Israeli Military Admits Fault in 2 Deadly Strikes in Central Gaza - The New York Times
Israeli Military Admits Fault in 2 Deadly Strikes in Central Gaza - The New York Times
Creating this archive link took about 3 minutes, and thats only because the article was not already archived on this particular site.
Do mods allow those to be the main post?
They dont, but the web interface allows you to more easily generate an archive link and paste it in the text of the post. I was lazy. Also, I worry about print so want the first click to be to the site to help generate traffic for the source. And in case there are corrections to articles, I don't know if the archive refreshes to capture that.
Is there an easy way to do that via sync app?
Idk what that is, but you'd just go to archive.is on your chosen web browser, plop the article's URL into the site, and grab the new URL from your web browser when it's finished loading.
Only 2?
Maybe forgot some zeros after the number?
"Oopsie doopsie" - IDF
So the IDF does admit fault when it accidentally hits non-military targets. This seems to weaken the case that they do so intentionally and lie about legal targets. If this is how they behave, why wouldn't they do so here?
Maybe it's because it was reported by Israel public broadcaster KAN. They also admitted fault when they shot those unarmed civilians holding makeshift white flags which ended up being hostages.
We do know half the bombs dropped are precision and half are 'dumb bombs.' I don't know of any comprehensive report on it but it seems to me that they admit fault when there's no possible plausible deniability.
I don't really see how that weakens the case that they target civilians when they have been repeatedly bombing schools, hospitals, refugee camps, residential areas, and self-proclaimed safe zones for months; justifying it by claiming Hamas combatants were in the area. And that's compounded onto cutting off the food, water, aid, and electricity for Gaza that they already controlled. Why else would you cut those off if not to target civilians?
Maybe it’s because it was reported by Israel public broadcaster KAN. They also admitted fault when they shot those unarmed civilians holding makeshift white flags which ended up being hostages.
They could have denied it or manufactured evidence that there was a legal target there, yet they didn't. This makes it clear the IDF acts in good faith at least some of the time.
We do know half the bombs dropped are precision and half are ‘dumb bombs,’ and these were precision from the article. I don’t know of any comprehensive report on it but it seems to me that they admit fault when there’s no possible plausible deniability.
Does it? I don't see where it says these were smart bombs, the article says additional buildings were hit because they picked the wrong ordinance, (unless it's been updated since it was archived?)
I don’t really see how that weakens the case that they target civilians when they have been repeatedly bombing schools, hospitals, refugee camps, residential areas, and self-proclaimed safe zones for months; justifying it by claiming Hamas combatants were in the area.
So you're aware they claim they target Hamas, not civilians, and Hamas hides among them. Why don't you find that to be credible? There's lots of evidence Hamas does this.
Why else would you cut [food and water] off if not to target civilians?
The same reason one does not send their supply lines to enemy forces. Gaza declared war on Israel. It would be odd for any nation at war to supply a hostile nation during wartime while it remains belligerent. I believe this is only legally required if the area is occupied, and Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, (a blockade is not occupation.) Soldiers also run on food and water, and Israel is not responsible for Gazans, their government, Hamas, is.
Here, let me fix that for you:
The Israeli Army, after ten weeks in which they have repeatedly and intentionally hit non-military, civilian, neutral observer, refugee and journalist targets; in which they have deliberately and indiscriminately murdered thousands of noncombatants during acts of ethnic cleansing and genocide, during which they've also deliberately murdered their own unarmed and half-naked citizens; bombing hospitals, refugee camps, and the supposed "safe evacuation corridors" they explicitly told the civilian population to use; and after repeatedly lying about and defending their attacks; an onslaught which has been met with almost universal condemnation from the community of nations; has finally admitted, after ten weeks of indiscriminate slaughter, that maybe, just maybe two of their attacks might've been misjudged - Oops.
intentionally hit non-military, civilian, neutral observer, refugee and journalist targets
Citation? They claim they attack military targets and have now admitted fault when they didn't. Without evidence that this is their intent, this baseless accusation doesn't hold water.
acts of ethnic cleansing and genocide
Self-defense against a hostile nation massacring your civilians is neither. Palestine, on the other hand, is quite explicit about their desire to do both, and their forces in fact did commit genocide and ethnic cleansing when given the chance, when Jordan annexed the West Bank and Jerusalem. Look it up.
during which they've also deliberately murdered their own unarmed and half-naked citizens;
Deliberate? Citation needed.
bombing hospitals, refugee camps, and the supposed "safe evacuation corridors" they explicitly told the civilian population to use;
They've been pretty damn clear they will attack Hamas anywhere they are found. If only you had as much animosity for the ones putting these civilians at risk by hiding among them and making these strikes into valid military ones as you do the IDF.
after repeatedly lying about and defending their attacks; an onslaught which has been met with almost universal condemnation from the community of nations
Especially the Arabic ones, who ethnically cleansed Jews from their lands when given the chance.
maybe, just maybe two of their attacks might've been misjudged - Oops.
Lol, there were no "maybes" in their statement, they took responsibility. So why not lie about these as well? It's clear you are biased against Israel, and hold them to a different standard than those they are defending against.
Part of the excuse was improper choice of bomb for a densely populated area that would cause disproportionate damage. So it's kind of an admission of fault, but kind of saying there was some justification that there was a valid target still. But with such disregard for civilian life, even if there is a valid target it is messed up. Proportionality rules and evaluations don't seem to matter to Israel.
A legitimate criticism, I appreciate your reasonable perspective. The risk of making civilian shields an effective tactic is that then one can expect more of them to be used in the future, but there really are no good choices here, only less bad ones. It is estimated that in most conflicts ~90% of the casualties are civilians, in this conflict, 61% are. By this metric Israel is fighting this war relatively humanely despite the dense urban environment, although I suspect that is of little comfort to Gazans.
Alternatively, randomly admitting fault on rare occasions confuses the situation and gives ammo to people who are desperately grasping at any "evidence" to forgive genocide.
When you have a group, like WorldNews, that is as radicalized by shock photos and even fake propaganda--reason and critical thought aren't welcome. If the only thing someone can see is a targeted picture of a hurt or dead kid, then they won't be able to hear.
It's the core of the Hamas propaganda program and why they seek maximum civilian casualties while living as millionaires in Qatar, the state who own and push the radicalizing stories they publish through Al Jazeera.
I appreciate your efforts, though, and I am sorry for the inevitable downvotes.
Yes indeed, much of what I see here is straight out of Hamas' social media playbook. It's unfortunate. It's good to know there's still reasonable people who don't fall for it, thanks.