A key question on the agenda is whether Israel should allow foreign journalists into Gaza.
Pro: A journalist could come for 2 weeks, leave and then from safety outside of Gaza report hair-raising stories such as recounted here.
Con: The journalists and those who talk with them would be coerced into reporting only pro-Hamas stories. Even once they leave, their news organizations would fear losing access in the future. And many of the reporters and news organizations would value helping Hamas over hardnosed reporting; it is no accident that many of us are learning about the hospital interrogation centers in The Editors and not The New York Times.
Does the pro or con approach makes more sense?
Are there other approaches, such as finding ways for average Gazans to tell their stories directly to outsiders without being coerced by Hamas?
My sense is that this allow/not allow issue is a bit of a red herring. Israel has allowed journalists...Douglas Murray, Andrew Fox, etc to embed with IDF or go on escorted visits to terrain the IDF controls. And there are Al Jazeera/Hamas propagandists and NYT photographer/stringer types who have worked in the Hamas-controlled areas. I think the real complaint is that Israel won't guarantee the safety of foreign journalists in the Hamas-controlled areas, which seems an unreasonable demand. I think the getting-in-and-out is a side issue relative to the "guarantee the safety of" issue, though they may be related in the sense of if Israel lets them in and then they get killed, it would hurt Israel's reputation. The enterprising foreign correspondents can figure out a lot via satellite imagery and cellphone interviews (though the interviewees are subject to intimidation). Israel has left the cellphone networks and charging on because they allow tracking/listening/geolocating of anyone carrying one.
The key qualifier is "almost 250 years." Centralized systems, be they China now or post-war through 1990s Japan, often perform well for limited periods of time—until their brittleness cannot withstand a disturbance (which inevitably arrives).
A key question on the agenda is whether Israel should allow foreign journalists into Gaza.
Pro: A journalist could come for 2 weeks, leave and then from safety outside of Gaza report hair-raising stories such as recounted here.
Con: The journalists and those who talk with them would be coerced into reporting only pro-Hamas stories. Even once they leave, their news organizations would fear losing access in the future. And many of the reporters and news organizations would value helping Hamas over hardnosed reporting; it is no accident that many of us are learning about the hospital interrogation centers in The Editors and not The New York Times.
Does the pro or con approach makes more sense?
Are there other approaches, such as finding ways for average Gazans to tell their stories directly to outsiders without being coerced by Hamas?
My sense is that this allow/not allow issue is a bit of a red herring. Israel has allowed journalists...Douglas Murray, Andrew Fox, etc to embed with IDF or go on escorted visits to terrain the IDF controls. And there are Al Jazeera/Hamas propagandists and NYT photographer/stringer types who have worked in the Hamas-controlled areas. I think the real complaint is that Israel won't guarantee the safety of foreign journalists in the Hamas-controlled areas, which seems an unreasonable demand. I think the getting-in-and-out is a side issue relative to the "guarantee the safety of" issue, though they may be related in the sense of if Israel lets them in and then they get killed, it would hurt Israel's reputation. The enterprising foreign correspondents can figure out a lot via satellite imagery and cellphone interviews (though the interviewees are subject to intimidation). Israel has left the cellphone networks and charging on because they allow tracking/listening/geolocating of anyone carrying one.
The question is on the table, as in this 3 November news article:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/with-ceasefire-in-place-us-renews-plea-for-israel-to-allow-foreign-press-into-gaza/
Headline: With ceasefire in place, US renews request for Israel to allow foreign press into Gaza
“Socialism has never worked anywhere in the world. Our country is built on capitalism, and that has served us well for almost 250 years.”
I don't know if China is now classified as socialist, but it performs well in many ways.
The key qualifier is "almost 250 years." Centralized systems, be they China now or post-war through 1990s Japan, often perform well for limited periods of time—until their brittleness cannot withstand a disturbance (which inevitably arrives).