IDF kill Red Cross workers in Gaza

Vanellus · Apr 15, 2025

Hmm Friedrich

Former BBC DG Alasdair Milne sacked by Tory Hussey for having a left wing son would disagree with you. if the Chair doesn't matter why are they all Tories or ex bankers (usually right wing)? The magic Hamas missile theory theory of the early attack on al Ahli - debunked by later forensic analysis comparing the audio signal with a type of missile Israel was known to have. Every hospital in Gaza has now been destroyed or partly destroyed by Israeli military action - the logical inference is that Israel is targeting hospitals to make Gaza unlivable to force ethnic cleansing.. But a Hamas misfire just happens by coincidence to hit a hospital. This was in the early days when Israel tried to pretend they weren't committing war crimes. They don't bother now - just bring out the usual Hamas control complex lie. How many of these control complexes do you think they are?! Hamas doesn't run to such things. It's more primitive than that.

Given the history it's a much greater concern that Israelis would attack returned Palestinians than vice versa. Anyway obeying the (international) law sometimes goes against what people want.

ghetto: A usually poor section of a city inhabited primarily by people of the same race, religion, or social background, often because of discrimination.
An apt description of besieged economically isolated Gaza

You: Are you suggesting that the terrorists are just "living at home" with their family?
Well they aren't sitting at home in front of a TV like some 1950s US family since Israel has bombed most of the buildings, but given how many people are supposed to be Hamas and given how many children there are then it's obvious that many Hamas members have families with children. I know you don't like this because it humanizes them and you prefer to think about them as some kind of Ridley Scott alien. But they're not - like it or not Hamas are human beings and human beings generally have children.

I was thinking of Iran with crowds shouting "death to America". I don't put much credence in politically motivated polls. However some pictures do tell the story:

There's a lot of this "if Hamas had X they would do Y" sometimes based on something in the preamble of a superseded nearly 40 year old charter (remember how you asserted how what happened 40 years ago with terrorist Israeli PMs wasn't relevant now). Without proper intelligence it's just supposition. What we can do is look at what has actually happened in the past. Netanyahu's time will pass. There might be a period of greater peace during which Israel will continue to persecute Palestinians until the much less powerful Palestinians fight back again. They don't offer an existential threat to Israel but will carry on periodically doing terrorist acts against Israel. Israeli politicians when interviewed will start with what the Palestinians/Hamas must do and Palestinian politicians will start with what Israel must do. Israel being more powerful has the greater capability to change the status quo. Neither side will face up to what they themselves need to do but will point the finger at the other side just as you are doing here. Just like the Garden of Eden.

This is not a Hollywood western. Both the Israeli government (IDF) and Hamas are baddiies.

If the Jews expelled by Arab countries have the legal right to return and wish to return then they shouldn't be blocked from doing so though under the present war circumstances there would be practical difficulties. I believe many Jews were encouraged to move to Israel by Zionist organisations so most likely would prefer to stay in Israel. I believe the Jews left the Arab countries over a much longer period than the 1948 Naqba.

Friedrich Rubinstein · Apr 15, 2025

Vanellus said:
Former BBC DG Alasdair Milne sacked by Tory Hussey for having a left wing son would disagree with you. if the Chair doesn't matter why are they all Tories or ex bankers (usually right wing)?

The BBC certainly isn't right wing. That's a point not worth arguing about though, because I never claimed that every single anti-Israel source is left wing, nor that every single left wing source is anti-Israel.

BBC - Bias and Credibility

LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Vanellus said:
The magic Hamas missile theory theory of the early attack on al Ahli - debunked by later forensic analysis comparing the audio signal with a type of missile Israel was known to have. Every hospital in Gaza has now been destroyed or partly destroyed by Israeli military action - the logical inference is that Israel is targeting hospitals to make Gaza unlivable to force ethnic cleansing.. But a Hamas misfire just happens by coincidence to hit a hospital.

