It’s not a description of the blood libelous fictitious accounts of the GHF incident presented by Hamas propaganda channels, true.
Where are you getting this “another location” fantasy stuff?
Your cite.
Are you saying the soldier who gave the account to Haaretz was embedded among the “civilians” who supposedly got shot at?
If not, it’s pretty obvious he was in one location, the Gazans were at another location, and the group of soldiers that shot towards them after his unit stopped shooting was at yet another location.
Obvious for those inclined to accept IDF propaganda without question, perhaps.
…his account in Haaretz is IDF propaganda? Wow, that’s like 5d chess or something.
He never said a thing about “another location”.
From your own cite:
Was he embedded among the Gazans? Or among these “other forces”? If he wasn’t embedded, it seems clear that he was in a different location. That’s his account, not “IDF Propaganda”.
More made up crap. So many assumptions and fabrications you have to make just to avoid the ramifications of his plain words.
Cool, which assumption do you disagree with? And you forgot to bring up Netanyahu and Smotrich.
I maybe regret jumping into this regularly scheduled argument, but as an on-again off-again follower of this thread- I agree that lack of precision in describing events makes it hard to engage with. And @iiandyiiii ‘s unwillingness to accept (as one example) that “other forces” as stated by a sympathetic witness could be reasonably inferred to be at another location than the location of the speaker and their forces is representative of a frequent and pervasive unwillingness to accept any suggestion of error or mistake. It is frustrating and easily derails things. You both are bullheaded in this regard.
That said, @Babale , you’re so focused on picking apart the details of every first-hand report of inappropriate action of the IDF that whether or not it is your objective, your primary role in this thread is not to present discuss or synthesize new information, but rather to take any report of wrongdoing and put forth any and every argument about how it cannot be trusted. It’s very “if the flag doesn’t have gold tassels then the court is not a real court” vibes. @iiandyiiii said “in the back” but his site doesn’t say “in the back” therefore he’s making things up. The soldier being quoted (or literally any soldier?) can’t possibly know if the Palestinians did or did not pose a threat to someone somewhere- only someone with up-to-the-moment birds eye view of the area can evaluate that so his report should be dismissed with prejudice. There is no report of IDF wrongdoing that is not propaganda. You are so sure that all of it is fake news that your position is untrustworthy. You pick at nits while Rome (Gaza) burns.
I write this here not to make accusations or fight about it, but to describe how you come across in this argument thread (discussion is down the hall somewhere).
Thank you for this reasoned criticism, I will take it on board and consider it before posting further.
The problem is that shooting people in the back is what you do when you’re mass executing people. It’s an intentional phrasing (not on Andy’s part, on the part of the propagandists he is echoing) that is meant to echo things like the Einsatzgruppen shooting lined up Jewish people so they fall into mass graves.
That’s very clearly nothing like the alleged incident Andy cites.
If you want to have a critical discussion about whether or not the IDF employed appropriate crowd control measures in securing the areas the GHF operated from, and about whether or not they took all the steps they could have taken to minimize casualties in those scenarios, that’s a valid conversation we can have.
If you start off the discussion painting Israelis as butchers shooting people in the back en masse, then I’m going to correct that misperception before I’m willing to move on and have a critical discussion.
For the record, I never intended “in the back” to indicate anything other than the literal meaning, and the presumption that if someone is shot while fleeing, the wound will be in the back
Does your link even talk about anyone being shot?
If someone is hit by artillery while fleeing, as your cite alleges, why would they be hit in the back? Bullets travel in a straight line so that makes sense but artillery shells fly in an arc, fall from above (potentially falling around you, not on top of you) and then explode. So the “hit” would come from the top or from any random direction, not “from the back”.
What does your “shot in the back” allegation have to do with this event at all?
It seems entirely clear that the purpose of that phrase is to evoke mass killings where people shot other people in the back with a gun. And now we are twisting the obvious meeting to keep it vaguely comparable to the events in question.
The link says “opened fire”, but I’ll refrain from further nitpicking based on @Eonwe’s criticism.
The Palestinian leadership are the architects of their own oppression. If they stopped fantasizing that they could someday march the entire Jewish population into the Mediterranean and conquer the land for themselves, like the rest of their neighbors did decades ago, then there would be no need for Israel to treat them as hostile.
That is reasonable, and while I wasn’t tuned into that connotation in this instance, I notice it all the time, which is why I tend to not chime in in blanket agreement with folks on this subject when talking about specific incidents, or participate in large-group action. Language used to motivate or to rally is by its nature obfuscating. Things are complicated.
That said, your own phrasing here in response to reports of civilians being killed:
… is also an intentional phrasing that removes Palestinian perspective from the discussion. I don’t want to talk about whether the IDF “took all the steps they could have taken to minimize casualties”, I want to talk about reports of Palestinians who have lost their homes, families, and communities dying at the hand of Israeli solders, why we’re getting those reports, and what the plan is to stop it. I don’t want to talk about “appropriate crowd control measures” until we can together (you and I, or whomever) mourn the awful loss of life and feel a sense of responsibility for the deaths from the weapons we ourselves are wielding (by proxy… and as US citizens that line of reasoning is a bit tenuous, but I think you get what I mean).
Sometimes we get so wrapped up in precision that we loose accuracy. Shot in the front vs. shot in the back vs. artillery shrapnel is still dead. Turned away for being early at the food distribution site vs. tried to steal a bag of rice is still just a hungry person trying to get food in the only way they can to stay alive.
Again, I completely agree with you: “shot in the back” and plenty of other framings of events are designed to evoke specific pictures, some reasonable and some quite insidious. But fighting a crusade against biased framing is a loosing battle, and requiring unbiased (to one’s personal specification) language in order to engage in discussion simply ensures that you will never have a real discussion about real issues with anyone. Part of communication is not letting differences in bias get in the way of understanding. Is @iiandyiiii ‘s use of “shot in the back” so egregious that discussion about dead Palestinians at food distribution sites cannot progress? Maybe to you, but it seems to me that you’re placing “correcting” his bias as more important than the issue at hand. The discussion is no longer about Israel, or Palestine, or collateral damage, but instead it’s about the two of you.
Changing the subject slightly – reading about Hind Rajab (a 5 year old killed by the IDF in Gaza)… AFAICT, after almost a year, the IDF has still not come up with a coherent explanation of how and why she was killed, and whether any soldiers have been disciplined. ISTM that a moral, honorable, and professional military would have figured this out by now and published the facts. The IDF (unless I’m missing something) hasn’t released anything after some initial denials that were demonstrated to be false.
IMO this is another clear indication, on top of countless others, that the IDF is a broken institution, and broken institutions are incapable of solving complicated problems, much less fighting an urban war with any sort of humanity or decency.
IMO Israel is fighting a war with a broken government and a broken military. All they’re capable of with any sort of competence is mass death and devastation.
Moderating:
Please don’t mis-state what other posters say.
And may i suggest that both of you know where the pit is, and a lot of this discussion would be better hosted there.
Collateral damage happens in war. A war without civilian casualties has never happened and never will. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for objective information on Gaza right now.