matt on Nostr: I wasn’t claiming at all there’s a winning strategy here, quite the opposite in ...

I wasn’t claiming at all there’s a winning strategy here, quite the opposite in fact, there we strongly agree. (Maybe “the only winning strategy is not to play”, but of course that’s a losing strategy for Netenyahu, irrespective of how one might play that strategy to the benefit of the Israeli and other people).

I wasn’t referring to the overall volume of coverage, though, but rather coverage of realities on the ground, which is something we get fairly little of (even war journalists have limits). Embedded journalists generally only see really limited stuff (because no one wants an embedded journalist to die, so you limit where you bring them!), so I generally write them off entirely.

Rather the coverage I was referring to would be non-embedded journalists or UN reporting within its own formal channels. Non-embedded journalists have been hit a lot by Israeli troops, though of course it’s hard to tell whether they’re being hit more or less than the average person in active warzones in Gaza.

I wasn’t claiming any specific motivation here, just noting that you made a very large leap with the “well presumably intelligence said Hezbollah was using that site”, when there are many other reasons to strike a site.

Sadly, “just wait” isn’t a realistic approach in this conflict because basically no past event ever gets “resolved” - there’s what the IDF says and what Al Jazeera says and what Hamas says and I have yet to see any followup on anything. Even the “we’re launching an investigation” line we’ve heard from the IDF a handful of times appears to always result in internal investigations and no public comments (I believe with only one exception that I’ve seen). Sadly, public opinion is very much a battlefield in this conflict, much more so than in most others, so I don’t think that’s gonna change.