Netanyahu says Hamas refused Israeli fuel offer for Gaza's Shifa hospital (www.reuters.com)

submitted 10 months ago by DarkGamer@kbin.social to c/world@lemmy.world

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that Israel had offered fuel to Gaza's Al Shifa hospital, which suspended operations after running out of fuel, but that the militants had refused to receive it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] betheydocrime@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago

Hamas also told people not to leave the evacuation zone,

then Israel admitted that they bombed a refugee camp in Jabalia, and then they apparently did it again in al-Maghazi, kinda validating what Hamas said

have been using civilians and humanitarian structures as human shields,

I recently typed out this comment in another thread about how we can't trust Israel's word about human shields because of their actions during the Great March of Return in 2017/2018 and how it's a double standard anyways.

and have been shooting at refugees trying to leave

this is the first I've heard this accusation, and a quick google search for "hamas shoots fleeing refugees" and "hamas shoots gazans" didn't turn up any results for me. Do you mind providing a source? FWIW, there is growing evidence that at least some of the October 7th death toll can be attributed to Israeli friendly fire due to a mix of desperation and combat confusion

[+] DarkGamer@kbin.social -9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

then Israel admitted that they bombed a refugee camp in Jabalia, and then they apparently did it again in al-Maghazi, kinda validating what Hamas said

Jabalia is in the evacuation zone.
The only info I can find about al-Maghazi are from Hamas sources, which are not reliable. IDF has not yet taken credit for this attack.
Israel has stated they will attack Hamas targets anywhere in Gaza, however bombings are significantly more intense in the evacuation zone and they have stated that IDF will consider anyone remaining there to be, "terrorist sympathizers," i.e., potential enemy combatants. It still makes sense to leave.

How exactly does this validate what Hamas said?

I recently typed out this comment in another thread about how we can’t trust Israel’s word about human shields because of their actions during the Great March of Return in 2017/2018 and how it’s a double standard anyways.

You trust Hamas's reports but not Israel's? That seems foolish. Check out this NATO report on Hamas' use of human shields. Plenty of news agencies are cited as having reported on evidence of this, including non-Israeli ones, (ANB TV, Al-Hayat newspaper, Der Spiegel newspaper, Palestine Info Center, Alwatan TV...)

Do you mind providing a source?

Article: Viral video appears to show Hamas firing on civilians fleeing Gaza hospital

[-] betheydocrime@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Thank you for that study from 2015. I don't doubt that Israel took it into consideration when they made the claims they did about the Great March of Return in 2017 and 2018. I want to draw your attention to two of the key points mentioned:

National governments should be able to publicly justify their position, and reveal their adversary’s use of civilians in combat. This can only be accomplished by thoroughly documenting incidents, preparing supportive messages, and working across multiple channels to convey those narratives.

Would you say that any of the recent claims Israel has made were "thoroughly documented"? Or was the world supposed to take Israel at its word?

Priority should be given to information activities aimed at the very civilians who are used as human shields, in order to undermine the adversary and convince civilians to actively or passively refuse to serve as human shields. Such activities need to be coherent, consistent and coordinated.

What coherent, consistent, and coordinated activities has Israel taken to undermine Hamas in the eyes of civilians? Has Israel taken any coherent, consistent, and coordinated activities to increase Hamas's authority?

Also, thank you for providing a source about those shots. I checked the source you posted, and the article says this:

Media intelligence agency Storyful confirmed that the video was recorded at the al-Nasr Pediatric Hospital based on Google Maps images, but was unable to say whether the terror group or Israeli forces was responsible.

Independent journalist Alexander Higgins reported on X that jihadists began shooting after Israeli forces agreed to allow civilians to evacuate the hospital.

The Israel Defense Forces have surrounded the facility — which it says doubles as a terrorist citadel — as it attempts to root out Hamas in response to its Oct. 7 attack on southern Israel that killed more than 1,400 people, including 33 Americans.

Clicking through to the twitter link shows a video where it's unclear who is firing shots, where they come from, or where they land. The only source saying that it was Hamas is Some Dude On Twitter whose bio reads "Freed by Elon". The video also shows zero civilian casualties on screen, and the general lack of terror in the crowd makes me assume that there were also no off-screen civilian casualties.

There is no evidence saying that Hamas fired these shots--and even if it was Hamas that did the shooting, they didn't hit any civilian targets. IDF snipers can not or will not show that same level of restraint.

this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2023

23 points (62.9% liked)

World News

38553 readers

2760 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.