There are radar data showing the flight path, intercepted phone calls of Hamas operatives admitting that it was a Palestinian rocket, weapon expert analysis of the impact (determining that Israel doesn't have any munitions that would cause such a little crater with that much fuel to cause the amount of fire damage), the lack of missile fragments (which would undoubtedly exist in an Israeli strike but not from a home-made PIJ rocket) and the intelligence reports from other countries, all proving that it wasn't an Israeli strike. To ignore all of that and rely on an "audio signal" is absurd. Even the BBC admitted later that their own government had come to the conclusion that it was indeed a misfired Palestinian rocket:

The UK said on Monday its assessment, based on intelligence and analysis by weapons experts, was that it was likely a missile fired from within Gaza towards Israel was responsible. French military intelligence also came to this conclusion.

Besides the the British and French intelligence, the US and Canadian intelligence came to the same conclusion.

It is shocking that there are still people two years later who don't know the truth about this incident.

Vanellus said:
This was in the early days when Israel tried to pretend they weren't committing war crimes. They don't bother now - just bring out the usual Hamas control complex lie. How many of these control complexes do you think they are?! Hamas doesn't run to such things. It's more primitive than that.

Hamas is themselves posting videos of their command and control centers where they plan operations, they are not as primitive as you make them out to be. Hamas even has an entire "PR team" that is running their Telegram account and publishes propaganda videos for the group - well, it's less now than it was in the beginning of the war. Like every militant group - be it a proper army or a militia like Hamas - they need to coordinate their operations. Hamas has battalions assigned to different parts of Gaza, and each of them will need at least one location for these plannings. When Israel bombs one of these, they obviously set up a new one.

Vanellus said:
Given the history it's a much greater concern that Israelis would attack returned Palestinians than vice versa. Anyway obeying the (international) law sometimes goes against what people want.

History disagrees with that statement. There are around 2 million Arabs (many of which Palestinians) living inside Israel without getting attacked, while there are a total of 0 Jews living in Gaza or the Palestinian parts of Judea and Samaria. Not only that, but prior to this war there were some 20,000 Gazans who worked inside Israel, crossing the border every day, and nobody attacked them. Clearly Israelis can live with Palestinians, and Palestinian cars are seen everywhere in Israel. But if an Israeli accidentally enters a Palestinian village, he is at a high risk of getting killed simply for driving an Israeli car. Here just one example: Lost Israeli narrowly avoids lynch by 200-strong angry Arab mob – www.israelhayom.com

There is a reason why there have to be big, red signs warning Israelis against entering Palestinian parts of Judea and Samaria, but there don't need to be signs warning Palestinians against entering Israeli territory.

Vanellus said:
ghetto: A usually poor section of a city inhabited primarily by people of the same race, religion, or social background, often because of discrimination.
An apt description of besieged economically isolated Gaza

Gaza isn't besieged because of discrimination, it is besieged because of the emanating terrorism. When Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 there was no blockade of the strip, and if the Palestinians had elected a moderate government that was willing to live side by side with the state of Israel, neither Egypt nor Israel would have had a reason to blockade it.

Vanellus said:
You: Are you suggesting that the terrorists are just "living at home" with their family?
Well they aren't sitting at home in front of a TV like some 1950s US family since Israel has bombed most of the buildings, but given how many people are supposed to be Hamas and given how many children there are then it's obvious that many Hamas members have families with children. I know you don't like this because it humanizes them and you prefer to think about them as some kind of Ridley Scott alien. But they're not - like it or not Hamas are human beings and human beings generally have children.

Having children doesn't exempt you from facing the consequences of your actions. If you are a terrorist, you will be eliminated whether you have children or not. What even was the logic behind that argument supposed to be? That terrorists are immune to being targeted when they successfully impregnate some poor woman? Having a family doesn't make Hamas members innocent.

Vanellus said:
I was thinking of Iran with crowds shouting "death to America". I don't put much credence in politically motivated polls. However some pictures do tell the story:

Iran? Iran is very different from the Palestinian people. I was speaking about the Palestinians this entire time, not Iran.

