You can read the article for yourself and decide if I'm mischaracterizing it. It is entitled "Kill the Messenger".
Relevant section at end: "Establishing a credible media will be, for the Palestinians, part of what it takes to establish a credible state. Until then, the Voice of Palestine will remain what it has become: a combatant—and th…
You can read the article for yourself and decide if I'm mischaracterizing it. It is entitled "Kill the Messenger".
Relevant section at end: "Establishing a credible media will be, for the Palestinians, part of what it takes to establish a credible state. Until then, the Voice of Palestine will remain what it has become: a combatant—and therefore a legitimate target—in a painful, never-ending, low-intensity war."
Note that she never says this organization or its journalists ever actually engage in physical combat. She accuses them of bias and of fake news. For this, she calls them combatants and legitimate targets.
Thank you for the link. I'll give it a view and ponder this discussion.
For now, I might take her view from this point in time, as an accurate assessment of what has already happened.
Being that she doesn't state which journalists specifically *should* be targeted as combatants, I'm not sure that she is actually advocating such a position. It could be, that she is only making an observation on the state of affairs as it was at the time.
The bottom line on this subject is, "war is shitty". And sadly, inescapable at this juncture in human evolution. Slow learners, humankind is.
All that said, I find her contribution to the present moment with her latest, "Autocracy, Inc." provides valuable insights for the many who are still shocked, and still asking, "Why is this happening?"
Applebaum wrote that during the Second Intifada, when the Palestinian Authority was at war with Israel. Voice of Palestine is wholly owned by the PA, just as Voice of America is wholly owned by the US government. When a government is at war, any department that is not explicitly flying a white flag can be reasonably regarded as part of its war effort.
This implies that journalists from the BBC or NPR could be legitimately targeted as combatants, because they are part of a war effort. In fact, this implies that any civilian that could be implicated as part of a war effort are lawful combatants, despite them not actually being combatants.
Is this an accurate characterization of your view?
You can read the article for yourself and decide if I'm mischaracterizing it. It is entitled "Kill the Messenger".
Relevant section at end: "Establishing a credible media will be, for the Palestinians, part of what it takes to establish a credible state. Until then, the Voice of Palestine will remain what it has become: a combatant—and therefore a legitimate target—in a painful, never-ending, low-intensity war."
Note that she never says this organization or its journalists ever actually engage in physical combat. She accuses them of bias and of fake news. For this, she calls them combatants and legitimate targets.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2002/01/targeting-radio-and-tv-stations.html
Thank you for the link. I'll give it a view and ponder this discussion.
For now, I might take her view from this point in time, as an accurate assessment of what has already happened.
Being that she doesn't state which journalists specifically *should* be targeted as combatants, I'm not sure that she is actually advocating such a position. It could be, that she is only making an observation on the state of affairs as it was at the time.
The bottom line on this subject is, "war is shitty". And sadly, inescapable at this juncture in human evolution. Slow learners, humankind is.
All that said, I find her contribution to the present moment with her latest, "Autocracy, Inc." provides valuable insights for the many who are still shocked, and still asking, "Why is this happening?"
Applebaum wrote that during the Second Intifada, when the Palestinian Authority was at war with Israel. Voice of Palestine is wholly owned by the PA, just as Voice of America is wholly owned by the US government. When a government is at war, any department that is not explicitly flying a white flag can be reasonably regarded as part of its war effort.
This implies that journalists from the BBC or NPR could be legitimately targeted as combatants, because they are part of a war effort. In fact, this implies that any civilian that could be implicated as part of a war effort are lawful combatants, despite them not actually being combatants.
Is this an accurate characterization of your view?