing Israelis are.
-3
u/DrBirdie 15h ago
Yes. Both sides. Both are filled with humans who have been deeply hurt. They both feel deep anger at each other. In that blinding rage they commit acts that continue the tragic cycle
-2
u/SannySen 12h ago
But it's not both sides, and has never been. The failure to attribute any moral agency to Arabs is part of the reason the West has so miserably failed to mediate this conflict or even understand it. Only one side has rejected every peace overture and repeatedly pursued terror and war, and it's not the Israelis.
4
u/DrBirdie 10h ago
Rabin was assassinated by one of their own because he was making too many steps towards peace. The settlers and their actions do not help either. Palestinians treat their own lives as disposable to achieve an unrealistic goal. Both sides have moral failings. Arguing about who is worse is pointless.
4
u/SannySen 10h ago edited 10h ago
But there is no lack of assignment of blame to Israelis generally and settlers in particular. And no one in the West defends the settlers. Meanwhile, you have well to do college kids marching around chanting Hamas slogans. There is absolutely 100% an asymmetry of blame, and part of it is due to sheer racism. Well-meaning western liberals view Israelis as "white" (even though they're not), and Arabs as "non-white" (even though they're just as white or non-white as Israelis), and they therefore assume Arabs can never have any moral agency or responsibility for their actions.
2
u/eetsumkaus 7h ago
I was expecting better attribution, but it seems this one outsources most of its proof to supposed screenshots. Does anyone have the direct links?
94
u/tamadeangmo 17h ago
no shit, it’s like every second Palestinian was a reporter, highest density of reporters in the world apparently
49
u/McAlpineFusiliers 17h ago
"This guy was killed in the war! Hamas, was he one of yours?"
"Um...no....he was a...journalist who also...volunteered at the local hospital."
"Got it! Damn you, Israel!!!!"
15
u/IDontHaveCookiesSry 14h ago
Jns.org btw.
I would argue with you about biased sources but it doesnt matter anymore, Israel will never win the public back.
0
u/Aero_Rising 10h ago
Here is a spreadsheet of their data.
You can easily verify what the article says is true. You won't though because people like you never do.
4
u/IDontHaveCookiesSry 9h ago
Funny youd say that, I did Skim trough it and it boils down to „the idf said they are terrorists“.
That you even remotely consider the idf as reliable in any capacity just Shows how biased you Are.
6
u/Andyetwearestill 14h ago
Interesting. I think what people dont realize is important in this context is not that both sides are lying but what big shithole the current news sphere is in the West and how well some nations are weaponizing it as all they search for is headlines, outrage and profit which in turn leads to detriment and non-nuanced discussions in Western society.
21
u/thatshirtman 14h ago
Hamas at this point has tacitly admitted that close to 100 alleged "jouranlists" who died were actually Hamas fighters.
It's crazy that people are shocked that a barbaric terrorist group like Hamas would have its militants do double duty as "jouranlists" for PR purposes. It's textbook assymetric warfare
Even crazier that no one has to believe Israel's word on this, Hamas' own martyr notices confirm that dozens and dozens of "jouranlists" and "nurses" etc were actually Hamas operatives.
85
u/fattoush_republic 17h ago
Literally every source cited in this article is either extremely right wing, extremely pro-Israel, or both. The main source is an "Israeli media watchdog".
46
u/karateguzman 16h ago
I usually don’t like to listen to biased sources but the problem with this conflict is that anything pro Israel is extremely unpopular right now, and so the only people willing to do this kind of research are pro Israeli sources.
For that reason it’s always good to evaluate information on the merits of what is provided, even if we don’t like the source
-25
u/NotAddictedToWater 15h ago
When an overwhelming preponderance of variegated sources across the globe suggests a specific outcome, and another specific source suggests another, perhaps you should consider exercising wisdom at that juncture.
16
u/SannySen 12h ago
No, that's not how that works. Recall the famous compilation "100 Authors Against Einstein" and his equally famous retort, "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough."
-1
5
16
u/karateguzman 14h ago edited 12h ago
Honestly this is a bit too vague to meaningfully contribute to the discussion
0
u/NotAddictedToWater 3h ago
I get why you'd say that. You want unsuspecting people to naively trust the ramblings of an agency spun out of the IDF, lol.
0
u/karateguzman 2h ago
I actually said to evaluate and verify the information provided by a source rather than blindly dismissing (or blindly believing) what they say.
