breadandcheese

We should have been out of sight. Awful finishing. I never like Enzo's subs. I don't think they ever have a positive impact.

I don't disagree it is good to have a third party source to verify. But you know that's not in Israel's control. The crime scene is in the Gaza Strip under Hamas control and has already been partially cleaned up.

I think that's fair. So I think we can agree it's odd that Hamas haven't done this to counter Israel and show it was an Israeli missile as per their assertion. I guess my original question is predicated on the dismissal that accompanied Israeli first responders talking about babies being mutilated during the Hamas terrorist attack. They eventually put out photos of dead babies (horrific photos, I wouldn't recommend searching them). Despite this, many people popped up saying these were AI generated photos and were fakes. Which leads me to wonder whether there is any proof that will satisfy. Edit: that last point wasn't aimed at you

That was my question. What evidence would satisfy? What is it the evidence people want to see?

Can I ask those doubting it as a failed Palestinian rocket launch what they need to see to believe the Israeli explanation?

Do you have any evidence to suggest that the person BBC verify have used is from a Jewish Lobby or is this your prejudice? For the record, Biden has accepted that it was a failed rocket from a Palestinian terrorist group (and cited American intelligence rather than Israeli). And journalists such as Mehdi Hassan have accepted evidence from trusted sources that it was most likely to be a misfiring Palestinian rocket.

You know it depends how it is reported. There can be little doubt how it was received by anyone watching/ listening.

It was contested quite quickly but Israeli response at the time was we are investigating but we had no planes in the area at that time.

But we do. We know it is contested. That's a fact. Yet this was not how the BBC presented (or other medis outlets, not just BBC). One BBC journalist in a report said he didn't see what else it could possibly be other than an Israeli airstrike. The impression to the listener/viewer is obvious.

I'm not saying they chose a side. But they fell below their journalistic standards effectively reporting fake news. This fake news has helped contribute to a febrile atmosphere that in last few hours has led to riots at Israeli and American consulates in the Middle East, a travel warning for Israelis to immediately leave Turkey due to security warnings, rioting against Abbas in West Bank, cancelled visits between Biden and king of Jordan and Abbas.

I didn't say it didn't but this hospital blast with the horrific loss of life is a conflict defining moment that can set off a whole host of nasty repercussions. Journalists should be professionally held to account.

It's on journalists more than Hamas. Some of the immediate reporting was abysmal. I understand why the first conclusion would be Israel, but a journalist is there to present evidence and not jump straight to any conclusion without supposedly demonstrating bias. Hamas once again find this tactic works. Look at the protests stoked up in the Arab world and Turkey. A new blood libel has been created. And police here will have to step up more patrols and spend more money policing the threat to the British Jewish community from the fear of lone wolf attacks as we saw in Brussels the other night.

What level of proof would you need to satisfy? Would you believe any proof Israel presents as it's not from a third party?

Agree. It's unacceptable and I hope pressure is applied to reverse this.

There is a belief that they can't beat Israel in war. But I don't subscribe to this. Or at least not in the way we think of winning or losing. If Hamas are still in power come the end of the horrible war, they will celebrate it as a win. And unfortunately, there is nothing to suggest they can't win a conventional war against Israel's military in Gaza or at least cause huge damage, with defensive traps and drone warfare. The dominance of heavy armour and tanks looks to have taken a dint with advances in small drones and loitering munition over the battlefield. Hamas are unfortunately a well trained militia army with some serious firepower, just like Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hamas are estimated to have 50,000 fighters. Hezbollah 100,000. To put that in context, the UK army has 112,000. So I know it always seems silly to suggest Israel will never be beaten and it's security is guaranteed but this isn't the case.

In which case then that's on me, I misunderstood and thought you were referring to Saturday's terrorist attack. Apologies. In terms of the plight of the citizens Gaza, it can only be both, with a sidearm of Egyptian help.