That graphic about the "loss of land" - one of the favourite propaganda pieces of the "pro-Palestine" crowd - has been disproven and debunked so many times, I am sincerely surprised anyone still thinks it's a proper argument. In 1917, "Palestine" wasn't a thing, all that is yellow there was the Ottoman Empire - so the land belonged to the Turks, not to the Arabs aka Palestinians. In 1945 there still wasn't a country called "Palestine", the region was the British Mandate for Palestine (a mandate isn't a country), so all the yellow there belonged to the British and not to the Palestinians. Notably, the British were given the mandate by the League of Nations with the direct obligation to form a Jewish state on this land, so any "claim" by the Arabs was already unsubstantiated at this point in time. In 1947 there was the UN-Partition plan. This plan would transfer the land from the British over to both the Jews and the Arabs, effectively giving land to both the Jews and the Arabs, making this the first time the Palestinians could actually say they owned the yellow part. BUT the Palestinians rejected that offer, they didn't take the land. So instead of losing land, they simply didn't take the land. Consequently only the state of Israel for established. Gaza at this point in time was owned by Egypt, not "Palestine" (which still didn't exist), and Judea and Samaria was owned by Jordan, also not "Palestine". The surrounding Arab nations repeatedly waged war against the Jewish state, with both Egypt and Jordan losing these territories to the Israelis. "Palestine" didn't lose anything, it wasn't even a thing.

Vanellus said:
There's a lot of this "if Hamas had X they would do Y" sometimes based on something in the preamble of a superseded nearly 40 year old charter (remember how you asserted how what happened 40 years ago with terrorist Israeli PMs wasn't relevant now). Without proper intelligence it's just supposition. What we can do is look at what has actually happened in the past. Netanyahu's time will pass. There might be a period of greater peace during which Israel will continue to persecute Palestinians until the much less powerful Palestinians fight back again. They don't offer an existential threat to Israel but will carry on periodically doing terrorist acts against Israel. Israeli politicians when interviewed will start with what the Palestinians/Hamas must do and Palestinian politicians will start with what Israel must do. Israel being more powerful has the greater capability to change the status quo. Neither side will face up to what they themselves need to do but will point the finger at the other side just as you are doing here. Just like the Garden of Eden.

After Oct 7 we can tell with absolute certainty what Hamas will do if they can. Denying the reality of Hamas' genocidal goals is silly. Hamas didn't even let the babies live on Oct 7, they slaughtered every single person they got their hands on. It doesn't get any more genocidal than that.

And why talk about a 40 year old charter when we can read their new, updated charter from 2017? To quote said charter from 2017, paragraph 20:

Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea.

Demanding that Israel starts doing something before the Palestinians do anything is detached from reality. Israel already left Gaza, and they cannot open Gaza's borders as long as Gaza is controlled by people who vowed to wipe Israel out and who constantly attack Israeli civilians with rockets, mortars and worse. The terror needs to stop, then the blockade can end.

Vanellus said:
This is not a Hollywood western. Both the Israeli government (IDF) and Hamas are baddiies.

Good vs evil is a real life phenomenon, that's not limited to movies. As a Christian I can very clearly see the spiritual dimension of the war against Israel, and even though the Israeli government is just as flawed as other Western governments, it is still magnitudes better than the opposing forces.

Vanellus said:
If the Jews expelled by Arab countries have the legal right to return and wish to return then they shouldn't be blocked from doing so though under the present war circumstances there would be practical difficulties. I believe many Jews were encouraged to move to Israel by Zionist organisations so most likely would prefer to stay in Israel. I believe the Jews left the Arab countries over a much longer period than the 1948 Naqba.

And many Palestinians were encouraged by the Arab nations in 1948 to flee so that they wouldn't get caught up in the war that the Arabs started against the newly formed Jewish state, so this argument works both ways. The difference is that these Jews never fought against the countries they were expelled from, whereas the Palestinians actively fought against the state of Israel. We both know that no Jew will ever be compensated for the loss of their property though, so it is rather hypocritical to demand from Israel to compensate those who tried to eliminate the young Jewish state in the late 1940s.

Friedrich Rubinstein · Apr 15, 2025

Back to the topic of medics though, I just saw a video of a Palestinian medic (clearly dressed as a medic) running to a wounded terrorist, ignoring that he is wounded and just picking up his gun to hand it over to another terrorist who then used it to keep shooting at the IDF.

I can't post graphic content here, but you'll be able to find it on the internet if you want. It is medics like this that significantly lower the safety of everyone in their profession.

