Human rights investigators raise new questions on Gaza hospital explosion
channel4.com
"Along with the very real and violent war on the ground – there is also a fierce information war. Like Tuesday’s explosion at the Gaza hospital which Hamas says killed hundreds of people.
Israel says it was a misfired Islamic Jihad rocket, which they deny. Hamas says it was an Israeli airstrike, which they deny.
But tonight Forensic Architecture, Earshot and the Ramallah based NGO Al Haq have shared new information with Channel 4 News they say casts doubt on some aspects of Israel’s account."
The evidence is presented in the video
Doppler analysis is a really good approach. Assuming there are no glaring errors in the analysis: Israel is lying, it absolutely did not come from where they claim. It came from.... the direction of Israel.
But perhaps physics is just antisemitic now who knows
As a Jew who passed physics, I can tell you that it is not antisemitic. Nor is it to say "fuck PeePee Netanyahu's campaign of destruction and misinformation." Saying all Israelis are bad isn't antisemitic, but it's not correct. Saying that you dislike Israel because it has too many Jews is both antisemitic and valid, oddly enough. Saying you hate all Jews is antisemitic.
Anyway, most of the people telling you that not supporting Israel is antisemitic are, in fact, actual antisemites. They're the same people who say that it's actually racist to call someone a racist.
That comment really made me think, thank you! The only part where I’m still stuck is the sentence “…most of the people telling you that not supporting Israel is antisemetic are, in fact, antisemites.” I can understand why their statement is incorrect at face value. But I haven’t quite untangled why they would be antisemites for making that statement. Would you please clarify that part for me?
The quite is about correlation, not causation.
Antisemitic people tend to think that Isreal and all Jewish people do everything in lockstep because their antisemitic views include the "Jews controlling the world" myth. To them Isreal = Jews and therefore criticizing Isreal is the same thing as criticizing all Jewish people amd they want to play 'gotcha' based on that.
I don't think the statement makes them anti-semitic, they just happen to be anti-semitic and use calling other people anti-semitic for anti-Israeli sentiments as a cover for their own racism.
There is a lot to unpack in your comment.
But good food for thought.
Now they have the right to defend themselves from physics.
Not disputing what you are saying but do you have a link to such an analysis?
This story is about it, I haven't seen it myself! I would like to though, I did the same thing once in a radio astronomy context
Fair enough.
I'm pretty bemused at people taking the "independent" review of the missile strike by the Pentagon at face value.
I'm sorry, where are the weapons of mass destruction again?
Doesn't matter who did it. The issue is the systemic oppression of a population, apartheid leads to violence. Blame is immaterial here. Both belligerents are bad actors, having done terrible things to each other, and the civilians.
The only resolution is how to end the apartheid. Truth and reconciliation, integration of the populations, total freedom and liberation of a country, take your pick.
This one attack is being skillfully used to redirect our attention from the real issue, that is, everything you said.
If your "only resolution" is completely unattainable, that's not very helpful.
Ending apartheid is attainable. It's worked in many different countries. It's not an easy process by any means. Nobody's going to have peace, as long as apartheid continues.
Granting Independence to Palestine has been on the table for 60 years. Very attainable, the will currently doesn't exist but it's attainable.
The current plan of just ratcheting up the pressure doesn't seem to be working...
People thought it matters who did it when they were still thinking it was Israel.
You're building a straw man here. Why do you think those were the exact same people? I think you're creating an imaginary enemy here
There were lots of posts and comments how Israel killed 500 civilians. A lot of people seemed to care who did it.
With that background, it's worthwhile to post additional information if the previous was misleading. Doesn't matter if it's the same people (not exactly sure to who you're referring), neither did I create an enemy.
Apparently there was demand for the information who did it, so it's good to post updates, even if other people think it doesn't matter.
Yes, some people thought it mattered. Yes, some people are hypocrites. But saying "people" just paints everyone with the same brush. Some people said from the very beginning that the entire situation has to stop. Hell, Israel has bombed hospitals countless times in the past, so it's not like it even matters that much anyway. I just got annoyed with your "people thought it mattered" as if everyone has the exact same opinion as of the people you have encountered.
Oh, alright. Seems you would have been fine if I had written "Some people" instead of just "People". As a non-native speaker, I'm not sure wether "People" actually means some or all people.
