Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
There are reports Israel is considering withdrawing from the Philadelphi corridor as part of a hostage release agreement with Hamas.
Hamas-Israeli War 2023
- Thread starter koxinga
- Start date
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Mohammed Deif reportedly targeted in a strike in Al Mawasi, southern Gaza.
m.jpost.com
These things have a tendency to not be particularly successful.
IDF strikes Hamas military leader Mohammad Deif, fate unclear
Commander of Hamas's Khan Yunis Brigade, Rafa Salama, was likely killed in the same strike, and no hostages were killed.
m.jpost.com
These things have a tendency to not be particularly successful.
Larry_L
Active Member
The IDF reports recovering 6 bodies of hostages. It makes me wonder how many more are dead.
x.com
www.timesofisrael.com
www.jpost.com
And a rumor that several high level Hamas "aides" were eliminated.
www.middleeastmonitor.com
x.com
x.com
Aug. 20: Blinken says Gaza deal needs to happen, mediators trying to get Hamas on board
US proposal received by Sinwar, mediators seek flexibility from PM * 115 rockets fired at north from Lebanon * Officials fear chance to release elderly men was missed in Nov. truce
www.timesofisrael.com
Israel recovers bodies of six hostages from Gaza Strip
The bodies of hostages Nadav Popplewell, Yagev Buchshtab, Yoram Metzger, Haim Peri, Alexander Dancyg and Avraham Munder were recovered from Gaza.
www.jpost.com
And a rumor that several high level Hamas "aides" were eliminated.
Ismail Haniyeh's aides killed in Israel bombing near his home
Several companions and assistants of the late head of Hamas’s political bureau, Ismail Haniyeh, were killed in an Israeli strike near his home in Gaza’s Al-Shati camp yesterday, Al-Aqsa TV...
www.middleeastmonitor.com
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Not surprising, the pager/walkie event has seriously compromised Hezbollah's communication and control. Primer opportunity for the IDF to lay a well deserved world of hurt on Hezbollah. Will be an eventual benefit for Lebanon.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
How crazy is this? The ROI appear to be pretty loose, regardless whether they knew about the building or not.
An Israeli military official has told the BBC that it carried out a deadly strike on a five-storey residential building in Beit Lahia in northern Gaza on Tuesday in response to seeing a “spotter” on the roof with binoculars observing Israeli forces.[…]
The military official said it was not a planned strike and troops did not know the building was being used as a shelter for displaced people.
www.bbc.com
An Israeli military official has told the BBC that it carried out a deadly strike on a five-storey residential building in Beit Lahia in northern Gaza on Tuesday in response to seeing a “spotter” on the roof with binoculars observing Israeli forces.[…]
The military official said it was not a planned strike and troops did not know the building was being used as a shelter for displaced people.
Deadly Israeli strike targeted 'spotter' on Beit Lahia building's roof, official says
Tuesday's Israeli strike left 93 Palestinians dead or missing, local health officials said. The US described it as "horrifying".
www.bbc.com
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Doesn't sound crazy at all to me. But there are several things to be aware of before taking this article at face value.How crazy is this? The ROI appear to be pretty loose, regardless whether they knew about the building or not.
An Israeli military official has told the BBC that it carried out a deadly strike on a five-storey residential building in Beit Lahia in northern Gaza on Tuesday in response to seeing a “spotter” on the roof with binoculars observing Israeli forces.[…]
The military official said it was not a planned strike and troops did not know the building was being used as a shelter for displaced people.
Deadly Israeli strike targeted 'spotter' on Beit Lahia building's roof, official says
Tuesday's Israeli strike left 93 Palestinians dead or missing, local health officials said. The US described it as "horrifying".
- The source is BBC, a news corporation that is known for poor journalistic standards, primarily in fact checking.
- They cite Hamas for casualty figures.
- Entire story seems to be just a compilation of various orgs' statements instead of event analysis.
- Apparent that no defense SME was involved in the writing of this article.
- A building was identified as used for military purposes.
- The strike was coordinated as CAS and not a GHQ mission.
- It occurred in Beit Lahiya.
- The intel available to troops on the ground.
- The process in the strike cell and intel available to them.
- How many casualties.
- Combatant:Civilian ratio of casualties.
When a mission is coordinated as CAS, it affects the timetables and procedures, and intel is gathered by the troops on the ground. Troops only know that their AO is under evacuation order but they don't have the ability to verify if any certain building is evacuated or not and to what extent. Strike cell probably also don't have such accurate and up-to-date intel on a per-building basis. It takes a LOT of assets to do which the IDF lacks.
Therefore, in the context of RoE, it seems like a perfectly reasonable call.
Remember that very early in the war, a PIJ rocket landed in a hospital's parking lot and killed a few people. Hamas inflated it to 500. I don't remember the real number. Was it 35? Round it up to 50 and that's a factor of 10. Since that incident I understood Hamas's MO and every time they published civilian casualty figures I just divided it by 10.
Last edited:
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Israel MFA formally announces cessation of its agreement with UNRWA following legislation to sever all ties between Israeli government institutions with UNRWA.
This is an important step in creating leverage against Hamas to accept some hostage release agreement.
www.jpost.com
This is an important step in creating leverage against Hamas to accept some hostage release agreement.
