The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on Saturday destroyed a building in the Gaza Strip that housed the local offices of several international media outlets, including Associated Press (AP) and Al Jazeera. The Israeli strike came amid intense fighting with Hamas — designated as a terrorist group by most Western countries, including the United States — which over the past six days has fired in excess of 2,500 projectiles at the Jewish state.
Critically, the IDF gave advance warning of the mission — in the form of phone calls and later by firing at the structure a “roof-knocking” missile that does causes virtually no damage — so as to provide civilians with enough time to evacuate the 12-story complex; this, from where the IDF thereafter claimed in a statement that members of Hamas’ intelligence unit had been operating. The missive therefore accused Hamas of using journalists as “human shields” while emphasizing the well-documented fact that the “terror group intentionally locates its military assets in the hearts of [civilian] populations in the Gaza Strip.”
Indeed, it is hard to fathom that the powers that be at Al Jazeera, in particular, a wholly owned subsidiary of Qatar, had not the slightest clue that their Gaza office was located in the same tower as members of an organization supported by Doha to the tune of tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars each year.
In any event, it should not be surprising to journalists that Hamas would jeopardize their safety by placing them in the line of fire.
Nevertheless, Mostefa Souag, acting director general of Al Jazeera Media Network, was subsequently quoted as saying:
We call on the international community to condemn such barbaric actions…. We demand an immediate international action to hold Israel accountable for its deliberate targeting of journalists and the media institutions….”
To which one might respond: How, exactly, did the IDF intentionally target reporters if it informed them beforehand of the strike — even if doing so meant that Hamas operatives also had the opportunity to vacate the premises?
Meanwhile, Associated Press President and CEO Gary Pruitt released the following statement:
We are shocked and horrified that the Israeli military would target and destroy the building housing AP’s bureau and other news organizations in Gaza. They have long known the location of our bureau and knew journalists were there.
We received a warning that the building would be hit…. A dozen AP journalists and freelancers were inside the building and thankfully we were able to evacuate them in time.”
White House spokesperson Jen Psaki immediately chimed in on social media:
We have communicated directly to the Israelis that ensuring the safety and security of journalists and independent media is a paramount responsibility.
— Jen Psaki (@PressSec) May 15, 2021
Perhaps Psaki had not read Pruitt’s press release. Moreover, HonestReporting is not aware of any journalists having been injured in Gaza since the eruption of the conflict last Monday, a minor miracle when considering how densely populated the area is and the sheer volume of projectiles launched from there into Israel.
Now to the relevant international law, which, in short, prohibits attacks on non-military sites, but also explains that a site ceases to be classified as “civilian” if instruments of war are placed therein. For more detail, see Article 52 of Additional Protocol I of Geneva Convention IV:
1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.
2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.”
Additionally, Customary International Humanitarian Law reiterates this same concept: namely, that while attacking civilian locations is prohibited, those used in military operations are not considered as such.
Specifically, the law reads (Rule 8. Definition of Military Objectives):
In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose partial or total destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.”
It is hard to argue, then, that the IDF violated international law by striking a building emptied of people that was allegedly used by Hamas in its war of aggression against Israel.
Furthermore, that some media are requesting proof from the Israeli military is a double standard that is applied only in one direction. For example, news agencies routinely disseminate casualty figures provided by the Hamas-controlled Health Ministry in Gaza without fact-checking them and in without noting that this body has a long history of purposely misleading the public.
Equally telling is that news outlets seemingly quick to jump to conclusions regarding the IDF’s rules of engagement have been complaining that they were duped into reporting that the Israeli military last Friday had launched a ground operation in Gaza.
The purported misdirection, an oft-used tactic in battle, came in the form of a tweet by the IDF just hours before some 160 fighter jets were sent to attack from the air a massive network of subterranean tunnels in Gaza — known as the “Metro” — that had been filled with Hamas terrorists anticipating a land offensive that was not to be.
IDF air and ground troops are currently attacking in the Gaza Strip.
— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) May 13, 2021
To its credit, the AP — unlike The New York Times and The Washington Post — did not produce an inaccurate report on the non-existent mission; this, after conducting basic journalistic practices. In fact, everyone with a general understanding of Jerusalem’s political and military policies and strategies vis a vis Hamas were from the outset skeptical about the government green lighting a full-blown ground assault so early on in the ongoing confrontation.
To this end, it took HonestReporting about five minutes of reaching out to current and former government and military officials to determine that the probability of such an occurrence was almost zero — and that if there were any Israeli troops in Gaza they would have been tasked with carrying out a precise tactical mission (i.e. an incursion by a limited number of special forces) that nobody would have heard about until after its completion, if ever.
However, many foreign journalists are evidently not required to have a fundamental grasp of the conflict’s dynamics; instead, some are even flown to Israel at the last minute to cover a flare-up in a decades-long war they apparently only read about in the oft-biased media industry in which they work.
HonestReporting empathizes with journalists working in a war zone and understand why Saturday’s incident may have struck a fearful chord. It is for this reason that we stress that responsibility should be placed squarely on the shoulders of Hamas, an organization with little, if any, concern for human life as confirmed by its sordid history of installing military facilities in civilian areas.
This was, unfortunately, seemingly proved again today.
Featured image: Photo by Nidal Alwaheidi/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
