Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

The Corinthian said:
Palestinians under attack as settler violence surges in the West Bank

Abed Wadi was getting dressed for the funeral when the message arrived.

It was an image, forwarded to him by a friend, of a group of masked men posing with axes, a petrol canister, and a chainsaw, with text printed on the image in Hebrew and Arabic.

"To all the rats in the sewers of Qusra village, we are waiting for you and we will not mourn you," the text said.

"The day of revenge is coming."

Qusra is Wadi's village, in the northern part of the West Bank near Nablus. The funeral that day was for four Palestinians from the village. Three had been killed the previous day - Wednesday 11 October - after Israeli settlers entered Qusra and attacked a Palestinian family home.

The fourth was shot dead in clashes with Israeli soldiers that followed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67173344

BBC reporting on the WB (finally).
Click to expand...


This is so grim. You missed the bit where the funeral procession was attacked and 2 more were murdered. You’d ask where the feck are the police, but Ben gvir and this government is literally empowering these violent mobs to do this shit, and now the whole powder keg has made it work.

Ideally you’d provide proper policing, else at least remove soldier protection from these lunatics and arm the Palestinian villagers so they can defend themselves. It’s criminal enterprise pure and simple and needs put down.
 
MDFC Manager said:
No point in it just being reported because nobody wants to push Israel to reign in these fecking terrorist settlers. It's infuriating and basically why many people are loath to offer even deserved sympathy.
Click to expand...

The government itself has 2 of these terrorist loons in Ben gvir and smotrich. Hard to rein them in when their “security minister” is fecking complicit. Hopefully/likely a byproduct of this will be that Netanyahu and his loons are out on their asses next election.
 
Mogget said:
Literally their next tweet says this

Click to expand...
I've no idea what is going on here but it doesn't matter what any of their other tweets say if they are using pictures from a different site and trying to pass it off as this one.

Everything else needs thrown out the window.
 
arnie_ni said:
I've no idea what is going on here but it doesn't matter what any of their other tweets say if they are using pictures from a different site and trying to pass it off as this one.

Everything else needs thrown out the window.
Click to expand...
They’re not trying to pass it off as this one though. They’re saying the two impact site is similar across both instances and inferring upon that.
 
owlo said:
The government itself has 2 of these terrorist loons in Ben gvir and smotrich. Hard to rein them in when their “security minister” is fecking complicit. Hopefully/likely a byproduct of this will be that Netanyahu and his loons are out on their asses next election.
Click to expand...
Hopefully. Thanks for the background!
 
Ekkie Thump said:
Occam's razor just has to come into play here. On the one hand we have an exquisitely timed malfunctioning rocket. On the other we have a malfunctioning rocket intercepted in record time by an invisible iron dome missile while an independently launched artillery shell lands at precisely the same moment in the hospital below causing precisely the same damage as would be expected from a malfunctioning rocket igniting its unspent fuel.

The second explanation is just too much of an inexplicable confluence of unlikely events.
Click to expand...

For me, the fact that you refer to Occam’s razor shows significant bias given what we know as fact. There were multiple Israeli strikes in that part of Gaza in the preceding few minutes to the hospital being hit. That we know as fact. We also know that the hospital had been previously struck. We know the hospital had received warning to evacuate. It is absolutely plausible that it could have been an Israeli strike whether you think there was a rocket malfunction or not. Then the analysis on both sides ignores the fact that Israel have more ways of intercepting rockets than just Iron Dome.

What is also interesting is the best footage we have of the strike on the hospital has largely been ignored by those who want to say it was a malfunctioned rocket. That should be the footage that adds credence to that claim, but it doesn’t at all.

Then we have other factors like Israeli representatives claiming they did the strike before deleting tweets. The inconsistencies in their explanations of where the rocket was fired from. The falsified audio recordings.

At this point, if you’re still confidently clinging on to it being a rocket malfunction… you have your head in the sand.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
This to me is a significant piece of evidence. In any other context, everyone would see it as damning.
Click to expand...
Agree - why bother editing and falsifying audio if you know it’s a misfire from your opposition?

Not sure if you saw it but there’s also the testimony of the Archbishop of the church that runs the hospital - the hospital was struck by a strike 3 days prior, 15 other Gazan hospitals were warned to evacuate by the Israelis and this hospital in particular was given warnings on Sat/Sun/Mon to evacuate. They were struck on Tuesday.
 
MDFC Manager said:
Wait, is this like confirmed? Because as it is, I think it hardly counts as evidence, if it's falsified it's even worse
Click to expand...

Well, multiple experts have said the audio is not realistic based on accents, dialogue etc.

Then you have the fact that the audio for both the individuals has been recorded separately and edited together. That is not what you would get from a recorded telephone conversation.
 
