The issue here is that even if Reuters want told ahead of time, the paid money to a person who has a close working relationship with a foreign terrorist organization. Sufficiently close that they knew exactly where to go along a 60km (37mi) border in time to take pictures of hostages being brought into Gaza. At least one of the photographers took photographs of himself inside Israeli territory.
The true focus needs to be on failed financial controls within these companies - transacting with sanctioned entities is a big fucking problem (strict liability fines, criminal liability) and should rightly worry these companies.
I truly believe they just jumped on a huge story and had no malintent. This is mostly saber rattling by Israel to counter what they perceive to be biased reporting.
They paid a freelance photographer for pictures because that’s pretty much all they do.
The photographer may be a terrorist douchebag, but if he’s got pictures of spider-man then we’re all gonna still want to see them.
Technically spiderman is a terrorist so the analogy is apt.
It’s kinda fun how amusingly broad the definition of terrorist is.
The FBI defines terrorism, domestic or international, as the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.
By that definition protesters engaged in vandalism or violence at BLM protests would be considered terrorists… as well as the Jan 6 rioters.
Indeed, that’s both my point and the point of the broad definition that relies solely on perception.
And to be clear that’s the fbis official definition not mine.