Like when I say "People like the new iPhone", are you sure that means all people like it? Or can that sentence be said when a large number likes it, although some don't, and the overall majority didn't even consider to buy it?
Either way, I could have clarified with a short emphasis, yes.
Yeah I'm not a native speaker either. Any other way I'm glad that was clarified.
The issue is the war and violence, lets not bicker and argue about who killed who... the continuation is the problem. If we were at peace and trying to find justice about war crimes, the blame and facts matter, but we are talking about a ongoing 60 year war, that has just come to a boil.
There isn't any diplomatic effort to find a solution on the table, just more violence and escalation......
Of course, that's the reasonable objective.
How do you integrate a population that wants to kill you though?
If you try to kill them right back, that just proves their point.
Need to find a stable situation for the area. Either bite the bullet and make a independent state of them, or integrate them into the one country. Two separate populations in the same area will just beget more violence.
Hamas can only be defeated by the people seeing that they have better options, its a difficult path, but it has to be done.
So you just let them kill you without response. And you think Hamas and the other fundamentalist Islamic terrorists will stop killing Jews once they have their own state, which they rejected when they were offered it.
You carry out a proportional response. When there's a huge power asymmetry you have to consider that in your responses.
There will never be peace with Hamas, or any religious fundamentalist. The entire exercise is to get the population to have a better option so they don't back the extremists. Both populations
I agree completely, the power asymmetry is a fundamental issue that has to be considered as part of any response. Several instances where that's been an issue easily come to mind: Nazis industrially killing Jews, gypsies and others; Argentina's military torturing and raping civilians, and now Israel flattening a city.
But Palestinians getting to where we'd all like them to be, with their own state, with open borders, welcome anywhere they go... Unfortunately we're way past the point where that's an option. There's a reason not even their Islamic neighbors want them.
Also, they had a better option. Many Palestinians lived in peace, they even worked in Israel. Their extremists don't care though, that's not what they're after. They just want to kill Jews.
I think you will find it a hard sell to tell any population they haven't earned their freedom (yet) and expect them to accept it and be peaceful.
The cycle is just repeating, the frustrating thing is those with the ability to break the cycle have no incentive to do so.
So what do you suggest? Let's assume the Israeli government stops the retaliation right now (as they should). What's next? Who do they talk to? The rest of the Arab world doesn't want to have anything to do with the Palestinians, except, of course, those who want to use them as pawns to attack the Jews by proxy.
Israel and the west have tried to solve this situation since the creation of the state. It's been sabotaged every time. If course the Israeli right has done some horrible things as well. But that's not the reason they're being attacked. Even if they didn't do any of those things, the Islamic terrorists would still be killing them at every opportunity.
I don't know what the solution is. But let's not be naive.
I've posted elsewhere, but you just have to look at the anti-apartheid roadmaps other countries have followed. There's a choice here, either an independent Palestine, or an integrated Israel. Maybe change the country name. Those are the only viable options. You have to choose one, and then make all of the hard road choices along that path.
You can't point to the history and say it didn't work, people, especially indigenous people, are very reluctant to say yes everything up to now has been okay please give us some freedom today. They just don't do that that's not human nature. An individual might do that to get the torture to stop, but you're never going to get a political leader to agree to it and even if you do, there's still going to be discontent among the population.
So the summarie: Economic integration, political integration, no second class citizens, everyone has to see a brighter future, you've got to give opportunities to the young male population which is the recruitment bed for extremists.
Independence or integration, both roadmaps need to hit the same points. You can't have a massively resource-starved population looking at a massively resource Rich population and expect content and peace.
Do you're realize the Palestinians were given that option and they rejected it?
Everything you described sounds great, it's the reasonable and kind way to think, but I keep asking the same question: how do you do that with a population whose most extreme members, which are a significant proportion, have one mission in life, and that is to kill every single one of you, not just because of your oppression (that's a contributing factor of course) but because of your religion?
Also, in this case, you'd need to overcome the religious extremists not just in the population you want to integrate, but in other countries who are using that population to attack you by proxy.
Tell me, how do you solve this?
You can't blame an entire ethnicity for the actions of a few. Even a large few.
