On Saturday, an Israeli airstrike leveled a 12-story building in Gaza City. Israel claimed the building was home to military assets belonging to Hamas, the Palestinian militant group.
But there was more in that building. It also contained the offices of The Associated Press, Al Jazeera and other media outlets. And while advanced warning of the bombing allowed the journalists who worked there to evacuate with their lives, that’s pretty much all they escaped with. Valuable equipment and records were lost as the building was destroyed.
“The world will know less about what is happening in Gaza because of what happened today,” AP president and CEO Gary Pruitt said in a 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. This is an incredibly disturbing development. We narrowly avoided a terrible loss of life.”
But now the question is: Did the building really house Hamas?
In a compelling interview on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” on Sunday, Israel Defense Forces Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus said, “Not only was Hamas in the building, it was actively using it to fight against Israel. … Out of consideration for human life and for the people who work there, we chose to forfeit additional military gains by surprise attacking. And instead, we did what of course is the right thing to do: advance warning and allowed everybody to clear, vacate the premises and made sure that everybody was out before the building was struck.”
But Stelter showed his excellent journalistic chops by pressing Conricus for proof that Hamas was in the building and, in effect, using the media and others as “human shields.”
“Can you show us the evidence?” Stelter asked. “Can you hold it up? Can you show us the pictures, the intelligence you have?”
Conricus said evidence would be shown in “due time,” but Stelter deftly cut him off and said, “Shouldn’t that have happened 24 hours ago?”
Stelter doggedly continued to press Conricus — who, to his credit, answered Stelter’s strong questions, although he did plenty of dodging, too.
While every conflict is nuanced and complicated, targeting a building where the media is based is disturbing, as Sally Buzbee — who is still AP’s executive editor until taking over The Washington Post next month — told Stelter. Then again, Time columnist and The Dispatch senior editor David French noted that the laws of war are clear: Whenever an army or military group takes over a building, it goes from being a civilian facility to a military facility.
French told Stelter, “And if it was being used by Hamas, it’s a legitimate military target, end of story. And Israel was right to warn people to minimize or to remove any civilian casualties.”
But the question then goes back to what Stelter asked — what evidence does Israel have that Hamas was using the building?
Buzbee said the AP does not take sides in any conflict, but added, “We are in favor, and what we do believe in is protecting the world’s right to know what’s going on in this conflict or any conflict. This is an important story and because of the actions (Saturday), the world is going to know less.”
Buzbee told Stelter that AP had never been warned before Saturday that Hamas was operating in the same building — a building where AP had been for 15 years. Buzbee said she would like to see an independent investigation into the matter.
There’s more ...
There’s more controversy involving the media and the Israelis. On Friday, the Israeli military announced on Twitter, “IDF air and ground troops are currently attacking in the Gaza Strip.”
That, along with confirmation from a spokesperson, led to many news organizations reporting that an Israeli invasion was underway.
The New York Times David M. Halbfinger wrote, “Within hours, those reports were all corrected: No invasion had taken place. Rather, ground troops had opened fire at targets in Gaza from inside Israeli territory, while fighters and drones were continuing to attack from the air. A top military spokesman took responsibility, blaming the fog of war.”
That military spokesman was Conricus. But was it simply a mistake, as Conricus reiterated on Sunday’s “Reliable Sources?”
In his story for the Times, Halbfinger wrote, “But by Friday evening, several leading Israeli news outlets were reporting that the incorrect announcement was no accident, but had actually been part of an elaborate deception. The intent, the media reports said, was to dupe Hamas fighters into thinking that an invasion had begun and to respond in ways that would expose far greater numbers of them to what was being called a devastatingly lethal Israeli attack.”
Certainly, it would be a troubling and inexcusable development for the media to be duped into essentially being accessories in a deadly conflict.
Daniel Estrin, a correspondent for NPR in Jerusalem, told Halbfinger, “If they used us, it’s unacceptable. And if not, then what’s the story — and why is the Israeli media widely reporting that we were duped?”
Meet the pushback