"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.
Removed by mod
Nobody ever goes there anymore, it’s too crowded
That’s anti-humanist
Removed by mod
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.
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.
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.
the “good” hamas does not exist.
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:
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."
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.
or just even verify any of their misinformation
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