Vanellus · Apr 18, 2025

Friedrich Rubinstein said:
The BBC certainly isn't right wing. That's a point not worth arguing about though, because I never claimed that every single anti-Israel source is left wing, nor that every single left wing source is anti-Israel.

View attachment 363674

BBC - Bias and Credibility

LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording

mediabiasfactcheck.com

The posts are getting far too long and unwieldy. This one of yours is far too long. So to make the discussion more manageable I will divide it up into shorter sections and reply in that way to the parts of your post that warrant a response.

I'm not too sure what you are trying to achieve. An obvious US website (the colours are wrong) assessment of the BRITISH Broadcasting Company. or are you just trying to waste my time? There's no proper description of their method in the webpage you linked and this website states that

Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific.

Here's what to expect from fact-checking in 2019 - Poynter

It's bound in the end to be opinion determined by where you are in the political spectrum. US politics is further right than UK politics. I prefer facts to opinion. It's a verifiable fact that most BBC chairs have either been in the right wing Tory party, or donors to it or associated in some way, or rich bankers who are part of the wealthy establishment - no one like George Monbiot of course. And the Chair has power - they can sack the Director General.

Edit:
Private school pupils dominate the BBC.
The BBC’s elitism problem
PressReader.com - Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions

DATA taken from Independent Schools Council’s 2023 census records 554,316 pupils currently attending private schools in the UK, around 5.9 per cent of all school attendees in the country.

Privately educated BBC staff now occupy at least a third of Auntie’s highest-paid posts, including ex-Tory council candidate director-general Tim Davie and chief content officer Charlotte Moore.

Vanellus · Apr 18, 2025

Again back on the topic of the thread, I read this article about the Red Cross/Crescent aid worker whose mobile phone contained the footage that showed the ambulances had their headlights on. This shows the IDF soldiers lied, it wasn't just a mistake, as they gave the headlights not being on as the reason for their attack. It gives more information about what happened. The article also gives more information about this victim: he was a human being not an alien monster or vermin to be exterminated in this cruel way.

‘What was their crime?’ Families tell of shock over IDF killing of Gaza paramedics

When the dispatch call came early on Sunday 23 March that people had been injured in an airstrike on the Tel al-Sultan area of Rafah, Saleh took an ambulance to the scene. Seeing the extent of the damage he called for more ambulances, collected the wounded he could find and returned to base, according to his brother.

On arriving back he learned that radio contact had been lost with another ambulance also dispatched to the site. That ambulance, which was being driven by Saleh’s colleague, Mustafa Khafaja, had come under intense Israeli fire and by the time he heard they were missing at about 4.30am, Khafaja and his fellow paramedic Ezz alDin Shatt were already dead, according to the third man in the ambulance, Munther Abed, who had survived but was detained by Israeli soldiers. Abed later described them as special forces.

Before dawn, Saleh drove back to the scene and could only see the empty ambulance in an area of sandy dunes in Tel al-Sultan known as Hashashin, Bilal said. He drove back to the ambulance station in al-Mawasi, a few miles up the coast, and organised a rescue convoy of Red Crescent ambulances, a bright red civil defence fire truck and a UN vehicle. In all, 13 paramedics and rescue workers drove to Hashashin to look for their missing colleagues, and that was the last time they were seen alive.

Bound and made to lie on the ground, Abed, the detained paramedic from the first ambulance, saw one rescue vehicle after another ambushed by waiting Israeli forces. Later he saw a military digger excavate a pit and the vehicles being thrown in before a bulldozer covered it over.

So there was more going on than just one missing ambulance. The IDF knew they were aid workers - they had captured one and killed the other two in the first ambulance. The video footage shows and this testimony confirms that this was an ambush. These IDF "special forces" intended to kill aid workers. it wasn't a mistake.

Friedrich Rubinstein · Apr 19, 2025

Vanellus said:
The video footage shows and this testimony confirms that this was an ambush. These IDF "special forces" intended to kill aid workers. it wasn't a mistake.

If the intention was to kill aid workers, why did they release one of them and allowed his "testimony" to be published? If the IDF were as cruel as you portrait them as, and killed aid workers for being aid workers, why would they let a witness live and let him go?

