Please or to access all these features

Conflict in the Middle East

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

So are MSF wrong about Gaza too?

343 replies

OneKookyShark · 07/08/2025 13:48

I have read multiple posts both on here and on the CITME forum- and I am aware how toxic the debate is.

But surely when Legitimate and highly respected international NGO talks of ‘orchestrated killing and dehuminisation”, then it starts to become utterly undeniable?

I am sure someone will be along to tell me otherwise. I also note that Netenyahu has ordered a full occupation of Gaza city today.

“Médecins Sans Frontières calls for immediate closure of Gaza Humanitarian Foundation
The medical NGO Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) has called for the immediate closure of Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), the US- and Israeli-backed aid organisation operating in Gaza, describing GHF-run food distribution sites in Gaza as having become sites of “orchestrated killing and dehumanisation”.
In a social media post on Thursday, MSF wrote:
“In MSF’s nearly 54 years of operations, rarely have we seen such levels of systematic violence against unarmed civilians.”
The GHF-run food distributions in Gaza, Palestine, have become sites of “orchestrated killing and dehumanisation”, not humanitarian aid.
In a new report, MSF analysed medical data, patients’ testimonies and first-hand medical witnesses at two MSF clinics in Gaza and found that it “point[ed] to both targeted and indiscriminate violence by Israeli forces and private American contractors against starved Palestinians” at food distribution sites run by the GHF”

OP posts:
Thread gallery
16
Wedonttalkaboutboris · 22/08/2025 10:11

Weltall · 22/08/2025 10:05

You think someone was going to accuse you of being a literal terrorist? Who?Im assuming one of us you asked you about the "critical of Hamas" comment, but I've never seen that accusation on here let alone made it.

Ok 🤷‍♀️
Well I have, lots.

Maybe you haven’t been on the threads I’ve been on?

Anyway, back to the actual point…

Weltall · 22/08/2025 10:05

Wedonttalkaboutboris · 22/08/2025 09:45

Yes, there’s been a lot of leaps and reaches going on. I was pre-empting those.

You think someone was going to accuse you of being a literal terrorist? Who?Im assuming one of us you asked you about the "critical of Hamas" comment, but I've never seen that accusation on here let alone made it.

Wedonttalkaboutboris · 22/08/2025 09:45

Weltall · 22/08/2025 09:44

There's quite a leap between that and implying that people asking you to clarify a statement are accusing you of being a member of an actual violent terrorist organisation.

Yes, there’s been a lot of leaps and reaches going on. I was pre-empting those.

Weltall · 22/08/2025 09:44

Wedonttalkaboutboris · 22/08/2025 08:59

I’ve been accused of being a Hamas sympathiser/supporter several times. Simply for repeating the same facts about this humanitarian crisis and highlighting the war crimes being committed.

There's quite a leap between that and implying that people asking you to clarify a statement are accusing you of being a member of an actual violent terrorist organisation.

Wedonttalkaboutboris · 22/08/2025 08:59

Weltall · 21/08/2025 21:41

Not sure why you felt the need to make that comment. No one has accused you of being a terrorist. Confused

I’ve been accused of being a Hamas sympathiser/supporter several times. Simply for repeating the same facts about this humanitarian crisis and highlighting the war crimes being committed.

MidwinterSpring · 21/08/2025 21:43

Weltall · 21/08/2025 21:41

Not sure why you felt the need to make that comment. No one has accused you of being a terrorist. Confused

Well I've seen people accuse every one from MSF to the united nations to amnesty international of being Hamas so why not!

Weltall · 21/08/2025 21:41

Wedonttalkaboutboris · 21/08/2025 19:38

Of course I could just secretly be a Hamas terrorist 🙄

Not sure why you felt the need to make that comment. No one has accused you of being a terrorist. Confused

Wedonttalkaboutboris · 21/08/2025 19:42

Article in the Guardian today:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/aug/21/revealed-israeli-militarys-own-data-indicates-civilian-death-rate-of-83-in-gaza-war

Figures from a classified Israeli military intelligence database indicate five out of six Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in Gaza have been civilians, an extreme rate of slaughter rarely matched in recent decades of warfare.

