"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

  • @OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    652 years ago

    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

    • @thefartographer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      63
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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.

      • @evader_fateful@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        92 years ago

        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?

        • snooggums
          link
          fedilink
          17
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          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.

        • Zorque
          link
          fedilink
          62 years ago

          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.

    • bobalot
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Not disputing what you are saying but do you have a link to such an analysis?

      • @OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 years ago

        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

        • bobalot
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 years ago

          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?

  • @Seudo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    332 years ago

    Okay. So who is keeping tally? Does the side with the least war crimes win or something?..

    • @febra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

      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.

      • ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        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.

        • @febra@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          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.

          • ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 years ago

            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?

            • @febra@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 years ago

              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”?

  • @Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    32 years ago

    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.

    • JWayn596
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      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.

      The Associated Press has the complete analysis to your question, including the videos I mentioned, posted yesterday.

      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.

      • @Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        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.

      • @Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        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?

          • @Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 years ago

            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.

            • @egonallanon@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              22 years ago

              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.

              • @Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 years ago

                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.

                • @egonallanon@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  12 years ago

                  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.