UN peacekeepers injured by Israel

@Dulra

"I am talking about the reports from the peacekeepers at the base not the UN but I would still trust them more than IDF"

But there isn't that much difference between the two accounts. Both agree a smokescreen was used, both agree the gate to the post was broken (UN say deliberately, IDF say accidentally).

@1dayatatimeI still struggle to see why, if people are aware of the potential perils of incorrect information, so many people seem to automatically believe the IDF and Israeli government, when there have been multiple instances of not just incorrect information but actual deliberate lies being presented by them as truth.

In relation to information coming from the health ministry in Gaza and why that may be more credible despite the potential political influence, there is a track record of the health ministry and related bodies providing information which has been consistent with the information from other sources, including on breakdowns of casualty demographics. If anything, the information now coming from other sources suggests those health ministry figures may be underestimates. Nobody has claimed that no combatants have been killed and/or injured. What does appear striking from the available data (not simply from the health ministry but from other sources, including Israeli sources) is the high numbers of civilian casualties. It's not a case of blindly accepting a number or a statistic from the health ministry, but instead of considering the multiple information sources indicating casualty rates and assessing the potential reliability or lack of reliability of that number or statistic in that context.

I am talking about the reports from the peacekeepers at the base not the UN but I would still trust them more than IDF

@Dulra

"I trust the UN peacekeepers reports because I am not aware of any reputation for lying."

I am less trusting of the UN given they clearly want to put themselves in the most favourable light possible and avoid accusations that they have been ineffective in their role in enforcing the UN resolution 1701.

To me this was demonstrated by the failure of the UN to disclose to the Irish authorities the exact circumstances of the death of Private Sean Rooney.

www.thejournal.ie/sean-rooney-inquest-6444040-Jul2024/

I think you are confusing things here. There is the rush to report which can result in inaccuracies as you have described but then there is intentionally putting out false information. When there are conflicting reports of an incident you go with what you trust. Many people do not trust the IDF account of things because they have been proven to lie. I trust the UN peacekeepers reports because I am not aware of any reputation for lying.

why people believe the Hamas Health Ministry produced figures of 42,000 deaths in Gaza
There are no other sources because, as has been pointed out time and again on these threads Israel will not allow any independent observers in and many actually feel these figures are an underestimate not over estimate. It is extremely difficult to identify bodies that are blown to bits and also to determine how many are trapped under rubble. In the case of children it can be hard to identify them if there is no surviving family member to do so.

why people claim they were all innocent civilians when the Health Ministry themselves admit this figure includes Hamas members.
Don't think people claim that, most focus on the 15,000 children dead because they know for certain they are not Hamas. As the figure of those killed is likely to be an underestimate I would be confident that at least 40,000 innocent civilians have been killed.

@EasterIssland

"Aren’t you concerned that people that were wearing masks suffered from side effects from this smoke? I’d be concerned what type of smoke was used."

No I would say that is fairly normal to suffer smoke side effects even with a gas mask. The seal will not be perfect, they may not have been put on quick enough and liquid used on the masks to improve the seal will irritate the skin.

But that said aren't you concerned that there are posters on this thread falsely claiming this was a chemical weapons attack when both the UN and IDF agree that it was a smokescreen.

@Scirocco

"I would actually like to understand why people believe the IDF's accounts of things"

Fair question. Firstly I think on all news there is the need to be the first to get it out regardless of whether it's true or not.

I see false information falling into three categories:
Selective interpretation- so on the UN post - the UN claim the IDF smashed down the gates with a tank, whereas the IDF claim they accidentally reversed into it whilst picking up wounded soldiers. It's a bit like me knocking over your favourite garden gnome whilst reversing off your driveway - understandably upset you may claim that I deliberately reversed into it whereas I may claim it was an accident. It's simply a matter of interpretation but in any event the gate or gnome has been broken.

Being first - the example I think best shows this is the case sometime ago of the Hamas rocket launch that misfired and landed on a hospital car park killing several people. It was immediately claimed that this was an Israeli missile attack on a hospital. It took some time to show that it was actually a Hamas rocket but by which time the false version had already been established.

Deliberate false information - much like the false information tweets that started / inflamed the recent UK riots. Or for example there was even one poster on this thread promoting false information that this was a chemical weapons attack by the Israelis against the UN when both the UN and IDF agreed it was a smoke screen.

In the case of the UN post and the smoke inhalation I have no doubt that the IDF will put a positive spin on it and the UN a negative spin with the truth lying somewhere in between.

A question in return, I would like to understand why people believe the Hamas Health Ministry produced figures of 42,000 deaths in Gaza and why people claim they were all innocent civilians when the Health Ministry themselves admit this figure includes Hamas members.

Well, the IDF have an established track record of lying and having people believe whatever they say. So, I'm not inclined to automatically believe any excuses they give. But some people are, which seems strange, especially as those same people often automatically dismiss things from multiple sources, with independent reports, with eyewitness accounts corroborating each other, etc. if those things don't paint the IDF or Israeli people in a positive light.

I would actually like to understand why people believe the IDF's accounts of things.

@Scirocco

"At this point, why do people believe the account of a force with an established track record of dishonesty? I can understand people saying they'd want an independent assessment of what happened, but how much credibility can really be given to an organisation that has lied so consistently?"

Are you suggesting that the UN is a force with an established track record of dishonesty or the IDF or both?

I presume both given that the UN account and the IDF account on the use of the smoke screen matches.

You are talking about an army that bombs starving people in food centres. They don't hold the moral high ground in any way and I would certainly be very sceptical about what they say.

Exactly, they have been caught out lying many many many times.

@Auvergne63

"I really don't understand either. At this stage, critical thinking has gone out of the window"

I agree with you that critical thinking has gone out of the window but only because the debate has become so polarised and opinions so deeply entrenched that no one is willing to consider the issue from the other sides viewpoint. This in turn makes any understanding of each side's fears and wants impossible along with any compromise solution.

I really don't understand either. At this stage, critical thinking has gone out of the window.

@Scirocco agreed. No one believes Hamas with their record of lying so why believe the IDF and Israeli government!?

At this point, why do people believe the account of a force with an established track record of dishonesty? I can understand people saying they'd want an independent assessment of what happened, but how much credibility can really be given to an organisation that has lied so consistently?

Sorry should read as :

@HelenHen

"IDF being so close to UNIFIL put UNIFIL in danger. They certainly had no right to use a smoke screen in the vicinity of UNIFIL."

Given that the objective was to evacuate wounded soldiers then I would say that the IDF had every right to use a smoke screen to save lives given the downside to the UN was simply skin irritation and gastrointestinal problems.

Either way it is most definitely not the misinformation suggested of it being a "chemical weapons" attack

You can't use self defence as an excuse for 'accidentally' harming protected personnel if you are the one on the offense.

IDF being so close to UNIFIL put UNIFIL in danger. They certainly had no right to use a smoke screen in the vicinity of UNIFIL.

I do appreciate the alternative viewpoint, but in this case it does not excuse the actions. It only serves to prove that IDF think they are more important than UN peacekeepers.

I think there was a post by someone on 11th October ( 2 days before the Telegraph article) saying that Hezbollah could well take up positions next to UNIFIL sites and use UNIFIL as a shield.

@mouthpipette

"I guess that Hezbollah too would use the UNIFIL sites as shields, hence the reason for the IDF asking certain posts to be vacated last week."

Indeed they are:

www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/10/13/the-un-keeps-peace-in-southern-lebanon-hezbollah-tunnel/

Israeli account of the incident, as quoted by Israelilefty

Earlier today (Sunday), a large barrage of anti-tank missiles was fired toward IDF troops in southern Lebanon. During the attack, two IDF soldiers were severely injured and multiple other soldiers were lightly and moderately injured. Their families have been notified. An initial review showed that an IDF tank that was trying to evacuate injured soldiers while still under fire backed several meters into a UNIFIL post.

From the above it would seem that the IDF had taken up a position very close to the UNIFIL post, as it was only metres that the tank had to move after picking them up. Tanks prefer not to reverse over long distances. Either the IDF were using the post as a defensive shield or because it was on their route through Lebanon, or both. I guess that Hezbollah too would use the UNIFIL sites as shields, hence the reason for the IDF asking certain posts to be vacated last week.

Sorry should read:

Especially when even the UN themselves have confirmed that the UN troops suffered from smoke inhalation NOT a chemical attack;

news.un.org/en/story/2024/10/1155661

Please stop making stuff up about chemical weapons attacks, it's rather desperate and deliberate misinformation.

Especially when even the UN themselves have confirmed that the UN troops suffered from smoke inhalation or a chemical attack;

news.un.org/en/story/2024/10/1155661