What I would also add… I’m seeing in this thread people discredit the investigations by a couple of human rights organisations on the basis they are pro-Palestine. That’s just a genetic fallacy. To just say it can be ignored because you don’t personally trust the source is nonsense. The thing is, they have explained their methods and their conclusions. Their investigation is completely open to peer review. If what they have done or said doesn’t make sense scientifically, then it should be easily countered. Yet I suspect it won’t be…
 
ZupZup said:
What I would also add… I’m seeing in this thread people discredit the investigations by a couple of human rights organisations on the basis they are pro-Palestine. That’s just a genetic fallacy. To just say it can be ignored because you don’t personally trust the source is nonsense. The thing is, they have explained their methods and their conclusions. Their investigation is completely open to peer review. If what they have done or said doesn’t make sense scientifically, then it should be easily countered. Yet I suspect it won’t be…
Click to expand...
Nathan Ruser already countered Al Jazeera's investigation I think.

Nevertheless, it's all open for discussion and it highlights how much we need independent folks on the ground in Gaza.
 
Does anyone have a link to a video that has an unbiased history of the war between Israel & Palestine? Must of the ones I find are either biased in one way or the other and the ones that seem neutral are too short to delve deeper into the history. Much appreciated.
 
The Corinthian said:
They’re not trying to pass it off as this one though. They’re saying the two impact site is similar across both instances and inferring upon that.
Click to expand...

Yet it appears they have unwittingly (probably knowingly) compared a rocket impact in Ukraine, to a rocket impact in Gaza, found similarities and tried to pass it off as an artillery shell.

The sheer desperation from trolls and propaganda accounts working overtime to try and show this as an Isreali attack is a joke. Lapped up feverishly by anyone with an anti-israeli bias. It doesn't seem to matter if they make mistakes in their "analysis", confirmation bias covers it for those susceptible to it.

The focus is on picking nit-picking holes in IDF statements. You can completely ignore anything coming from the IDF and still know this wasn't them. We have 3 different videos showing a rocket malfunction over the hospital moments before the explosion, the damage is consistent with a rocket, there's zero evidence of this rocket landing anywhere else.

Don't get me started on the casualty claims, if it was as many as 100 they'd have been clearing human remains for days. We have images after a few hours showing zero signs of casualties, apart from the fire damage, the site is clean. Any mass casualty event we would have footage of the immediate aftermath showing the carnage. All we have is a few images showing 2-3 people lying on the ground.

I don't think it does the Palestinian people many favours. It calls into question all reporting that comes out of Gaza, its all controlled by Hamas whether its the "Gaza Health Ministry" or whoever that information is coming from. The UN even apparently takes their reports at face value, which calls all their reporting into question. Makes me think we should be taken a zero off any casualty report for starters.

Before I get jumped on for being an Israeli shill, its just the lies and misinformation I'm attacking. Those of us who have been following the Ukraine war since the beginning have an idea of who and what can be trusted. Certainly not anyone who puts "osint" in the name, but accounts like @osinttechnical have proven track records of objective analysis.
 
Dirty Schwein said:
Does anyone have a link to a video that has an unbiased history of the war between Israel & Palestine? Must of the ones I find are either biased in one way or the other and the ones that seem neutral are too short to delve deeper into the history. Much appreciated.
Click to expand...
This one from DW I found the best so far.

 
ZupZup said:
What I would also add… I’m seeing in this thread people discredit the investigations by a couple of human rights organisations on the basis they are pro-Palestine. That’s just a genetic fallacy. To just say it can be ignored because you don’t personally trust the source is nonsense. The thing is, they have explained their methods and their conclusions. Their investigation is completely open to peer review. If what they have done or said doesn’t make sense scientifically, then it should be easily countered. Yet I suspect it won’t be…
Click to expand...

News providers can be deceptive by omission though. In which case how would you know? Silly example, but if they asked 2 experts and 1 said it looked like an Israeli missile crater, and the other said a Palestinian missile, they could omit the opinion they didn’t want to give credence to. And the reader would never know. So yes you absolutely can choose to ignore anything and everything said by a biased party. This goes for both sides.
 
NicolaSacco said:
News providers can be deceptive by omission though. In which case how would you know? Silly example, but if they asked 2 experts and 1 said it looked like an Israeli missile crater, and the other said a Palestinian missile, they could omit the opinion they didn’t want to give credence to. And the reader would never know. So yes you absolutely can choose to ignore anything and everything said by a biased party. This goes for both sides.
Click to expand...

I don’t really think you understood what I was saying… I am not saying that arguments or evidence isn’t routinely ignored because someone doesn’t like the source or because it doesn’t fit their own bias. I am just saying that an unbiased independent person who wants the truth should not just discount evidence by saying a source is not trustworthy.
 
Carolina Red said:
Roane was referring to issues that arose 1) before the post WWII world and 2) contain statements that reveal different motivations that existed prior to the post-WWII world existing
Click to expand...

