Channel 12 sent one of their primetime anchors into Gaza. 3 minutes into the video he walks through a biology classroom, steps outside a door and shows the munitions depot in the room nextdoor. No need to understand Arabic or Hebrew.
These aren't isolated incidents, although I'm sure they were chosen to be highlighted because they're the clearest cut ones. Like the rocket launchers in the youth center.
I think I'm even less of a free speech absolutist than you, but you raise some very good points.
The situation is incredibly complicated, which is why I'm picking everything apart to reduce the ambiguity of what they did as much as possible. It's why I'm trying to figure out their intent at the time as well. These photographers didn't document what happened in order to provide clear evidence of the crimes. They took pictures they thought would look good on a front page. Then they sold those images to news outlets. This means they didn't consider whether or not they should notify anyone, or do the moral calculus to try to figure out if they could prevent it or even small acts like hiding a single child. If they did that, or even just published all their images for free the day after it would imply they understood that what happened was not acceptable.
Bottom line is that line is extremely fuzzy and hidden in the fog of war, but I think they crossed it.
Is this the hospital that Hamas was shooting at people running out of it? That one guy in the back with his cane needed some help.
EDIT: that was Rantissi/Al Nusr
If that embedded reporter was aware the unit he is embedded in intends to target civilians then absolutely. If he doesn't, goes along and takes pictures and then celebrates it with them then he's complicit in that war crime.
As it so happens, this is almost exactly what the NYT contracted freelancer did. The question here is if NYT should have done any further due diligence and refused to purchase the photos. I don't think there's a moral quandary in this specific case.
I agree there is a moral difference between the two scenarios you proposed, but based on current OFAC guidelines, they are more likely than not the same. But that's only for US persons. Most countries impose greater constraints on speech and the press and international outfits like AP and Reuters may need to worry about additional jurisdictions asking questions about their usage of freelancers with questionable ethics.
It is a very complicated situation, and journalists should in general be encouraged to cover important events. But there is a point where they cease to be objective observers. Having prior knowledge of military operation that targets civilians should cross that line. Crossing the border to accompany terrorists while they were perpetrating their acts should be so obviously past that line that it deserves the extra attention it's getting now.
This isn't JJ Jameson asking for pictures of spiderman. At best, it's paying someone who had enough of a connection to Hamas to be told exactly where to go along the 60km border within an hour of the start. At worst, they may even be members who are supplementing their Hamas paycheck.
Reuters legal department should have signed off on every freelancer they contract with. That should have included a sanctions check - which clearly was not sufficient.
Not how sanctions work. You can legally do business with a SDGT or FTO if you get a waiver from the US Department of Treasury.
They only really hand those out to state actors as part of negotiated agreements.
As the raid continued into daylight, a group fired on the Israeli troops, leading to an airstrike.
And from the BBC:
Troops came under fire and a drone was used to attack a group of gunmen, the IDF said. The bulldozers ripped up the already badly damaged streets.
The IDF said troops re-entered the camp hours later, coming under renewed gunfire. Another drone was used to attack gunmen again, it said.
Something makes me think more than half of those 18 dead were shooting when they were killed.
EDIT: typo
The issue here is that even if Reuters want told ahead of time, the paid money to a person who has a close working relationship with a foreign terrorist organization. Sufficiently close that they knew exactly where to go along a 60km (37mi) border in time to take pictures of hostages being brought into Gaza. At least one of the photographers took photographs of himself inside Israeli territory.
The true focus needs to be on failed financial controls within these companies - transacting with sanctioned entities is a big fucking problem (strict liability fines, criminal liability) and should rightly worry these companies.
I truly believe they just jumped on a huge story and had no malintent. This is mostly saber rattling by Israel to counter what they perceive to be biased reporting.
Large companies that serve a ton of content. CDNs, image hosts, Google, Facebook, etc. 1% of their traffic adds up to a lot.
Also people in limited bandwidth situations - satellite links, Antarctica, developing countries, airplanes, etc.
Finally, embedded systems. The esp32 for example has 520kb of ram.