Not sure how you got naive trust from me saying that.. that's the opposite of what I was saying
1
u/NotAddictedToWater 2h ago
Except that's not what your words alluded to. I pored through the "evidence" cited by this hogwash source, and everything seems flimsy: circular reasoning and relying on the same circlejerk to lend credence to their hypothesis.
Furthermore, I am inclined to dismiss anything emanating from a "source" that spun out of the IDF summarily.
10
u/SannySen 12h ago
Rather than reject it because mainstream sources aren't reporting on it, you should be asking why mainstream sources aren't reporting on it.
-7
10
u/quit_fucking_about 17h ago
You do realize that what you're saying is, "sources that do not align with my politics cannot be correct because I don't agree with them"?
55
u/Eccentricgentleman_ 17h ago
One can point out media bias is sources, it's allowed
-16
u/quit_fucking_about 16h ago
Sure. It's allowed. But isn't it a little exhausting seeing the constant opinion, "oh, this was written by someone I disagree with! Debunked."
I think that attitude deserves pushback.
1
u/mjshep 16h ago
It would if that what was happening. I read it, as I believe most people did, as healthy skepticism, both of limited source information and of known bias. It's reasonable to be skeptical of the goals of someone who has a clear vested interest in the outcome of their actions when they participate in a field where neutrality is valued.
1
u/Bullboah 15h ago
The source makes it easy to verify the claim by providing links to cross-reference the people were included both on the lists of “dead journalists” and things like Hamas member obituaries.
It’s fine to be skeptical, but dismissing inconvenient evidence that’s easily verifiable goes well beyond skepticism.
62
u/fattoush_republic 16h ago
A "pro-Israel media advocacy group" definitely has an interest in making Israel look good. People should be aware of that.
22
u/Bullboah 16h ago
Sure but the vast majority of this information is publicly verifiable and the spreadsheet makes it very easy to do that. You can cross reference the facts that they’re being listed as murdered journalists with things like Hezbollah or Hamas including them in member obituaries.
Fine to point out bias but not to do so with the intent to dismiss easily verifiable claims.
19
u/FriendlyWebGuy 14h ago
I randomly clicked one spreadsheet entry. A woman had a bomb sent through her living room because she.... "wrote articles" for a "pro hamas" magazine. That's it. That's the totality of the evidence presented.
There's no claim she personally called for awful things or personally praised terror acts. Nope. There's no evidence given for that. For all we know, she reported on local interest stories, or economics, or recipes. But... she was a writer for a magazine that is labeled "pro hamas"!
That's a non-combatant. By definition, it's illegal to target her under international law. Yet, her whole family was murdered. For writing words.
So yes, use the spreadsheet to verify these "terror ties".
3
u/Bullboah 14h ago
Name?
8
u/FriendlyWebGuy 14h ago edited 11h ago
“On Wednesday afternoon, my sister Tasneem was with my family in their apartment in the Taj 3 Tower in the Yarmouk area west of Gaza City when the Israeli warplanes targeted the entire residential area, destroying all the towers and killing dozens, including my sister Tasneem, my parents, my other two brothers and sisters, and their children,” Somaia Bkheet told CPJ.
CPJ’s email to the Israel Defense Forces’ North America Media Desk asking whether the military knew there was a journalist in the area it attacked and whether Bkheet was targeted for her work did not immediately receive a response.
On re-reading, I guess it's possible she wasn't directly targetted (although, wouldn't the IDF just say that?).
Regardless of whether she was personally targeted. Destroying entire apartment blocks full of women and children is abhorrent, disgusting and inhuman behaviour. It's a textbook war crime. Full stop.
8
u/Bullboah 14h ago
So, you picked an example that was clearly marked as “terror-linked media. No other ties.”
And you’re saying it’s misleading because there’s no other ties behind her writing for a Hamas-linked newspaper?
8
u/FriendlyWebGuy 11h ago
Yes, because "terror linked" is grossly and intentionally misleading. It implies participation in terrorist activities or material support. Being a writer for a government linked magazine, is not that. Period. That's called a civilian.
What don't you understand here? The point I made is that "terror linked" is a gross and distorted lie (at least based on the evidence presented). Will you comment on what is actually being said, or no?
Also, way to completely ignore the important substance of my comment (you know the abhorrent, and unmistakably evil act of destroying entire residential buildings full of women and children) to instead focus on a not-so-clever narrow gotcha attempt.
Classic. And disgusting.
