The law of armed conflict has many detractors, from war criminals like Yahya Sinwar and Vladmir Putin to CNN journalists intent...
The post The Media Has One Standard for Israel, and a Different Standard for Every Other Country first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
CNN logo. Photo: Josh Hallett / Flickr
The law of armed conflict has many detractors, from war criminals like Yahya Sinwar and Vladmir Putin to CNN journalists intent on eroding the law’s meaning and purpose. Case in point for the latter is CNN’s recent article, “At least 30 killed in Israeli strike on two Gaza school shelters: Palestinian Civil Defense,” by Kareem Khadder, Ibrahim Dahman, Eyad Kourdi, and AnneClaire Stapleton.
The article focuses on an Israeli strike which, according to the IDF, targeted Hamas terrorists inside the Hassan Salame and Nasser schools in Gaza City.
CNN cites a Palestinian official in the terrorist-run territory for the claim that the strike left “at least 30 people dead.” The figure was not independently verified by CNN, and the network has consistently omitted from its reporting how Hamas, the ruling terrorist organization, uses rules and intimidation to control what Gazans can and cannot say to the media.
According to an unnamed “local journalist” cited by CNN, the buildings “housed hundreds of displaced people, primarily women and children.” CNN’s reliance on an anonymous source is concerning, given numerous “local journalists” in Gaza have been identified as terrorist operatives. Moreover, the network has a history of describing an official Palestinian Authority propagandist as a “local journalist,” and even employing him to feature on CNN’s own bylines.
Meet Hassan Eslaiah, a freelance journalist for @CNN, @Reuters, @AP in this video
he’s on a motorbike, with a grenade in his hand, on his way to the Massacre of innocents in Israel.
pic.twitter.com/OyUyDaSYxd— CG Idit Shamir
(@ShamirIdit) November 9, 2023
These omissions already work to benefit Hamas by amplifying the terrorist organization’s propaganda while leaving the audience in the dark about the reasons to doubt the credibility of the claims.
But it’s when the article talks about “warnings” that the authors work hardest, knowingly or not, to run cover for Hamas’ war crimes.
The authors repeatedly raise the issue of “whether civilians were warned of the strike in advance.” They again quote a Gazan official in the Hamas-administered territory to the effect that “If a warning had been given, the number of deaths would have been lower.”
To understand the deceptive game the journalists are playing, a brief explanation is necessary of what “warnings” are in the law of armed conflict. They are just one form of “precautions,” measures taken by armed forces to abide by the requirement that “[a]ll feasible precautions must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life…” There are numerous forms of precautions that may be taken to abide by this obligation, such as: selecting a particular type of munition; striking during a particular time of day; striking from a certain angle; or surveilling an area to determine civilian presence.
The key word, however, is “feasible,” and, as the US Department of Defense Law of War Manual explains, “what precautions are feasible depends greatly on the context.” It “does not ‘require everything that is capable of being done,’ because such a requirement would prove an impossible standard to meet in practice.”
If, for example, a precaution would create “a risk of failing to accomplish the mission” or would “[surrender] the element of surprise,” it may not be considered feasible and consequently may properly be passed over for alternative forms of precautions. That Israel has used “warnings” as a form of precautions to an extent unseen in any other militaries is, as numerous experts on the law of armed conflict have acknowledged, a practice that far exceeds the actual legal obligations.
Which brings us back to the CNN article.
By harping on the issue of warnings, CNN implies to its audience that the IDF has some sort of obligation to issue a warning in this case. But as explained, the obligation to take precautions is context dependent. As the article itself acknowledges, the IDF said it was targeting not just the building, but the terrorists operating inside. One need not ponder long to understand that issuing a warning ahead of said strike would both ruin the element of surprise and create “a risk of failing to accomplish the mission” of eliminating the terrorists before they can flee and continue waging war from a new hiding spot.
Moreover, the authors know, but hide from readers, that the IDF took other forms of precautions in relation to this strike.
The article partially quotes an August 4 IDF statement about the strike but omits the following line from it: “Prior to the strike, numerous steps were taken to mitigate the risk of harming civilians, including the use of precise munitions, surveillance, and additional intelligence.”
In other words, the IDF took precautions in relation to this strike, but instead of acknowledging this, the authors hold Israel to a unique standard that is not reflective of the law.
The network also omits that the law of armed conflict, including precautions, imposes obligations on both parties to a conflict. Hamas has an obligation not to embed its military infrastructure and personnel in civilian areas for the purpose of engaging in human shielding. Yet, while CNN reached out to the IDF about “whether civilians were warned of the strike in advance,” there is no indication CNN ever reached out to Hamas — or any other Palestinian terrorist organizations — to ask why their infrastructure and fighters are repeatedly being found inside of schools, hospitals, mosques, and other civilian sites, including the Hassan Salame and Nasser schools.
Footage published by the IDF shows Hamas operatives opening fire at troops from an UNRWA school in northern Gaza’s Beit Hanoun, and a strike in response. pic.twitter.com/eNpNsTsJJ4
— Emanuel (Mannie) Fabian (@manniefabian) December 9, 2023
The effect of the article’s misleading focus on warnings, without tangling with the context, is to place the onus on Israel when Hamas is clearly the one violating the law. Through its selective and misinformed coverage, these CNN journalists impart on Hamas a cynical and dangerous lesson: when Palestinian terrorists violate the laws of armed conflict, Israel’s reputation will suffer.
In effect, CNN’s coverage portrays three separate standards in the law of armed conflict: a unique, higher standard applied to the Jewish state; the standard applied to the rest of the world; and no standard to Palestinian terrorists who seek to wipe the Jewish State from the face of the earth.
David M. Litman is a Research Analyst at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA), where a version of this article first appeared.
The post The Media Has One Standard for Israel, and a Different Standard for Every Other Country first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
