They were not delivering food, but it was a WCK car. There were people unrelated to WCK with them at the time. Ultimately this comes down to whether or not one believes Israel. What Israel and WCK say is not contradictory, WCK just says they didn’t know if the person participated in the Oct 7 terror attacks or not. Israel says they did. If you maraude around another country stabbing women and children any car you get in in the future is liable to get a rocket through the roof. It’s not on Israel to risk its soldiers apprehending someone like that. Cowardly of that particular person to seek to hide amongst civilians. That’s if Israel is to be believed.
Isn’t that the point of a trial? To review evidence rather than have come to a judgment already?
Israel showed the UN the evidence it had that UNWRA members had taken part in the Oct 7 terror attacks and as a result the UN agreed and fired those membersUN press release
All I’m saying is since we know some hid amongst UNWRA members then I would not be surprised if some hid amongst WCK as well…
Can you admit all these things may be true at the same time: Israel committing war crimes AND exaggerating claims AND Hamas are hiding amongst WCF and other civilian groups?
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.
They were not delivering food, but it was a WCK car. There were people unrelated to WCK with them at the time. Ultimately this comes down to whether or not one believes Israel. What Israel and WCK say is not contradictory, WCK just says they didn’t know if the person participated in the Oct 7 terror attacks or not. Israel says they did. If you maraude around another country stabbing women and children any car you get in in the future is liable to get a rocket through the roof. It’s not on Israel to risk its soldiers apprehending someone like that. Cowardly of that particular person to seek to hide amongst civilians. That’s if Israel is to be believed.
Ah yes, beleive a state that is on trial in both the courts in The Hague (war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide).
Isn’t that the point of a trial? To review evidence rather than have come to a judgment already?
Israel showed the UN the evidence it had that UNWRA members had taken part in the Oct 7 terror attacks and as a result the UN agreed and fired those membersUN press release
All I’m saying is since we know some hid amongst UNWRA members then I would not be surprised if some hid amongst WCK as well…
Can you admit all these things may be true at the same time: Israel committing war crimes AND exaggerating claims AND Hamas are hiding amongst WCF and other civilian groups?
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.”
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 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.
Your premise that anyone suspected of being associated with Hamas should be killed is against the Geneva conventions. You are supporting war crimes.
What is your plan for dealing with Hamas soldiers who have themselves committed war crimes and intend to again?
I would suspect that very few Hamas fighters will have committed war crimes. Most of them only fight the IDF in Gaza.