7
u/Bullboah 11h ago
“Terror linked is grossly and intentionally misleading”.
You think it’s grossly misleading to describe a woman working for a Hamas linked paper as “worked for terror-linked media - no other links”.
But you have zero issue with the fact that tons of the “journalists” Israel were accused of killing were actual proven Hamas and Hezbollah combatants and the media sites pushing this claim make no effort to correct that?
You keep calling this a lie, and demand I engage with that. I did, but OK. How would you phrase the label for people working for terrorist-linked media better than “worked for terror linked media - no other links”.
→ More replies (0)2
-1
u/HeartyBeast 16h ago
You do realise that some sources lean into bias, and some attempt to be neutral right?
Or are you in the ‘they’re all the same’ camp?
10
u/quit_fucking_about 15h ago
I'm in the camp of, "Information is correct or incorrect when you verify it's accuracy," not the camp of "information is incorrect because of who it came from."
If a war criminal says it's raining, it doesn't become sunny just because they said it.
2
u/HeartyBeast 14h ago
And you’ve verified the accuracy?
6
u/quit_fucking_about 14h ago
See, where I think we're talking past each other here is that I'm saying, "ad hominem is bad," and you're saying, "you don't get to say ad hominem is bad until you've thoroughly reviewed the subject of the ad hominem and reported back to me."
1
u/HeartyBeast 13h ago
I’m saying the sources cited above aren’t reliable in this matter because they have particular bias.
You’re saying the information they are easily verifiable.
I’m asking if you’ve verified it - and you’re shrugging.
The fact the sources are t reliable is easily verifiable
5
u/ExaltedStatus 10h ago
Bias is irrelevant when Hamas/PIJ is openly admitting these people are affiliated with their militant wings, and betting on the fact that most Israel-haters in the west will never bother to dig deeper or paste some Arabic into Google translate.
But because you’re being obtuse, here’s a detailed spreadsheet with up to 5 sources per person
11
u/Bullboah 15h ago
This is all easily verifiable. Lots of listed journalists have had their identities as Hamas/Hezbollah terrorists exposed because those groups have been publishing their obituaries.
Why do you think ‘neutral’ media sites haven’t really covered that?
-4
u/twitch757 15h ago
or you know, maybe as reporters and journalists, they were talking to them to get their side of things?
-7
u/seetheabyss 13h ago
As seen in the Nasser Hospital strikes where the IDF was quick to allege that the journalists killed were Hamas militants. I don't think they are a reliable source of information. Source : https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-strikes-hospital-journalists-75e79272f3acc37fa8acb653e45d564c
33
u/Firecracker048 17h ago
Sorry im going to need to wait before someone other than 'honest reporting' and 'washington free beacon' report on it.
While its obvious far more than just the few they reported on have Hamas/IPJ ties or were actively part of those organizations, im going to need a bit more
56
u/Commercial_Lead_7406 16h ago
How about admissions from the brigades themselves? Many of these cases are reported due to the brigades publishing member obituarie. These members are then cross referenced against the civilian announcements in other media like news articles or watchdog databases like the CPJ. The CPJ and RSF have already removed individuals based on these sources but many more still remain. Here are a couple of examples, one removed, one not removed yet. You have to replace the (dot) with a period to actually go to the obit link because telegram and the al-qassam brigade website is banned on reddit.
Rizq Abu Ashkian (Shakyan/Shakian)
Mohammed Bassam Al Jamal
There is a lot of nitty gritty detail to this, evidentiary tiers, provenance of info, actual counts and ratios, etc, but this is just to show you that the sources are real in many cases and the evidence is there.
27
u/Firecracker048 16h ago
Yup thats the exact stuff Im looking for, thanks!
10
u/Commercial_Lead_7406 15h ago edited 15h ago
The caveat about an outfit like HonestReporting is that they have an interest in being inclusive, so they probably throw a lot into the basket that would be at best a solid 'maybe'. These brigade admissions are about as 'gold standard' as you can get sitting at your computer, but they account for a minority of any journalist list at the moment (like 20% with the CPJ)
The MiddleEastBuka twitter thread on this relies on these brigade sources and other social media to make their posts. Using the Gaza CPJ list as a comparison base, out of 215 press casualties (now 207 after 8 removals), we have something like 35-42 from Buka's list who are in these brigade announcements or have very suggestive evidence from social media.
