Skip to main content

Israel’s “Regret Machine” Strikes Again: Five Journalists Dead at Gaza’s Nasser Hospital.

 



Two Israeli airstrikes hit Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis on Monday. One strike on the fourth floor. A second — the infamous double tap — as rescue crews rushed in. Result: at least 20 dead, including five journalists, medical staff, patients, and rescue workers.

And Israel’s response? You already know the script.

  • We regret any harm to uninvolved individuals.”
  • “An immediate inquiry has been ordered.”
  • “We do not target journalists as such.”

Ah yes, the greatest hits. A playlist on repeat for two years and counting.


Regret as Policy

Let’s pause for a moment. Because Israel’s regret machine is working overtime.

  • 188 journalists already killed in Gaza before this strike. Every time: regret, inquiry, silence, repeat.
  • World Central Kitchen convoy slaughtered? Netanyahu’s war machine offered regret. Then inquiry. Then buried the outrage until Jake Wood, the CEO himself, publicly exploded.
  • The Flour Massacre? Hundreds starved Palestinians gunned down in cold blood. Again, regret. Inquiry. Silence.
  • Aid sites of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation? Strikes on food warehouses, convoys, aid workers. This time? Not even the courtesy of regret. Why waste regret on anonymous Palestinians, right?

It’s almost like Israel’s military press office has a pre-saved template:

We regret [insert number] of dead [insert civilians/journalists/aid workers]. An inquiry is underway. Please tune out until next massacre.”


Journalists as Targets of “Non-Targeting”

The dead this time:

  • Hussam al-Masri Reuters contractor.
  • Mohammed SalamaAl Jazeera cameraman.
  • Mariam Dagga (33)Associated Press freelancer, mother. Her 12-year-old son was already evacuated from Gaza. She had been reporting on children starving in hospital beds.
  • Moaz Abu Taha Freelance journalist, occasional Reuters contributor.
  • Ahmad Abu AzizMiddle East Eye contributor.

These weren’t faceless names. They were the lifeline for the outside world, the reporters the globe depended on because Israel bars international journalists from entering Gaza. They were literally standing where cameras always stood — at the hospital staircase — when the missiles came down.

Israel says it doesn’t “target journalists as such.” A phrase so absurd it deserves its own Oscar in the category of Best Euphemism for Assassination.




The Double Tap of Truth

Let’s not gloss over this: witnesses and video evidence show a double strike. First hit: the hospital’s fourth floor. Second hit: the rescuers and journalists running in.

Rights groups call this a war crime. Israel calls it an “inquiry.” The rest of us call it what it is: the silencing of truth in real time, live on Al-Ghad TV’s camera feed.


The World Still Relies on the Voices It Allows to Die

Because remember: Israel banned the world’s press from entering Gaza. So the world has been forced to rely on Palestinian journalists, reporting under bombardment and starvation.

Now five more are dead. And Israel regrets. Always regrets. Always investigates. Never changes.

Meanwhile, the Committee to Protect Journalists counts at least 192 journalists killed since this war began. One of the deadliest wars for media workers in modern history. And still, Israeli officials will shrug and repeat: “Hamas uses hospitals.”


Final Irony

Hospitals in Gaza are reduced to rubble. Aid convoys bombed. Food warehouses torched. Journalists silenced. And every time, Israel shakes its head: “Oops. Regret. Inquiry.”

But let’s be clear: regret without accountability is not remorse. It’s performance.
Inquiry without justice is not truth. It’s theatre.

And as long as the world keeps swallowing this theatre, Gaza’s journalists, aid workers, and starving civilians will continue to be buried under Israel’s “regret.”