Vanellus · Apr 19, 2025

Friedrich Rubinstein said:
If the intention was to kill aid workers, why did they release one of them and allowed his "testimony" to be published? If the IDF were as cruel as you portrait them as, and killed aid workers for being aid workers, why would they let a witness live and let him

The more important question is why did the Israelis claim the ambulances did not have headlights on when they did have them on and so why did they fire on them citing as reason they didn't have their headlights on. I don't think you have answered that question. Neither of those facts are speculation: the initial Israeli false claim about the headlights and the footage that shows the headlights were on.

Survivor challenges Israeli account of attack on Gaza ambulances

After that, he adds, he was pulled from the wreckage by Israeli soldiers, arrested and blindfolded. He claimed he was interrogated over 15 hours, before being released.

Rafah paramedic massacre - Wikipedia

Abed was forced to help Israeli soldiers in the vetting and photographing of local residents, who were ordered to leave the area and move to al-Mawasi. He was released in the evening and given back his watch and underwear but not his identity card, paramedic uniform, or shoes. Abed was instructed to walk toward al-Mawasi and was eventually able to flag down a passing Red Crescent vehicle for assistance.

Now I assume you will cast doubt on Munther Abed's testimony (note he has a human name). But according to his testimony he was thought useful by the Israeli soldiers. He may have been released by different soldiers but that is speculation. One could argue it shows that Israeli soldiers know they can act with impunity - they know they are unlikely to be punished. Nice of them to give him back his underwear!

El Indio might have the answer (near the end).

Friedrich Rubinstein · Apr 19, 2025

Vanellus said:
The more important question is why did the Israelis claim the ambulances did not have headlights on when they did have them on and so why did they fire on them citing as reason they didn't have their headlights on. I don't think you have answered that question. Neither of those facts are speculation: the initial Israeli false claim about the headlights and the footage that shows the headlights were on.

I haven't answered that question because neither I nor you know the answer. We can speculate (as you are already doing), but speculation is not evidence.
If you want me to speculate I'd say the same happened that happens in every sizable modern army: some soldiers do something bad (whether on purpose or not), don't want to be punished and therefore lie to their higher-ups, who then run with what they're being told by the soldiers and thus the lie becomes the public statement (until questioned, and then an investigation begins, just like in this case).

Vanellus said:
Now I assume you will cast doubt on Munther Abed's testimony (note he has a human name). But according to his testimony he was thought useful by the Israeli soldiers. He may have been released by different soldiers but that is speculation. One could argue it shows that Israeli soldiers know they can act with impunity - they know they are unlikely to be punished. Nice of them to give him back his underwear!

There is a reason that God doesn't allow the conviction of anyone based on a single testimony (Deuteronomy 19:15). You seem to be eager to make a judgement anyway.

Vanellus · Apr 19, 2025

Friedrich Rubinstein said:
I haven't answered that question because neither I nor you know the answer. We can speculate (as you are already doing), but speculation is not evidence.
If you want me to speculate

Er you just asked me to speculate as to why they released Munther Abed. I notice you are avoiding using his name.

Friedrich Rubinstein · Apr 19, 2025

Vanellus said:
Er you just asked me to speculate as to why they released Munther Abed. I notice you are avoiding using his name.

That was a rhetorical question to show you how absurd it is to claim that the IDF has a policy of targeting aid workers. It doesn't make sense to claim that the Israeli army instructs their soldiers to target medics when they release them after they witnessed a "war crime". Not to mention that shortly before and some time after this ambush there were ambulances and UN vehicles passing the area just fine without getting shot at.

Vanellus · Apr 19, 2025

Friedrich Rubinstein said:
That was a rhetorical question to show you how absurd it is to claim that the IDF has a policy of targeting aid workers. It doesn't make sense to claim that the Israeli army instructs their soldiers to target medics when they release them after they witnessed a "war crime". Not to mention that shortly before and some time after this ambush there were ambulances and UN vehicles passing the area just fine without getting shot at.

You say that now but you didn't say that then - and spare me the "it was obvious" response. Let your yes be yes and your no be no.