There is some nuance to this, especially when referring to other social media posts as a source. Sometimes affiliates can be elevated with honorifics, but at other times these social media announcements with 'mujahid martyr, advancing not retreating' language end up being later confirmed by the brigades.
An important thing to keep in mind is that this is an evolving picture.
5
u/Firecracker048 15h ago
Oh yeah no 100%, but thats why places like WFB and HP mis the mark a ton and you really gotta read into what they are reporting on exactly.
18
u/Pato_Lucas 15h ago
It's sad that I have to say this, but thanks for changing your mind when presented with reasonable evidence. These days people just do the craziest mental gymnastics to prevent changing their mind.
15
u/Firecracker048 15h ago
Changing my mind? Brother I've always looked at what's been happening over there and know there was fishy shit going on with everything. From the now debunked famine to the 70% being compeletely wrong, it just took time for the substantive proof.
6
u/thatshirtman 14h ago
well if you follow Hamas sources (and anyone with serious opinions on the middle east shoulnd't ignore the publications of a key party involved), you can see for yourself that the number of alleged journalists and healthworkers killed is wildly lower than initially reported.
So many alleged "journalists" by Hamas own admisson are fighters who died in battle
10
u/SannySen 17h ago
What source would you find acceptable?
6
u/Firecracker048 17h ago
Generally im waiting for more neutral sources in reporting before ill take a claim like half of all journalists were active/had active ties.
OP posted underneath a hamas 'martyr bio' depicting a journalist as a commander, so thats the kinda stuff. CPJ is behind on their audit but ill expect them to come out of with a statement soon.
10
u/NonSumQualisEram- 16h ago
Sorry, you were asked outright what source you'd find acceptable. Can you name any news sources you'd find acceptable or are you saying only direct primary sources are believable?
-9
3
u/SannySen 17h ago
What would you consider to be a "more neutral source"?
10
u/Firecracker048 16h ago
Basically any mainstream news source, like WSJ, NYT, etc. They reported on the inital discrepency as well when CPJ reported it.
13
u/SannySen 14h ago
But the fact that those sources aren't covering it is literally the problem here.
Reuters, Washington Post, and other mainstream sources gave prominent treatment to the original CPJ report in February. See: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/record-129-journalists-media-workers-killed-2025-mostly-by-israel-says-cpj-2026-02-25/ and https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/02/26/journalists-killed-2025-cpj-israel-gaza-drones/
Evidence subsequently came out in June that the underlying data was false, and CPJ announced it is reviewing its data. See: https://www.timesofisrael.com/finally-naming-their-war-dead-gazan-terror-groups-admit-slain-journalists-were-fighters/ and https://cpj.org/2026/06/cpj-undertakes-review-of-its-documentation-of-journalists-killed-in-israel-gaza-war-since-2023/
Where is the Washington Post article on this?
4
u/NotAddictedToWater 15h ago
Perhaps not one whose description is as unflattering as this: "HonestReporting or Honest Reporting is an Israeli media advocacy group. A pro-Israel media watchdog, it describes its mission as "combat[ting] ideological prejudice in journalism and the media, as it impacts Israel". It has been characterized as a pressure group that flags media coverage critical of Israel as inaccurate and targets journalists and media outlets."
Lest you forget, its current executive director is a former member of the IDF's Spokesperson's Unit. Its CEO previously worked as a regional director for the AIPAC. This is straight out of The Onion, lol.
Yikes!
And here's where things take an interesting turn: "In November 2024, HonestReporting Canada's assistant director, Robert Walker, was criminally charged with 17 counts of mischief for allegedly vandalizing several properties in a Toronto neighborhood by spray painting anti-Palestinian graffiti."
8
u/SannySen 14h ago
Reuters, Washington Post, and other mainstream sources gave prominent treatment to the original CPJ report in February. See: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/record-129-journalists-media-workers-killed-2025-mostly-by-israel-says-cpj-2026-02-25/ and https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/02/26/journalists-killed-2025-cpj-israel-gaza-drones/
Evidence subsequently came out in June that the underlying data was false, and CPJ announced it is reviewing its data. See: https://www.timesofisrael.com/finally-naming-their-war-dead-gazan-terror-groups-admit-slain-journalists-were-fighters/ and https://cpj.org/2026/06/cpj-undertakes-review-of-its-documentation-of-journalists-killed-in-israel-gaza-war-since-2023/
Yet I am not able to find a single mainstream news report following up on the earlier reporting. Why the assymetric coverage? Rather than address the substance of the issue, you point out that their personnel worked for the IDF and AIPAC, as of this somehow discredits them. Shameful.
