Top EU diplomat says ‘bloodbath must end’ after Israeli attacks killed at least 274, according to Gaza ministry

At least 274 Palestinians were killed and 698 wounded in Israeli strikes on the Nuseirat refugee camp in central Gaza, Gaza’s health ministry said on Sunday. The Israeli military said its forces came under heavy fire during the daytime operation.

The EU’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, called it a “massacre”, while the UN’s aid chief described in graphic detail scenes of “shredded bodies on the ground”.

“Nuseirat refugee camp is the epicentre of the seismic trauma that civilians in Gaza continue to suffer,” Martin Griffiths said in a post on X, calling for a ceasefire and the release of all hostages.

  • fukhueson@lemmy.world
    78·
    6 months ago

    So you’re saying it might be a good idea to make known certain safe zones for hostages and not turn those into battle grounds? Who is that incumbent on?

    Also, aa is Turkish state media and not trustworthy.

    https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/anadolu-agency/

    A Bellingcat article states that “AA as a whole can only be considered as blatant and deliberate twisting and distorting of the facts.”

    In review, Anadolu Agency utilizes moderately loaded emotional language in their headlines, such as “Merkel slams Trump for ‘harming’ global order” and “Erdogan slams world for ‘failure’ in Jerusalem test.” Anadolu Agency also poorly sources as they typically source by heavily quoting without linking to the actual story.

    Overall, we rate Anadolu Agency Right Biased editorially and Mixed factually due to poor sourcing. Further, this is an agency controlled by the right-wing ruling party and has a very strong pro-government state bias. (M. Huitsing 5/25/2018) Updated (11/10/2023)

      • fukhueson@lemmy.world
        23·
        6 months ago

        Right, I didn’t deny that happened. I think there’s more to deciding linking to Turkish state media than CNN, like you’re trying to legitimize a propaganda outlet (hence I said also). So you’re not against holding hostages in combat free zones? Good! Who is that incumbent upon? Because I know who has direct control of those hostages.

          • fukhueson@lemmy.world
            13·
            6 months ago

            Can you cite where in that article your claim is substantiated?

            Edit: Again, not saying it hasn’t happened, but that article doesn’t say that. And I think it does matter unless you can prove that Israel is purposefully targeting non combat zones with no inclination that Hamas is hiding there. Israel itself has attacked areas deemed non combat zones, mistakes I don’t excuse, but this is by Hamas’ design.

            https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf

            EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

            Hamas, an Islamist militant group and the de facto governing authority of the Gaza Strip, has been using human shields in conflicts with Israel since 2007. According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the war crime of using human shields encompasses “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations.” Hamas has launched rockets, positioned military-related infrastructure-hubs and routes, and engaged the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from, or in proximity to, residential and commercial areas.

            The strategic logic of human shields has two components. It is based on an awareness of Israel’s desire to minimise collateral damage, and of Western public opinion’s sensitivity towards civilian casualties. If the IDF uses lethal force and causes an increase in civilian casualties, Hamas can utilise that as a lawfare tool: it can accuse Israel of committing war crimes, which could result in the imposition of a wide array of sanctions. Alternatively, if the IDF limits its use of military force in Gaza to avoid collateral damage, Hamas will be less susceptible to Israeli attacks, and thereby able to protect its assets while continuing to fight. Moreover, despite the Israeli public’s high level of support for the Israeli political and military leadership during operations, civilian casualties are one of the friction points between Israeli left-wing and right-wing supporters, with the former questioning the outcomes of the operation.

            • zazo@lemmy.world
              22·
              6 months ago

              So then would you hold Israel to the same standard of using human shields that you do Hamas?

              If so would you claim the Hamas attacks on the 7th were justified because they attacked settler towns like Be’eri, whose ideological purpose of existing this close to Gaza was specifically to create a civilian border (literal large scale human shield)?

              Using civilians to protect any military objective (including the land you’ve settled by force) is appalling - but let’s not pretend only one side is doing it.

              If you really care about peace - petition your leaders for a one state solution where both Israelis and Palestinians (no matter their religion) are allowed to coexist and are equal in the eyes of the law and the people.

              • fukhueson@lemmy.world
                13·
                6 months ago

                Yes, and this is all clear whataboutism. And lazy at that. So that means we both think Hamas should stop using civilians as human shields right? Sweet, tell me when they stop. And I’m gonna just ignore your attempt to equate Hamas charter with 11 points, that’s just silly on its face :)

                • zazo@lemmy.world
                  11·
                  5 months ago

                  You accuse me of whataboutism then you just use it yourself.

                  Yes, I don’t think Hamas should be using human shields but I also don’t think Israel should be settling land even before the partitioning of Palestine. (I mean the idea of a foreign state partitioning land they don’t inhabit is insane, but let’s ignore that for the sake of argument)

                  How do you not see using civilian encampments as a makeshift human wall just as immoral?

                  And we can play the whole who started it first game as much as we want but it doesn’t negate the fact that even after unfavorable borders for Palestine were established - settlers continued to take over land with the support of the IDF - where is the defense in burning homes and expelling Palestinians from land not even within the borders of Israel?? (oh but it was contested territory you see so that gives us the right to massacre people, yes I am very intelligent…)

                  Saying Hamas is the reason the IDF is killing civilians completely misses the history of the struggle - what’s next the Nakba was also Hamas’ fault then?

                  • fukhueson@lemmy.world
                    11·
                    5 months ago

                    Sounds like the history is that Hamas held hostages in a refugee camp and that’s dangerous for them. No other history involving anyone else legitimizes Hamas doing this.

                    And to address your accusation of whataboutism, I’ll refer you to my original comment at the top of the chain and ask you what I started to discuss and who changed the topic. “So you would hold Israel to the same standards?” Is textbook whataboutism.

                    Edit: and I think using civilians as shields is worse. Much worse. End of debate.