I'm sorry but that denies agency to the people who did it. The tweet below sums it up for me. https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1711059623426363442?t=s2yQLlVe9sP0uNN-0na0Iw&s=19https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1711059623426363442?t=s2yQLlVe9sP0uNN-0na0Iw&s=19

I'm guessing that world and Arab powers are already discussing for if Hamas fall. Or at least I hope they are for the reconstruction and administration of Gaza. I appreciate the track record of that is extremely poor over the last twenty years. But I don't see how Hamas remaining in power is good for Israel or the Palestinians.

I wouldn't indulge in the wild conspiracy theories. It does no-one any good and just spreads rubbish. It was a cock-up. And it doesn't serve Netanyahu. It has ended his career. Finished. If you are wondering why there are no photo ops of Netanyahu or his government meeting victims of the atrocity or visiting the parts of Israel where the murderous barbarity occurred, it's because Netanyahu and his cabinet would be lynched. Think how many times you have seen terrorist attacks here or abroad and members of government would want to be seen there for the photo op. This is not possible for Netanyahu.

I guess the point I am making is re: intent. We place huge importance on it when judging crimes and it helps to form our judgement. So I don't believe the term murder fits. As pointed out, it does nothing to console an innocent Palestinian who has lost a loved one, but when we are debating, with the inflammatory nature of the conflict, I believe it is important. Primarily because it has consequences here in UK with police presence having to be stepped up in smaller communities due to raised threats. I'm not suggesting anyone from here is going to do anything daft but I am wary of terminology and inflammatory rhetoric, even if it seems minor, nit-picking and inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

I agree with what you're saying and appreciate it sounds cold and heartless. It is not meant like that even if it sounds it. It sounds silly to quibble over semantics but I think it rather important to use correct language as this an emotive and inflammatory subject that has led to this country having to step up security at communities around the country. So it might seem semantic pointing out the distinction that our legal system makes here in UK, but it is important because language matters.

I'm not going to defend no water or food for Gaza because I can't (although I'm sure Israel would say it can come across the Egyptian border, so there will be questions to that). It is horrendous that Palestinian civilians are being killed and I don't know what the answer is. But it is not murder. Manslaughter yes, but they are not the targets. And I appreciate it is a small legal point which doesn't comfort anyone suffering the desperate loss of a loved one but it is important in terms of language that is used in such an emotive conflict. Again, I think it's needs a military strategist to provide their knowledge of how you undertake a military operation to overthrow Hamas from a heavily guarded enclave in which they have embedded all their military infrastructure into civilian infrastructure. Because I suspect all options for undertaking such an operation are depressingly bad and probably look similar to what Israel is doing / going to do. I don't think Netanyahu survives politically from this. He won't be included.

Netanyahu's political career is finished. Make no mistake of that.

I'm not going to defend Netanyahu. The guy's a c*nt. And the points you make provide context to the war but it was red lines over any sense of what we could call humanity. It is evident that Hamas aren't fighting to get Israel to the negotiating table. As callous as it is to say, all the events of the last 70 years are irrelevant. Because I think everyone can agree that Hamas needs to be removed from power and cannot be left to rule over the Gaza Strip if we want to think about the future or any prospect of peace. Which as I say is depressing because I don't know how that happens without huge loss of life, due to Hamas's military infrastructure being embedded within the civilian infrastructure. At this point, it would be interesting if anyone with military knowledge at a strategic level could provide information as to how a modern military would undertake such an operation. Which I hate myself for typing as it presents an unfolding military operation in a very sterile way as if talking football tactics. All in all it's depressing.

I understand what you're saying and I think if Hamas had made an assault on an Israeli army base and stopped at that, you could say this as it would be a military operation in the context of a war that has been going on for decades. But this wasn't that. This was an operation to murder. It goes beyond anything any of us should consider acceptable. And even with the nuance of the pressure cooker of Gaza, it doesn't take away from their agency in the situation with regards their decisions. The realised point I made is more the world realizing that Hamas cannot be part of any conversation on the future and in Israel's case, the status quo of the last decade (Hamas running the Gaza Strip in a quiet stalemate)