Unless you're willing to exterminate the entire population, you're going to have to deal with them.
That means making overtures, and peace, with the majority of the population, providing them a better future together than one apart.
And that means treating terrorism, as terrorism rather than a war against a an entire ethnicity.
And it's not easy, and they've both ratcheted themselves into a terrible position. So it's going to take a lot of soul searching on both sides.
So yeah, ratcheting down the Gaza situation is going to be difficult, especially because Hamas is very popular there for all these reasons. So initially the piece overtures are going to help Hamas, but we have to have faith that net net the population is going to see a better future. Most people don't want to fight, if they have better options. Throughout all of history. So that means those young men with no future and no prospects and no jobs, they need to get something to do.
Maybe this plan involves unifying the West Bank in Gaza, so that the West Bank political system can provide stability to Gaza. We got to try something other than the current kill and oppress. Because kill an oppress doesn't work as we've seen. Unless you're going to kill them all. And then we have another name for that
I'm sorry, I realize I'm going in circles, repeating myself comment after comment.
My parents fled the Holocaust and even though I don't consider myself Jewish, by ethnicity and by family history I am. I think nobody deserves to be killed no matter what.
I hope there's a solution and that I'm wrong. I hope my opinion is not based on experience but on the fact that I'm old and jaded.
I'm not blaming an ethnicity, I don't care what ethnicity anyone is. I'm blaming religious extremism.
I commend you for your optimism, I wish everyone thought like you. The world would be a better place.
But in this case, all of that has been tried, and it failed. It should absolutely continue to be tried, and I want to be clear that I don't support what Israel is doing right now, but let's not kid ourselves. There's no solution, there will never be one.
Have you thought that Hamas is in power because of Israelis policies. If they weren't so oppressed or lived in such terrible conditions, they would have maybe never voted for Hamas.
Same with the Nazi party, they only get into power after the Versailles treaty.
And why do you think they lived in those conditions?
A piece of advice, open Wikipedia and educate yourself and stop listening to your country's propaganda.
I haven't listened to my country's propaganda, even though I know the general attitude here is mostly in favor of Palestine. I know the history of this conflict from my own family history
This question is disingenuous. It's just like an abusive boyfriend saying "why do you keep making me hit you?"
Sure, but terrorism and war is not like domestic violence. That analogy is disingenuous.
Okay. So who is keeping tally? Does the side with the least war crimes win or something?...
Actually, the goal seems to be committing the most war crimes that you're somehow absolved of, it appears.
Is this like breaking the hi-score counter by going higher than what the counter can do? Except it's for war crimes?
Number of casualties: 00000
This still leaves two major questions unanswered; if it was Israel, why did they use so much smaller bomb than they usually do and why did they target the parking lot? I've only seen them drop JDAMs from planes and not use traditional artillery. Someone can correct me on this if I'm wrong.
I'm also wondering wether they considered the fact that as the videos seems to show a malfunctioning rocket falling back to Gaza, maybe the direction of the impact could be explained by that the rocket effectively turned around mid flight.
The only sensible explanation for this being Israeli rocket would be that it's a rogue anti-air missile from iron dome that was trying to intercept these rockets but failed and for some reason didn't self-destruct before hitting the ground.
Al Jazeera had been live streaming and live reporting the entire thing, and there are multiple angles and phone videos from them and other sources that show the entire incident, from the rocket barrage, to the booster failure, to the hospital explosion.
The Associated Press has the complete analysis to your question, including the videos I mentioned, posted yesterday.
Alot of the videos in there were confirmed 8 hours after the incident, this is the first mainstream media outlet that put it all together.
The AP was one of the first to report what the Gaza Health Ministry said, "Israel strikes hospital, killing 500", then edited their article 3 times in 1 hour, with new titles and recharacterizing the report as "they said" to try and cover the increasing uncertainty of the situation. Along with the casualty number dropping. Now some might say "But any death at all is bad, 50 or 500!". That's true, it's still really tragic, but it's also a 90% error, which is a disaster for journalism.
The article covers the JDAM theories, the Israel warned them, the Hamas announcing their launching rockets a little after the incident. All things that would make the situation more murky.