Vanellus · Apr 21, 2025

Friedrich Rubinstein said:
There are radar data showing the flight path, intercepted phone calls of Hamas operatives admitting that it was a Palestinian rocket, weapon expert analysis of the impact (determining that Israel doesn't have any munitions that would cause such a little crater with that much fuel to cause the amount of fire damage), the lack of missile fragments (which would undoubtedly exist in an Israeli strike but not from a home-made PIJ rocket) and the intelligence reports from other countries, all proving that it wasn't an Israeli strike. To ignore all of that and rely on an "audio signal" is absurd. Even the BBC admitted later that their own government had come to the conclusion that it was indeed a misfired Palestinian rocket:

If you read the BBC article carefully (posted only 9 days after the incident) it is couched in the language of probability not certainty. Hence your "prove" is not right. And I don't know where you get the idea of "even the BBC" - well ok it may not always agree with IDF propaganda. Maybe that is your yardstick of truth y'know with terrorists whose names happen to be the days of the week.

More Than 100 BBC Staff Sign Letter Accusing BBC Of Bias In Its Coverage Of Israel-Gaza Conflict

More than 100 BBC employees have put their name to a letter accusing the corporation of bias in its coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict.

The Independent newspaper reports that, in a letter sent to director-general Tim Davie, more than 230 members of the media industry, including 100 BBC staff members and several public figures, accuse the BBC of favouring Israel in its news broadcasts and lacking “consistently fair and accurate evidence-based journalism in its coverage of Gaza.”

The letter seen by the newspaper asks the BBC to “report without fear or favour” and to “recommit to the highest editorial standards – with emphasis on fairness, accuracy and due impartiality” with commitments to include:
Click to expand...

'A scandal': Study shows BBC 'bias' in reporting on Palestinian and Israeli deaths

Researchers looked at thousands of online articles and posts from the broadcaster between October 7, the date of the Hamas attacks on Israel, and December 2.

They found a “systematic disparity in how Palestinian and Israeli deaths are treated” by the BBC, with words such as murder, massacre, and slaughter almost exclusively being linked to Israeli deaths.

I don't think even IDF propaganda is saying all the hospitals in Gaza have been destroyed by misfired Hamas rockets. And that is the key point. Not disputes over ballistic evidence. Israel has destroyed or partially destroyed every hospital in Gaza.

Friedrich Rubinstein · Apr 22, 2025

Vanellus said:
If you read the BBC article carefully (posted only 9 days after the incident) it is couched in the language of probability not certainty. Hence your "prove" is not right.

When the US intelligence, the British intelligence, the French intelligence, the Canadian intelligence, as well as virtually all weapons experts that were asked on the matter, come to the same conclusion: it wasn't an Israeli ordnance, then there is no reasonable argument to act as if we don't know what happened.

Vanellus said:
I don't think even IDF propaganda is saying all the hospitals in Gaza have been destroyed by misfired Hamas rockets. And that is the key point. Not disputes over ballistic evidence. Israel has destroyed or partially destroyed every hospital in Gaza.

That is not the key point. I don't think anyone ever claimed that all hospitals in Gaza have been destroyed by misfired Hamas rockets. The reason we're talking about this one specific incident is because five minutes after the blast the Gaza Ministry of Health added "500 casualties" to the death toll and the BBC just ran with it, accusing Israel of having caused it. That is not proper journalism.

Why were there not "500 casualties" in any of the other hospitals? Because the IDF gives evacuation warnings, and sometimes even helped themselves in the evacuations. The destruction or partial destruction of a hospital, when done in accordance with international law (aka with evacuation warning), isn't an issue. The al-Ahli incident would have been an issue because there was no warning.

Vanellus · Apr 22, 2025

Friedrich Rubinstein said:
When the US intelligence, the British intelligence, the French intelligence, the Canadian intelligence, as well as virtually all weapons experts that were asked on the matter, come to the same conclusion: it wasn't an Israeli ordnance, then there is no reasonable argument to act as if we don't know what happened.

The majority are not always right and such judgments may not be independent e.g. Galileo condemned and Iraqi WMD. There can be a conspiracy to hide or excuse a great wrong e.g. slavery, treatment of native Americans. Instead one should look at the evidence. You are wrong to dismiss the Doppler sound mapping analysis out of hand just because you don't like its conclusions. It's a well known principle in physics used , for instance, to determine the direction of blood flow in a heart.