The vast majority of Palestinians slaughtered by Israel in Gaza are civilians.

Revealed: Israeli military’s own data indicates civilian death rate of 83% in Gaza war

Figures from classified IDF database listed 8,900 named fighters as dead or probably dead in May, as overall death toll reached 53,000

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/aug/21/revealed-israeli-militarys-own-data-indicates-civilian-death-rate-of-83-in-gaza-war

Wedonttalkaboutboris · 21/08/2025 19:38

Of course I could just secretly be a Hamas terrorist 🙄

Wedonttalkaboutboris · 21/08/2025 19:38

Weltall · 21/08/2025 12:03

@Wedonttalkaboutboris
Why do you say critical of Hamas like it's a bad thing?

I’m not saying criticism of Hamas is wrong- of course it’s justified.

My point is that Fox’s reports focus so heavily on Hamas that they downplay the human suffering in Gaza. It’s about balance: always good to check multiple sources to see the full picture.

Weltall · 21/08/2025 12:03

Wedonttalkaboutboris · 20/08/2025 19:13

Just flagging that Andrew Fox/HJS reports are very pro-Israel and critical of Hamas. They tend to downplay civilian suffering and amplify certain narratives, so I’d cross-check with independent humanitarian sources before taking it at face value.

@Wedonttalkaboutboris
Why do you say critical of Hamas like it's a bad thing?

Twiglets1 · 21/08/2025 06:19

Wedonttalkaboutboris · 20/08/2025 19:13

Just flagging that Andrew Fox/HJS reports are very pro-Israel and critical of Hamas. They tend to downplay civilian suffering and amplify certain narratives, so I’d cross-check with independent humanitarian sources before taking it at face value.

Oh yes we wouldn’t want to believe anyone critical of Hamas would we?

From what I can tell, no sources are completely unbiased but naturally you warn readers if you think a source is “pro Israel and anti Hamas”.

I don’t see these warnings in place when people quote from Al Jazeera, Iran TV or the Hamas run ministries.

PinkBobby · 20/08/2025 21:29

https://www.timesofisrael.com/after-seeing-misery-up-close-the-man-feeding-gaza-says-theres-no-doubt-strip-is-starving/amp/

Just read this article and thought it worth sharing on here as a comparison to GHF.

Wedonttalkaboutboris · 20/08/2025 19:13

Twiglets1 · 20/08/2025 15:03

Published by Camera (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Anaylysis)

Channel 4 News presenter launders terrorist propaganda
From the moment the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) was first publicly discussed, Andrew Fox of the Henry Jackson Society wrote last month in an in-depth report, “Hamas has regarded it as a direct threat to its interests”.

On 26 May 2025, as the GHF, the US-Israeli aid distribution scheme that bypasses a proscribed terror organisation and reduces its control over the civilian population, opened its first centres, Hamas, Fox noted, condemned the organisation as an “agent of the occupation” and warned Palestinians not to cooperate. “Anyone who accepts their assistance will pay the price, and we will take the necessary measures”, they said. In short, Hamas is threatened by this new operating model and pledged to do everything in its power to see it fail.

The British media’s one-sided, highly critical coverage of the GHF has been clear from the start. Most outlets routinely promote unsubstantiated claims by the Hamas-controlled health ministry accusing the IDF of killing ‘innocent Palestinians in queue for food’, while ignoring evidence of Hamas’s efforts to sabotage the aid distribution system, which has included armed attacks at or near GHF sites.

“It is absolutely defamatory and shameful”, Fox argues in his HJS report, how quickly “unvetted allegations” by Hamas and other about GHF, which has distributed close to 125 million meals to date, are circulated within the Western media “while the terror group’s role in inciting violence is downplayed”.

One of the most egregious examples of a British media outlet promoting Hamas propaganda occurred during an Channel 4 News interview of GHF Spokesperson Chapin Fay, by presenter Krishnan Guru-Murthy, which aired on Aug 15.

While there are numerous examples of Guru-Murthy spreading disinformation and falsely accusing Fay of lying, the most astonishing narrative promoted by the presenter in the 23 minute exchange was when the presenter said or asked several times, in different variations, “Aren’t you the bait in a death trap? You’re luring people in and then they’re getting killed”.