I admit I do sound like I'm defending Israel with this. This particular event is a flashpoint for me personally since I'm heavily invested in the state of journalism in an age where the flood of information can overwhelm news and lead to innaccuracies.
The rocket turning around video is a different video from last year.
Unfortunately I got banned from World News on lemmy.ml because posting this was "War Crime Denial" apparently.
Got banned from there for the same reason. I more or less independently came to the same conclusion as most news outlets later on; while there still remains a lot of unanswered questions about this - nothing, however, seems to indicate it was a deliberate Israeli airstrike.
It could be one of the munitions that Israel uses for their Roof knockingbullshit.
I don't think so. This was powerful enough to wreck the parking lot after all.
I'm curious to hear why you think roof knocking is bullshit?
Deliberately targeting civilians is always bullshit.
I agree, but you seemed to say there, that the practice of "knocking" before the actual strike is bullshit, which I found surprising and was asking clarification for.
The knocking the IDF does is done using low yeild or dummy munitions not kindly notifying people. It's a flimsy justification for bombing civilians.
Would it be better if they did what Hamas does instead and just strike without a warning?
I find it odd that you think warning before hand so that people can evacuate is bullshit. They didn't need to do that, but they still go thru the effort to minimize civilian casualties.
Because hitting something with a small munition isn't a warning. It's just bombing civilians. Just because it's a small vldevice doesn't make it good or civilised, it's just bombing civilians.
You don't seem very keen on answering the question.
Would it be better if they didn't knock, and instead just did what Hamas does, and bomb the civilians without a warning?
I think we've established here, that not dropping bombs onto civilian population in the first place would be optimal, but since both sides are going to do it anyways and aren't going to stop, then which way is likely to lead to less collateral damage; giving a warning before hand or not warning at all? What do you think it tells about Israel that they're willing to knock first? Do you think Hamas would do that if they had the capability?
My answer to the question is that knocking isn't a warning. It's just bombing civilians. They can claim that using smaller bombs is somehow nicer but at the end of the day they're still bombing people and then they're kind enough to follow that up with bigger bombs. I don't have to be pragmatic and accept that there's going to be some bombing of civilians or indeed any bombing or attacks on anyone from any side in any conflict. You don't have to tolerate the actions of bastards doing bastard things.
Why are you criticizing Israel for the one half decent thing they're doing which is letting people know before hand that this building is going to get bombed so you better get the hell out? That's such an odd thing to critizice them for.
How do you feel about Hamas attacking that music festival and murdering 250 civilians? I'm sure those people would've liked a warning too, don't you think?
Again: roof knocking is not a warning it is just bombing civilians. Just because you hit them first with a small bomb doesn't grant you an moral high ground or count as a warning, you're just bombing civilians. The only right thing to do is to not bomb civilians with anything at all.
It is simply engaging in the exact same terrorism that hamas participates in but they're trying to frame their terrorism as better somehow.
the "good" hamas does not exist.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/10/21/viral-photos-of-hamas-leaders-accused-of-being-ai-fakes-actually-just-poorly-upscaled/
supporting hamas does make the world a worse place any time.
What does the investigation have to do with that though? It raises some great questions and shows that no war party shall be trusted in this information war.
From OPs text:
To me this sounds like an advocate for Hamas which is unnecessary because there is no good hamas. Maybe excessive hatespeech here: https://lemm.ee/post/11191373 also made me just point that out again. There is no good Hamas and no need to talk to them, negotiate with them or just even verify any of their misinformation - they are nothing but terrorists.
I'm sorry, but I will not blindly trust any kind of information, no matter if it's from Hamas, the IDF, or the Pentagon. Why would you even mind that open source investigators are looking at this? If you are so sure that what hamas are saying is misinformation, then you should be totally happy that even more open source investigators are looking into it.
does anything you just wrote make sense?
so you will not "blindly" trust any info, right? and you are upset because there is more informatiom?
I believe you need to take a second read then. Or at least look under what post you're even discussing.
To you, independent investigators looking into events without involving any war party is "supporting Hamas". That's a very, very interesting position you have there and shows a great bias. Again, how did you connect the two points? What's wrong with having open source investigators look into these events? Why is that "supporting Hamas"?
i do not think a thousand teacher can help you comprehend text.
Ad Hominem attacks instead of answering the question. Please answer the question