You make evacuating a hospital sound so easy and there have been mistakes in the IDF warnings:
Gaza evacuation warnings from IDF contain many errors, BBC finds
And conditions in Gaza hospitals are not easy:
Gaza doctors: ‘We leave patients to scream for hours and hours’
e.g. operations without anaesthetic.

Friedrich Rubinstein · Apr 22, 2025

Vanellus said:
The majority are not always right and such judgments may not be independent e.g. Galileo condemned and Iraqi WMD. There can be a conspiracy to hide or excuse a great wrong e.g. slavery, treatment of native Americans. Instead one should look at the evidence. You are wrong to dismiss the Doppler sound mapping analysis out of hand just because you don't like its conclusions. It's a well known principle in physics used , for instance, to determine the direction of blood flow in a heart.

A look at the evidence:

Israeli strike:
- Sound analysis

Palestinian rocket:
- radar data of rocket flight path
- phone calls between Hamas terrorists talking about one of their own rockets impacting at the Al-Ahli hospital
- crater size
- amount of fire damage
- lack of munition fragments (actually strong evidence, according to the BBC hasn't happened with any Israeli strike in 20 years)
- no structural damage to any nearby buildings

So not only does the evidence point strongly into one direction only, but the only evidence for an Israeli strike is an audio signal - which is the weakest evidence in all of this. Distance and quality of a microphone significantly influence the recorded audio, and it is extremely unlikely that the munition was the only sound to be heard at that time, so there is likely interference. The evidence for a Palestinian rocket on the other hand is visual and well documented.

Vanellus said:
You make evacuating a hospital sound so easy and there have been mistakes in the IDF warnings:
Gaza evacuation warnings from IDF contain many errors, BBC finds
And conditions in Gaza hospitals are not easy:
Gaza doctors: ‘We leave patients to scream for hours and hours’
e.g. operations without anaesthetic.

Nothing in war is easy. Have you ever been in a war or talked to people who lived through a war? That it isn't easy and that people are suffering in war doesn't make it wrong to fight that war though. Defeating the Nazis was a long and brutal battle in which millions more civilians suffered than in Gaza, yet I don't think you would say that there should've been a ceasefire instead and the Nazis be left in power. Some wars need to be fought so that less civilians suffer overall in the long run.

Vanellus · Apr 30, 2025

Friedrich Rubinstein said:
A look at the evidence:

All you did here was list the evidence you like against the evidence you don't like: confirmation bias. Experts have cast linguistic and forensic doubts about the so called interception in which the speakers, just by coincidence, happen to say exactly what the IDF would want almost as if it was scripted (as it likely was). You're clearly not an expert on ballistics. And proper arguments for "the lack of significant building damage proves it was not the IDF" are absent in British media. The Israelis have a variety of weapons and weapons can explode above ground. No one is denying that people were killed so in removing the bodies couldn't the bomb/missile material have been removed - or maybe Hamas took the fragments away to analyse in one of their hundreds of sophisticated labs - all situated under schools, hospitals. mosques etc.

Friedrich Rubinstein said:
Nothing in war is easy. Have you ever been in a war or talked to people who lived through a war? That it isn't easy and that people are suffering in war doesn't make it wrong to fight that war though. Defeating the Nazis was a long and brutal battle in which millions more civilians suffered than in Gaza, yet I don't think you would say that there should've been a ceasefire instead and the Nazis be left in power. Some wars need to be fought so that less civilians suffer overall in the long run.

Ah the war is hell argument. What is this obsession with WW2 as if that is some kind of ideal to aim at - it isn't. Both sides committed immoral acts hence the need to revise and update the Geneva Conventions.

Friedrich Rubinstein · Apr 30, 2025

Vanellus said:
All you did here was list the evidence you like against the evidence you don't like: confirmation bias. Experts have cast linguistic and forensic doubts about the so called interception in which the speakers, just by coincidence, happen to say exactly what the IDF would want almost as if it was scripted (as it likely was). You're clearly not an expert on ballistics. And proper arguments for "the lack of significant building damage proves it was not the IDF" are absent in British media. The Israelis have a variety of weapons and weapons can explode above ground. No one is denying that people were killed so in removing the bodies couldn't the bomb/missile material have been removed - or maybe Hamas took the fragments away to analyse in one of their hundreds of sophisticated labs - all situated under schools, hospitals. mosques etc.

