this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2024
324 points (95.3% liked)

World News

39209 readers
3343 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

A trail does review evidence whereas here we just had a summary execution.

Your link to them UN press release says this:

"OIOS was not able to independently authenticate information used by Israel to support the allegations."

[–] FourPacketsOfPeanuts 1 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

I agree, but in a war you do not have the luxury of apprehending every soldier for trial. Compare: the tactics of pretty much every single country.

OIOS was not able to independently authenticate...

OIOS are being churlish since it's obviously excruciatingly embarrassing for a UN agency to have been used as cover by Hamas. Note they don't say "we saw evidence and disagree with it". They're saying "yeah, Israel showed us actual evidence that these guys are part of the attacks, we just couldn't get a second version of that evidence from anywhere else. But we'll still act on it".

But that's to be expected if what they've been shown are mobile cell tower records or images from military security cameras or even private messages these guys sent themselves.

Note UNWRA are refusing to take any action against the ten or so other accused where they felt there was no good evidence. But these nine they're saying "ok, fair enough, we'll fire them".

Doesn't that show you there's at least varying qualities of evidence in the background? And if it were easy to dismiss it as manufactured by Israel they would have done so. But for these nine they agree to take action, but just grumble about the fact that this evidence, although apparently good quality enough, was handed over via Israeli channels.