Israel voids UNRWA contract, orders agency shut in three months
The move was carried out following the law passed by the Knesset last week, which stipulated that Israel would sever all ties with UNRWA.
www.jpost.com
The article says "Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry said more than 90 Palestinians, including 25 children, were killed or missing". How is that poor fact checking? It names the source, so you can use that to judge the reliaility (or lack of) of the numbers. What's wrong with that? Unless you can suggest some other & more reliable source of casualty figures, what's your point?
Note that the BBC always does that, & I'm pretty sure it's because they're well aware that Hamas is not a reliable source. But most of the time it's the only source they have.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
Most people only read the main headline, and if they're interested then the secondary headline.
The secondary headline says:
Said secondary headline makes no mention of who these local health officials are. One has to open the article to read that. They also make no mention to the average reader that Hamas is a terrorist organization and that its statements are unreliable.
Here's an excerpt from another BBC article from January.
As you can see, BBC wrote about both statements. One from the IDF spox, another from Hamas. But it said it cannot independently verify the IDF's statement, while making no such claim about Hamas's.
Technically nothing false. But the average reader will get the impression that Hamas is reliable, and the IDF spox isn't. This is manipulation that indicates both malice and poor journalistic standards.
Also in the article about alleged 93 dead, out of 21 paragraphs, BBC wrote 17 paragraphs directly or indirectly supporting the idea that there were mass civilian casualties, and only 2 paragraphs vaguely refuting it. This is another form of manipulation.
In the paragraph they also report that:
This is tucked well in the middle of the article and is crucial to understanding the report. They admit that they rely on information they cannot verify and which is likely manipulated by Hamas. They also claim they have no access to Gaza but that's not true. International media does have access to Gaza, but it has to be done in coordination with the IDF which has to make security arrangements for journalists, including dedicating personnel.
There are other much more reliable sources, some of whom I listed in this thread over the last year.
Last edited:
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
BigZ, I quoted a very specific part from the article, an alleged statement by an “Israeli military official”, which I have little reason to take for more or less than what it was reported to be. I haven’t said anything about the casualties, their numbers, or extent. My post can be viewed above. You have valid points in your reply to me, but things you said we know for certain are not that certain. For instance, if there is “a spotter” on the roof, is the entire building being used for military purposes and, hence, justified to be levelled to the ground (if there are any people inside or not doesn’t really matter)? If there is a dude with binoculars on a roof of a building, does it mean he is “a spotter”? Assuming there was intel of the building used for military purposes, there must have been intel that it is also used as a shelter and so on. From the reports I have seen so far, I stand by what I said above (but not deadly set on pending additional information).
In regard to your post above: a) when a report says that the number or whatever it is they are reporting on is “according to <insert name>” generally means that the statement hasn’t been verified by the reporting organization; b) “army spokesman” and the like carry authority (Hamas does not), which is why media organizations mention that they cannot independently verify what had been said; c) I don’t know of any reputable news organization that have not used the “Gaza health authority” reported numbers, but I also do not know of one that claimed them to be factual. Would it be better if they said “neither statement could be independently verified”? Perhaps (and this is what I mostly see). Does it make them biased or have some agenda reporting it as they did? Not really. And I don’t even care for BBC personally.
To add, and not to be overly shy, I do not consider myself to be an “average reader” to be easily “impressed” by some reported numbers, which also have nothing to do with my post above. Neither have I seen an assumed “average reader” behaviour from many posters on this forum.
In regard to your post above: a) when a report says that the number or whatever it is they are reporting on is “according to <insert name>” generally means that the statement hasn’t been verified by the reporting organization; b) “army spokesman” and the like carry authority (Hamas does not), which is why media organizations mention that they cannot independently verify what had been said; c) I don’t know of any reputable news organization that have not used the “Gaza health authority” reported numbers, but I also do not know of one that claimed them to be factual. Would it be better if they said “neither statement could be independently verified”? Perhaps (and this is what I mostly see). Does it make them biased or have some agenda reporting it as they did? Not really. And I don’t even care for BBC personally.
To add, and not to be overly shy, I do not consider myself to be an “average reader” to be easily “impressed” by some reported numbers, which also have nothing to do with my post above. Neither have I seen an assumed “average reader” behaviour from many posters on this forum.
Big_Zucchini
Well-Known Member
There are a thousand ways to write the same thing, to generate a thousand different conclusions. This influences how people perceive an issue, then it influences how they vote, and that in turn influences policy.
My cat jumped on my bed. That moment, 2 people died.
Did my cat kill these 2 people? Not at all. In fact it hasn't killed people in many years. But one would assume that it did, reading those 2 sentences alone.
What I said we know for certain wasn't that the building was used by Hamas, but that it was IDENTIFIED as such. Two different things. Considering the amount of unknowns in this event as presented by the BBC, it seems entirely unjustified to dedicate over 80% of the text to describing the humanitarian situation in Gaza, again through the lens of Hamas which created that situation, instead of trying to apply proper analysis, explaining RoE, difficult circumstances, etc. That is why I say BBC has poor journalistic standards. The BBC also has a long time bias against Israel. I don't know why, but for me this disqualifies them as a source of information. I cannot trust someone whose information comes from bias instead of research.