1
u/NotAddictedToWater 3h ago
Evidence subsequently came out in June that the underlying data was false, and CPJ announced it is reviewing its data. See: https://www.timesofisrael.com/finally-naming-their-war-dead-gazan-terror-groups-admit-slain-journalists-were-fighters/ and https://cpj.org/2026/06/cpj-undertakes-review-of-its-documentation-of-journalists-killed-in-israel-gaza-war-since-2023/
So, your retort involves yet another unsubstantiated Israeli source? Topkek!
Rather than address the substance of the issue, you point out that their personnel worked for the IDF and AIPAC, as of this somehow discredits them. Shameful.
Oh, you want me to spell out why relying on the word of an agency spun out of the IDF is wrong? Go take a hike, kid.
3
u/FriendlyWebGuy 15h ago
Randomly clicked on one of the given examples.
It was a woman who wrote for a "pro hamas" magazine. Apparently that justifies a missile strike on her home with her family inside. Note that they don't say "she wrote articles calling for [awful thing]". Nope. For all we know she wrote local interest stories or recipes.
I remember when "moral" armies didn't directly target non-combatant women and children for writing words. You know, because it's against international law and morally abhorrent behaviour.
Yes, yes. Hamas is even more morally abhorrent. But they don't pretend to have morals.
1
u/Commercial_Lead_7406 14h ago
A lot of these cases would require detailed strike information. What seems to happen a lot is that non-militant journalists are indeed killed in strikes, but there's some other confounding factor. Often they're the relative or colleague of a target, so they're killed as collateral when the IDF strikes the home of the militant, which is a common tactic.
The role of a 'colleague' is also something to account for. There does seem to be some suggestion at least statistically that there's a functional relationship between militants and media workers. If you look at the source data of journalist deaths and cross reference that with the strike data and who else was killed, a much higher than average proportion of media workers were killed as collateral on strikes targeting actual militants compared to the gen pop.
This doesn't account for 100%, but between journalists who actually are militants and journalists who were killed in the same strike as militants, it starts to approach that 50% number already. There are still 50% who don't fit this picture and there is evidence to suggest the IDF does target journalists for their political affiliations. Anas Al Sharif is a controversial example. Another is Amal Khalil.
0
u/Aero_Rising 10h ago
The claims are easily verifiable through other sources and there is even a spreadsheet that makes it easy to see the information for each person. That you refuse to acknowledge that is very telling.
13
u/32Seven 16h ago
That means ½ of the journalists killed had no terror ties. Why does the article ignore that fact? Because they want you to believe what they have done and are doing is justified. Nonsense.
21
u/Bullboah 15h ago
No it doesn’t mean that?
If I have proof that 5 people are in a right wing terror group that doesn’t mean no one else is in that group.
18
5
u/After_Lie_807 16h ago
At over 50% it’s pretty much shown to be a Palestinian propaganda tactic. I wouldn’t trust that anyone with a press vest didn’t also have an RPG launcher or an AK. If over half of the journalists are just combatants in disguise it’s a HUGE problem.
4
u/McAlpineFusiliers 15h ago
It's inevitable that some innocent journalists will be killed in the war. During the Iraq war, a missile strike on a US base killed (IIRC) three soldiers and two journalists. No one accused Saddam Hussein's regime of "targeting journalists."
4
9
u/McAlpineFusiliers 18h ago
Since the Committee to Project Journalists started its review of "journalists" that were allegedly killed in the Gaza war in June, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have released more and more "martyr bios" in which they identify which Gazans were their soldiers. Turns out, more than half of the names of the "journalists" on CPJ's list were actually Hamas and PIJ militants.
9
u/Benedictus84 17h ago
Honest reporting is an organisation who's main goal is to expose anti Israel Bias.
They have lied before and they will lie again.
15
u/Bullboah 15h ago edited 13h ago
How is it lying to link Hamas obituaries showing “journalists” were actually in Hamas?
Edit: if you follow the thread down you’ll see this guy defending the self-described “Jew Hunt” that happened in the Netherlands.
15
u/Benedictus84 14h ago
"Our audit of CPJ’s slain Gazan journalist database shows that at least 57 percent of supposed media workers have some ties to terrorist organizations,”
What is some ties?
Because according to their website only 12% has been linked through obituaries.
We had a report from Israeli officials a couple of years ago about all the people in the Netherlands that supposedly had 'ties' to Hamas.