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Rabbi Against the State: When Faith Refuses Power

In a world where identity is weaponized and religion is drafted into political armies, the sight of an ultra-Orthodox rabbi standing beside Palestinian flags unsettles nearly everyone. Yet there stands — black coat, beard, sidelocks — calmly declaring something that scrambles modern assumptions: “ Judaism is not Zionism.” For him, this is not rebellion . It is obedience . Affiliated with , a small and highly controversial Haredi sect, Rabbi Beck represents a theological current that predates modern nationalism. His argument is not secular. It is not progressive. It is not post-modern. It is ancient . And that is precisely the point. The Interview That Disturbs Categories In one widely circulated long-form interview, the exchange unfolds with almost disarming simplicity. Interviewer: Rabbi Beck, how can you oppose Israel as a Jewish rabbi? Rabbi Beck: Judaism and Zionism are two completely different things. Judaism is a religion. Zionism is a political movement founded little more ...

The High Priest of “Serious” Wars Discovers Bibi

  There was a time when rode into every Middle Eastern catastrophe like a TED Talk with a press pass. If there was a war to explain, a regime to modernize, or a “vital message” to send with cruise missiles, Tom was there — sleeves rolled up, metaphors polished. Back when the invasion of was sold as a democratic software update, Friedman wasn’t exactly storming the barricades. He was midwifing “creative destruction.” The region would be shocked into sanity. History would bend toward market reform. Fast forward. Now he’s discovered that might be bending something else entirely. When an Ex–Prime Minister Uses the Words “Ethnic Cleansing” What jolts Friedman’s latest column is not campus rhetoric. Not activist slogans. Not fringe NGOs. It’s — a former Israeli prime minister — using language that once would have detonated diplomatic careers. Olmert wrote in Haaretz that: “A violent and criminal effort is underway to ethnically cleanse territories in the West Bank.” Let...

Sanctions, Selective Morality, and the War That Never Ends

  On Feb. 28, 2026, The Editorial Board of NYTimes  warned that President Trump’s latest strike on Iran was reckless, unconstitutional, and strategically undefined. The board expressed concern for “the many innocent Iranians who have long suffered.” Eleven days earlier, on Feb. 17, 2026, wrote something even more explosive: “ Israel’s far-right government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is spitting in America’s face and telling us it’s raining. It’s not raining. Bibi is playing both President Trump and American Jews for fools.” Friedman was not questioning Israel’s right to defend itself. He was questioning whether American power was being drawn into a strategy shaped less by U.S. national interest and more by Israel’s domestic political calculus. That distinction matters. Iran as the Permanent External Threat For over four decades, Iran has been under American sanctions. Since 1979, layers of financial, oil, trade, and banking restrictions have been impo...

Blood in the Car Park: Islamophobia and the Fear That Follows Us to Prayer

  On a cold February evening in 2026, 18-year-old Zeeshan Afzal was stabbed to death in the parking lot of Oldbury Jamia Masjid, near Birmingham. He had just prayed. He had just stood shoulder to shoulder with other worshippers in Ramadan — the month of mercy, of restraint, of forgiveness. Minutes later, he lay bleeding in the dark. Police have said the investigation is ongoing and that the killing is not currently being treated as religiously motivated. That is an important and responsible clarification. Motive must be established by evidence, not emotion. And yet. Across Muslim communities in Britain and Europe, the question whispers through homes and WhatsApp groups alike: Are we safe? Even at the mosque? The Atmosphere We Cannot Ignore Even when a specific case is not officially labeled a hate crime, it unfolds within a larger social climate. And that climate matters. Across Europe, reports of anti-Muslim hate crimes have surged in recent years. Mosques vandalized....

When a Journalist Becomes a “Hybrid Threat”

  The Administrative Erasure of Hüseyin Doğru Europe prides itself on being the global capital of press freedom. And yet, in 2025, the Council of the European Union placed a German journalist under sanctions using a legal regime originally designed to counter Russian destabilisation. The journalist: The legal instrument used against him: Council Regulation (EU) 2024/2642 Concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s destabilising activities CELEX: 32024R2642 Council Decision (CFSP) 2024/2643 Restrictive measures framework (Common Foreign and Security Policy) CELEX: 32024D2643 Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2021 (3 October 2025 – listing amendment including Doğru) CELEX: 32025R2021 These are not criminal statutes. They are foreign-policy instruments. And under them, a journalist inside the European Union was designated as supporting destabilising activities. What the Official Listing Says According to the Official Journal entry (Annex t...