mozz

"Two broken Tigers on fire in the night / Flicker their souls to the wind"

Warning ending is dark

Because sometimes there is more relevant information to be learned about the world and situations in it, aside from "who good guy" and "who bad guy"

it's already been rebutted

What do you mean by "it," here? The IDF translation?

Israel is not at war with Hamas. Not really. They're at war with all of Gaza. They don't care whether you're a member of Hamas or not. They don't care if you're a baby or you're 99 years old.

100% agreed. I usually put "war" in quotes because it's much more accurate to describe it as a large-scale terrorist attack by the IDF (killing and threatening a helpless civilian population to influence their behavior) than anything remotely resembling a normal state-level conflict between armed combatants.

I would say that the reception it's getting indicates that a lot of people at least here have a lot of trouble classifying Hamas as bad people. If I were simply posting a two-week-old story about the IDF desert detention camp, or a US policeman from last November who shot somebody when they shouldn't have, I don't think it would be receiving this level of anguished scrutiny about timeliness and relevance and headline.

I get it. I think because Israel are objectively the bad guys, there's a tendency to interpret any story like this as supportive of them, and so start trashing it out of defense for the Palestinians. I won't say that's a crazy thing to do, but I don't think it should be all that difficult to accept Hamas as bad people. I meant the Israeli government has been giving them funding and support against their domestic opposition, specifically because they can be relied upon to be violent and corrupt in a way that tears down legitimacy for the Palestinian cause. Someone on Lemmy who's standing up in defense of Hamas in any particular war-criminal action they're doing is not making the bold stand for Palestinian people that I think they may believe that they are making.

Hey, quick question -- you seemed to say that the UN report covered only the festival itself, as part of an argument where it would be impossible for rape to even have occurred because apparently attacking the festival was an active firefight and not a terrorist attack on a helpless and terrified civilian population. What are the five subsections of III(c)1 that come after the first one (festival and surroundings), please? I am testing your reading comprehension and ability to follow links to evidence.

Honestly, I posted it because (a) it was news to me; it was a detailed explanation of a news event which enhanced my understanding (b) I felt it was needed perspective to add the "IDF translation was wrong and so nothing to see here" narrative which as we are learning is pretty popular (c) I checked and it was within the 30 day window according to the sub rules

I suspect that the hostility is because people are interpreting it as anti-Palestinian and pro-Zionist. Which is a fair conclusion, I get it, but not why I posted it. Israel's crimes are objectively 10 times worse than anything Hamas has been doing, but I don't see a need to proceed from there to "and therefore anything Hamas does is okay and any attempt to criticize them is probably a lie and I need to support them."

Not that I'm saying you're doing that, but like I say, I suspect some of the hostility to this story lies somewhere on a continuum which does include that at one end.

The syntax they're constructing is working the opposite of how you said

You don't have to agree with them (and as they point out, one random solider saying one random thing doesn't mean anything "official" about Hamas as a whole), but they are saying that it is relevant that some individual in Hamas is talking about its female captives in explicitly sexual-slavery terms.

Put it this way, if a US prison guard or an IDF person were talking about female prisoners in an analogous way, it would abso fuckin lutely be some news.

Actually, I got curious and read a bit of your link, and I have some comments:

II(7) claims that the team was purely guided and fed information by the Israeli government, and didn't offer "any dissent, even a peep, from the official 'narrative'". This is verifiably false; Patten debunked some of the Israeli government's more outlandish claims by analyzing evidence, and also among other things visited the West Bank and called for a corresponding investigation into IDF and settler sexual violence (section IV(81) in the UN report.)

III(10) wildly mischaracterizes the scale of the abuse that the UN report alleges; adding up various selected numbers from the report to arrive at a lower bound of 5 on the number of instances of sexual abuse, which is so wildly out of line with what the report actually says that it only be explained by someone who read the UN report, but cherry-picked some things out of it and presented them with the assumption that people would read the dishonest summary and not compare it to the original report.

I stopped reading at that point. As with a lot of these things, it's not possible for me to verify anything directly about what actually happened on the ground in Israel or Gaza. I can only read reports. But, I can definitely say that when one report is being grossly dishonest in its summary of what is contained in a different report, which I can also obtain and read for myself, then that first report is clearly lying.

Hey, quick question -- you seemed to say that the report covered only the festival itself, as part of an argument where it would be impossible for rape to even have occurred because apparently attacking the festival was an active firefight and not a terrorist attack on a helpless and terrified civilian population. What are the five subsections of III(c)1 that come after the first one (festival and surroundings), please? I am testing your reading comprehension and ability to follow links to evidence, since you seem to be having a great deal of difficulty in doing so.

Yeah, sure, my lack of posting documents with detailed explanations of what the evidence was, and pointing to where within those documents you can find that information -- that's the problem here. How could I not have seen it 🙂. I can only hope to do better in the future.

(Pages 8-11 cover the standards of proof and methodology employed in general, and of course each subsection discusses briefly what specific evidence was employed in reaching the conclusions of that section.)

Here's the link to the report. I sent it to you already, but maybe it was eaten by a bear in transit.

Hey, quick question -- you seemed to say that the report covered only the festival itself, as part of an argument where it would be impossible for rape to even have occurred because apparently attacking the festival was an active firefight and not a terrorist attack on a helpless and terrified civilian population. What are the five subsections of III(c)1 that come after the first one (festival and surroundings), please? I am testing your reading comprehension and ability to follow links to evidence, since you seem to be having a great deal of difficulty in doing so.

One of those rebuttals to "the" translation is contained within the article.

I.e. part of what they explain, alongside a lot of other context, is why the IDF's (which is I assume what you mean by "the") translation was wrong.