I don't need to be an expert on ballistics, I can read what experts have said - and virtually all of them agree that Israel doesn't have any munitions in its arsenal that fit the impact scene. Why do you keep repeating the same arguments that have already been disproven? As the BBC article states that I linked before, it wasn't an air burst munition:

the experts we spoke to said the blast scene was not consistent with this [referring to munitions that explode above ground]

If there had been fragments from an Israeli ordnance, Hamas would've most definitely released that evidence. Hamas is in control of Gaza's hospitals, if a doctor had found shrapnell in a body Hamas would've known about it. There are only two possible explanations for why Hamas never provided evidence for munition fragments: either there was none, or the fragments proved that it wasn't an Israeli strike.

Vanellus said:
Ah the war is hell argument. What is this obsession with WW2 as if that is some kind of ideal to aim at - it isn't. Both sides committed immoral acts hence the need to revise and update the Geneva Conventions.

Say what you want, war IS hell. Both my grandfathers have fought in a war, and my parents were raised in the post-war years. I am very familiar with what it's like to survive the bombings, hiding from the occupiers, and having so little food to eat that you eat grass and bark out of desperation.
That's not unique to WWII, that's probably true of every war ever fought. WWII is a good example in this case because it shows that some wars are necessary to be fought even if horrible things happen. Just like the Nazis were an evil that had to be reined in, so Hamas is also an evil that has to be reined in.

Vanellus · May 6, 2025

You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

This is what is going on here. When confronted with the large number of Palestinians killed in Gaza (the latest figure I've seen is 52,243) by Israel, apologists for Israel quibble about the accuracy of the figure as if (say) it were only 42,000 that would be alright!!! The unspoken assumption behind that is that Palestinian lives don't matter - but this is not stated explicitly.

When confronted with the fact that Israel has destroyed or partially destroyed every hospital in Gaza, the reasonable conclusion is that Israel is targeting the hospitals in Gaza. But you prefer to engage in a dialogue of ignorance about the magic misfiring Palestinian rocket that just by chance hit a hospital - and so ignore the much larger fact that Israel has targeted all the Gaza hospitals - and then fall back on the ridiculous idea that they all have Hamas headquarters under them. Usually, the truth is the obvious: Israel has targeted the hospitals in Gaza.

Has Israel acted illegally here?

https://x.com/ICRC/status/1720092458938220674

The remarkable fact about the subject of this OP is that a phone belonging to one of Israel's victims was recovered, and that the phone had footage showing the Israeli lies about this. I think it's fair to conclude that this is not the only time Israel has lied in this way. The rarity is the finding of the phone with footage, not that Israel lied.

Friedrich Rubinstein · May 6, 2025

@Vanellus What civilian to combatant ratio would be acceptable to you?

Friedrich Rubinstein · May 9, 2025

It is understandable that you are not comfortable answering that question. Many people are oblivious to the cost of war. According to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (a leading provider of data on armed conflicts) in 2017, around 49-66% of casualties in urban warfare are civilians. That's a civilian to combatant ratio between 1:1 and 2:1.

Before the Gaza war started, Hamas had an estimated 40,000 members. If Israel successfully roots out the terrorists, the expected death toll at the end of the war is therefore between 80,000 and 120,000 casualties in Gaza. That's just the average expected number due to the nature of urban warfare and doesn't take into account the reports that Hamas has recruited another 30,000 members to compensate for their losses, nor does it take into account that Hamas is fighting in civilian clothing and their other tactics of maximizing civilian casualties.

So to say that 52,000 fatalities (even if accurate) is somehow a disproportionally large number, or that stating these facts means that Palestinian lives don't matter, is willful ignorance about the average death toll in war - or, if not ignorance, a double standard that expects Israel to somehow fight an urban war with less casualties than any other army in the world.

Civilians die in war, as tragic as it is. If Israel can finish this war between 80,000 and 120,000 deaths it means the number of civilian casualties isn't disproportionate in comparison to the average cost of urban warfare around the world.

IDF kill Red Cross workers in Gaza

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency