Any regime that seeks to suppress the media can't be up to any good, IMO.
It also number 1 reporter killing country in the world. Killed more than 100 in the last 365 days. Does EU kill reporters?
So stop your false comparisons.
And if foreign journalists want to get into Palestine, they have other options than entering through the Israeli border, they can enter through the Egyptian border.
First, they don't. All crossings are controlled by Israel. There's a reason why you have a lot of foreign reporting on the ground from Syria civil war and nothing from Gaza. (I noted your switch from Gaza to Palestine, btw) And journalistic agencies complain about this repeatedly.
10% of journalists killed (against 2% of total population killed) and ratios of killed/injured certainly suggest special targeting.
So here, have a blast and count for yourself based on your definition of collateral damage: https://cpj.org/2024/05/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-... there's a story/sources there for every single killing that is known/documented.
To me, it looks like majority were killed intentionally based on that list. Things like sniper and other direct fire killings, being killed in their homes along with their families when doing nothing but dinning or sleeping, or at assignments, or in front of hospitals near journalist tents, or being denied medevac after critical injuries, is not how I'd define collateral damage.
This is false. Israel does not control Egypt's or Jordan's borders.
> To me, it looks like majority were killed intentionally based on that list.
By CPJ's own account, that list is not verified:
> Our database will not include all of these casualties until we have completed further investigations into the circumstances surrounding them. For more information, read our FAQ.
I did check some of them, and I would agree some of it look concerning at face value, but I'm not sure if I would take any of those sources at face value. I would very much like to see some investigation into this, but without the war ending, I don't really see how that will happen.
Of course it does. It closed the crossing shortly after Oct 7. Crossing it, requires Israel approval and inspections. The moment Egypt stops observing Israel's rules, it will bomb the crossing. It did bomb it already a few times last year in order to close it. Israel already stated that it will operate anywhere in Gaza militarily, that includes the Rafah crossing, and it does.
That's pretty much what anyone would consider being in control of a crossing, effectively.
In addition, despite this crossing being between Palestine and Egypt, the agreement that splits the roles of who does what at the crossing is between Egypt and Israel as part of Israel-Egypt peace treaty https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/new-real...
So Israel does partially control it even in this "legal" aspect. It kinda makes sense given that Gaza is still considered an occupied territory by UN. Since when occupied territories control their own corssings with other countries?
> By CPJ's own account, that list is not verified:
Yes, that goes back to Israel refusal for independent foreign journalists presence in Gaza. Or ICC investigators. Convenient.
No control. Right.
https://theconversation.com/why-egypt-refuses-to-open-its-bo...
Like in this very recent case: https://honestreporting.com/damage-done-how-al-jazeeras-fake...
Edit: haaretz link: https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/palestinians/2024-0...
The reason stated on why Hamas affirmed the rape story was false wasn't 'because it backfired and made civilians flee'. This never happened,and the justifications is too convoluted. No, they took a page out of IRA and ETA's: total transparency. They want people to believe what they say, and for that, you can't be caught lying. I don't know if it's recent or not, but that's also the reason why the death toll reported by Hamas is lower than the one expected by the US and most military intelligence. If a news is from a Hamas official spokesman, it's likely true (might be misleading, but always factually true)
Shame on Al-Jazeera to let liars on air, but to be fair, that 24h news for you.
What? They lie constantly! They just got caught. Here is what happened when BBC just reported them without checking:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67140250
And then when they apologized admitting they should have not speculate:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/19/israel-accuses...
Because I can think of quite a number of stories over the years, and even in terms of this current conflict in the Middle East, where there were falsehoods in the fog of war or even intentionally seeded that turned out not to be true and many of the news organizations airing them initially only took stories down and didn't run front page denouncements of their own reporting.
I agree that retractions and in general journalistic integrity needs a bit more attention as a global society, but banning news organizations that print things you don't like is something I tend to associate with a very Stalinesque mindset and not a bastion of democracy and liberty.
In general, individuals and groups are bettered by exposure to naysayers than surrounded by yes-men.
But that the whole point. It's not just that Israel "don't like it". It's false claims.
> aren't sufficiently loud about retractions
And what if there are no retraction? only if the backlash is big enough? Like in the case where there were no hundreds of dead in a direct bombing but a 50 dead in a failed PIJ rocked on hospital:
and the same version today:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/16/israel-ha...
Almost every news agency got this wrong to some degree [1]. What matters is whether they corrected their story as new information arose.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/18/business/media/hospital-b...
What matters is how often this happens and what the response is when it happens. As far as I know, Al Jazeera is not significantly worse than anyone else here. There's a difference between "spreading misinformation" and "being wrong every once in a while".
The problem with sites like "honest reporting" is that they take these incidents, completely ignore (or outright defend) all the types their side has been wrong on this type of stuff, and then construct a narrative that "proves" that "the other side" is merely a malicious cluster of evil that seeks to spread evil for evil's sake. This is exactly the type of dehumanizing hyper-partisanship that got us in this mess in the first place.
And what if there are no retraction? only if the backlash is big enough? Like in the case where there were no hundreds of dead in a direct bombing but a 50 dead in a failed PIJ rocked on hospital:
and the same version today:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2023/10/16/israel-ha...
Also: why are you using two accounts? :-/
Sure, I would like to see something similar from Haaretz/Ynetnews where they believed Israel without critical due process. And did not retract in a consistent matter.
And the second account is my mobile (I like it separate)... that is why I gave them the same name.