Yes, that was understood, but the current conflict (i.e.within living memory) in this area was set off/re-ignited by the Alliance's decision to form the modern state of Israel, in the post WW2. period.
Prior to the post WW2 period, the land in question had been claimed and counter claimed and occupied for thousands of years before, by both Arabs and Jews (depending on how far back you go) and up to the end of WW1 it had been part of the Ottoman-empire. Britain with the Balfour Declaration was attempting to win Jewish support for its WWI efforts
 
ZupZup said:
What I would also add… I’m seeing in this thread people discredit the investigations by a couple of human rights organisations on the basis they are pro-Palestine. That’s just a genetic fallacy. To just say it can be ignored because you don’t personally trust the source is nonsense. The thing is, they have explained their methods and their conclusions. Their investigation is completely open to peer review. If what they have done or said doesn’t make sense scientifically, then it should be easily countered. Yet I suspect it won’t be…
Click to expand...

I'm of two minds on this.

I personally just think that real knowledge is very hard. The majority of us don't have the relevant knowledge or technical expertise to evaluate the validity of these claims. It's no different than people who became experts in immunology from 2020 to 2022. We can grasp at some things, maybe identify some blatant falsehoods, but not much more than that.

We do have to rely on "who we trust" to a large extent. It's unavoidable.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
We do have to rely on "who we trust" to a large extent. It's unavoidable.
Click to expand...

I am not saying not to be sceptical… but flat out ignoring evidence because you don’t like the source isn’t a way to find the truth.

I’m no expert. I don’t know who bombed the hospital. I just don’t think evidence should be discounted when an organisation has been very transparent and open about their analysis and conclusions. Play the ball, not the man.
 
The Corinthian said:
Palestinians under attack as settler violence surges in the West Bank

Abed Wadi was getting dressed for the funeral when the message arrived.

It was an image, forwarded to him by a friend, of a group of masked men posing with axes, a petrol canister, and a chainsaw, with text printed on the image in Hebrew and Arabic.

"To all the rats in the sewers of Qusra village, we are waiting for you and we will not mourn you," the text said.

"The day of revenge is coming."

Qusra is Wadi's village, in the northern part of the West Bank near Nablus. The funeral that day was for four Palestinians from the village. Three had been killed the previous day - Wednesday 11 October - after Israeli settlers entered Qusra and attacked a Palestinian family home.

The fourth was shot dead in clashes with Israeli soldiers that followed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67173344

BBC reporting on the WB (finally).
Click to expand...

They should not have voted for Hamas. Israel has a right to defend itself. What do you expect them to do in this situation.

I think I’ve covered all the talking points there
 
ZupZup said:
I am not saying not to be sceptical… but flat out ignoring evidence because you don’t like the source isn’t a way to find the truth.

I’m no expert. I don’t know who bombed the hospital. I just don’t think evidence should be discounted when an organisation has been very transparent and open about their analysis and conclusions. Play the ball, not the man.
Click to expand...

Yeah like I said, I'm of two minds, since I do agree with a lot of what you're saying.

I think to dislike/dismiss a source, you need a good reason. I dislike the IDF as a source because they have a long and proven history of lying about these things. That one I think is pretty clear.

Less clear for others might be: not liking sources because they are analysts from a U.S. Department of Defense funded think tank. I am less skeptical of a source like this. But I am skeptical of the idea that this is "independent analysis."
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
After all the mass protests we have seen in front of Western and Israeli embassies/consulates, I have the following question: why has the same not been dished against Egyptian equivalents worldwide? As far as I look at the current situation with the very slow delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza, Egypt are on another level of being utter cnuts here.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is Egypt's fault Israel is killing civilians.
 
Last edited:
From the BBC:

One truck loaded with coffins among 20 vehicles to enter Gaza - BBC reporter
Our reporter on the ground in Gaza, Rushdi Abu Alouf, has been watching aid trucks enter from Egypt through the Rafah crossing.

He counted 20 trucks entering Gaza so far, he says. That's the number Israel has said it will allow in.

One of the trucks was loaded with coffins. Others were carrying medicines and fuel.

Palestinian officials say 4,137 people have died in Gaza since Hamas infiltrated and attacked Israel two weeks ago - Israel has been bombarding Gaza ever since.

It's worth noting this death toll includes 471 people that the Gaza health ministry says were killed on Tuesday at Al-Ahli Arab hospital. That number is contested - an Israel foreign ministry spokesperson has said it was "severa l dozen".
 
Cloud7 said:
They should not have voted for Hamas. Israel has a right to defend itself. What do you expect them to do in this situation.

I think I’ve covered all the talking points there
Click to expand...
How does someome in the west bank vote for Hamas when Hamas isnt in the west bank?
 
Suedesi said:



:lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...

Why are people surprised? there is no respectable journalism, it is only propaganda, that is why they are being exposed by the fast Social media and it is becoming more difficult to manipulate the media Agenda.
 
dinostar77 said:
How does someome in the west bank vote for Hamas when Hamas isnt in the west bank?
Click to expand...

I’m covering the usual talking points that have been used to justify the mass murder of civilians. Those should apply in this situation as well right? If not then how can this be explained away?
 
Hmm, I’ve re-read what you posted and I do feel like I understand you. We clearly just have different ideas on this. I would always look at both the provider of the evidence, and the evidence itself. They both need to be acceptable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.