240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

So, if you think it will help you militarily, excluding the press is okay? I'm thinking that most countries would probably just as soon not have the press covering them . . . look, if you are planning to violate the Geneva Conventions, or perhaps just engage in behavior which wouldn't play well on the international stage, just claim that you are not allowing the press in because it will interfer with your military objective. (It's a rhetorical question - you've basically already answered it, UGAalum.)

I am curious - what is it about lasting "long enough" (and what is "long enough"?) that would make you agree with me then, and not now?

I think violations of the Geneva Conventions are more often handled after the fact anyway. So, limiting press coverage short term isn't going to be an effective long term method of suppression, it wouldn't seem to me. Whatever objective evidence that could be preserved by an international press could still be captured by people in Gaza; whatever could be manipulated by local press can be manipulated by international press.

I have no definitive answer for the how long. It would depend on the circumstances. I would expect international press coverage to resume in Gaza within a month. They apparently halted it when the cease fire ran out in November but were pretty casual about preventing the press from entering until things ramped up in the last few weeks.

A couple more weeks? I'll let you know when it happens.

In other cases, it would depend on how long it took to conclude the mission and what information was available when it was over.

Independent documentation is excellent for us back home, but I don't think it has to be a priority of the party engaged in warfare.

ETA: You've got to remember that I always pretty much distrust the press period, so I'm less likely than most to see them functioning really well as international watchdogs. It's probably just a personality quirk.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I think violations of the Geneva Conventions are more often handled after the fact anyway. So, limiting press coverage isn't going to be an effective long term method of suppression, it wouldn't seem to me. Whatever objective evidence that could be preserved by an international press could still be captured by people in Gaza; whatever could be manipulated by local press can be manipulated by international press.

My hope would be that the threat of coverage would mean that the violations wouldn't happen in the first place - I'd rather they not happen at all rather than worry about punishing them later. Also, when discussing how to handle the situation I think that the international community needs as much information as they can get - this is not just a problem for Gaza/Israel. It has ramifications for the Middle East, and ultimately the entire world. How can an effective cease-fire be brokered without a clear understanding of the situation?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

My hope would be that the threat of coverage would mean that the violations wouldn't happen in the first place - I'd rather they not happen at all rather than worry about punishing them later. Also, when discussing how to handle the situation I think that the international community needs as much information as they can get - this is not just a problem for Gaza/Israel. It has ramifications for the Middle East, and ultimately the entire world. How can an effective cease-fire be brokered without a clear understanding of the situation?

Well, it's not that I'm pro-war crime. I think I just fundamentally doubt the presence of the international press is as effective in preventing it as you do.

What is it that you think the international press could bring to the table? So much of providing objective coverage involves being in the right place at the right time and being unwilling to use new events to advance preconceived agendas. I don't remember an abundance of that in the coverage of Hezbollah and Lebanon or in Gaza before the press ban.

EATA: the more I think about it, the more I can't think of a single "war crime" situation in recent memory where the presence of the international press seemed to have made any difference: Rwanda? Kosovo? Iraq, if you are going to go that route?

What am I missing?

[moe.ron]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Well, it's not that I'm pro-war crime. I think I just fundamentally doubt the presence of the international press is as effective in preventing it as you do.

What is it that you think the international press could bring to the table? So much of providing objective coverage involves being in the right place at the right time and being unwilling to use new events to advance preconceived agendas. I don't remember an abundance of that in the coverage of Hezbollah and Lebanon or in Gaza before the press ban.

EATA: the more I think about it, the more I can't think of a single "war crime" situation in recent memory where the presence of the international press seemed to have made any difference: Rwanda? Kosovo? Iraq, if you are going to go that route?

What am I missing?

They're not there to "make a difference" per say. They are there to report what is going on the ground. If there was no international reporters, we would have never herd about Rwanda, Kosovo, Iraq, etc. Because they reported, the world acted on it.

Reporting can shame a government into stopping their actions, forcing people to negotiate due to internal politics, etc. The story or the reporter will not and is not meant to change the world. It's just there to tell the story.

By the way, I'm going to split the Israel-Palestine conflict from this thread.

Ok, nevermind, way too lazy to go through pages of posts to seperate them. Carry on.