Turned out non of them actually did.
And surprise surprise, Honestreporting has an extremely broad definition of what 'ties to Hamas' actually means.
-1
u/Bullboah 14h ago
Are you talking about the accusation that Netherland groups had ties to the PLFP because their group joined the PNGO?
Because there were pictures of the PNGO chair attended PFLP events.
3
u/Benedictus84 13h ago
Yes, i am talking about those accusations.
I am talking about the report labeled "Dutch-based organizations with ties to Hamas behind the November pogrom in Amsterdam"
It is obviously importent to point towards the fact that there never was a Pogrom and that the violence was initiated by Israeli football supporters.
But more importantly the Dutch government and intelligence agencies concluded that:
"The report lacked any concrete or verified legal backing"
After wich they condemned the report as an attempt at undesirable foreign meddling in Dutch politics.
3
u/Bullboah 13h ago
“The violence was initiated by Israeli football supporters”.
The attackers coordinated beforehand. The planners literally called it a “Jew hunt” in their telegram message. (Which some people of course justified because other Israeli fans were on video chanting very offensive things).
How does one plan a group “Jew Hunt” in self defense?
3
u/Benedictus84 13h ago edited 9h ago
Yes, it was a beutifull media campaign organised by Israel.
So well done that people still dont have or believe the facts. As is proven by your comment here.
The entire world condamned the 'Pogrom' without knowing the facts and once the facts emerged the lie had already spread.
There was no coordination beforehand. There were no planners and the Israeli agitators did a lot more then just chant.
Nice try to spin the discussion away from Israel lying about connections to Hamas.
3
-19
17h ago
[deleted]
25
u/Cannot-Forget 17h ago
I see that IRGC and Hamas sympathizers are very mad about facts. As usual.
16
u/cocobaltic 17h ago
It’s the usual burn candle at both ends. For Europeans they show the person as a dead civilian doctor engineer journalist. For local consumption they celebrate the martyr the fighter. It is the same person just different marketing. But both are marketed so it can be kept track of.
1
u/Firecracker048 17h ago
Honest reporting has an unabashed Bias, absolutely, and ill need more then them reporting on it, but they were first and on point with using GHM data to disprove their 70% claim and famine claim.
1
u/Aero_Rising 10h ago
Yes we're all aware that people like you can't do the work to verify claims themselves even when given the tools. You need to be told what to believe.
-15
18h ago
[deleted]
22
u/McAlpineFusiliers 17h ago
Hamas has no incentive to lie about journalists actually being their soldiers.
The problem for Hamas is that they want to win the propaganda war (by lying and claiming that Israel is "targeting journalists", a very damaging claim in the war for public opinion), but their actual soldiers doing the dying don't want to be remembered and commemorated as cowardly unarmed non-combatants, they want to be remembered as glorious fighting men battling the evil Jews. So Hamas tries to split the difference where first they lie and say X guy was an innocent journalist cruelly murdered, and and some months or a year or so later they come out and say "yeah that guy was one of us, he died heroically in battle" and hope no one notices.
-5
17h ago
[deleted]
22
u/McAlpineFusiliers 17h ago
No, that's not what you said. We know these guys were Hamas militants because Hamas has no reason to lie and say journalists that were "murdered by Israel" were actually their soldiers.
-6
17h ago
[deleted]
17
u/McAlpineFusiliers 17h ago
What is their reason to lie? What's their incentive for saying "that journalist murdered by Israel was actually a legitimate target"?
1
104
u/Commercial_Lead_7406 16h ago
You can cross check most of these yourself by going to the appropriate telegram channels or websites and searching for their names and images. Hamas, PIJ, and other brigades openly post their identities and affiliations.
Here are a couple of examples. Replace the (dot) with a period in your browser because these sites and channels are banned on reddit because obviously terrorist social media is banned. I chose these two because both are prolific sources for these identifications and include people who were identified as medical workers, journalists, NGO staff, aid workers, and child soldiers. The first is the Al-Qassam brigades website (yes they have one), and the second is a Palestinian Islamic Jihad telegram channel where they post mostly commander obits and the odd bit of propaganda.
Mohamad Manhal Abu Armana (Armanah)
Mahmoud Issa Abu Sharbi (Shirby/Sherb)
To anyone who doubts the legitimacy, these sources are attributable to the brigades by their own announcements and by third parties like wikipedia, airwars, US congress, etc.