Fay correctly called that out as Hamas propaganda.

In fact, the proscribed terror group first made that claim on May 27, one day after GHF began operating. “The occupation forces, positioned in or around those areas, opened live fire on starving civilians who were lured to these locations under the pretence of receiving aid,” the Hamas-run Government Media Office said.

The Hamas media office repeated the libel on June 3, writing that “These sites are nothing short of baited killing grounds. Civilians, driven by starvation under an imposed siege and famine, are lured to these areas and then gunned down in cold blood.“.

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, the Hamas-affiliated propaganda front which masquerades as a “human rights group”, issued a press release on July 20 titled “Starving civilians in northern Gaza lured to aid sites and executed, revealing brutal pattern of Israel’s genocide“.

In short, the Channel 4 News presenter promoted, in his own voice, the demented Hamas conspiracy-theory that Israel and the US set up a fake food distribution service as bait to lure Palestinians there so that Israel can murder them – the laundering of terrorist propaganda that you’d expect to see on Iranian Press TV rather than on a publicly-owned British broadcaster.

camera-uk.org/2025/08/17/channel-4-news-presenter-launders-terrorist-propaganda/

Just flagging that Andrew Fox/HJS reports are very pro-Israel and critical of Hamas. They tend to downplay civilian suffering and amplify certain narratives, so I’d cross-check with independent humanitarian sources before taking it at face value.

Wedonttalkaboutboris · 20/08/2025 19:10

MidwinterSpring · 20/08/2025 17:32

@PurpleChrayn Oh so now MSF are hamas too are they. No-one believes this crap any more.

Oh yes, this was established several threads back apparently 😳

Wedonttalkaboutboris · 20/08/2025 19:10

Twiglets1 · 20/08/2025 15:49

Some interesting things in this report for anyone interested in gaining more information (some you may disagree with, some not) - THE GAZA HUMANITARIAN FOUNDATION – SEPARATING THE TRUTH FROM THE LIES

henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/HJS-Gaza-Humanitarian-Foundation-Briefing-web.pdf

Just a heads-up for anyone checking out that HJS report by Andrew Fox- I’ve done a bit of digging on both him and the think tank.

Fox is a former British Army officer with lots of Middle East experience, including Gaza and Lebanon, and he’s obviously pro-Israel.

His report mainly frames the humanitarian situation around Hamas’s actions, like using human shields and embedding military infrastructure in civilian areas, and it tends to shift responsibility away from Israel.

The Henry Jackson Society itself is a neoconservative think tank with a pretty clear pro-Western, pro-Israel tilt. So while the report gives some detail on the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s operations, it’s worth remembering the perspective it’s coming from. For a fuller picture, I’d suggest cross-referencing with independent humanitarian orgs and media sources.

Basically, it’s useful info, but take it with a pinch of salt regarding the bigger picture of civilian impact.

MidwinterSpring · 20/08/2025 17:32

@PurpleChrayn Oh so now MSF are hamas too are they. No-one believes this crap any more.

fffiona · 20/08/2025 17:22

@Twiglets1 - Rebel-held areas of Tigray (where they massacred civilians), Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen, Tamil held areas in Sri Lanka, parts of Syria, at various times of their long and horrific war - all these areas have received food aid while under murderous "leadership". It really is sadly quite common and "rebels" rarely treat the civilian population well.
And this is why food should never be weaponised, or civilian populations punished for the actions of their governments or whoever currently has power over them.

Twiglets1 · 20/08/2025 17:14

fffiona · 20/08/2025 17:03

"Traditionalists argue it breaches core principles (neutrality, impartiality, independence) by being so closely aligned with one belligerent party. GHF supporters counter that, in an unprecedented situation where the de facto authority (Hamas) is considered too predatory, a new approach was necessary, even if it is imperfect."
But this really isn't unusual in conflict situations. There is very often a "predatory" force in control of regions of people who need food aid. The difference in this case is that Israel has the ability to control all the borders.

I think it's rare that the army of a country at war have so little concern for the wellbeing of their own people as Hamas do. Hamas will kill their own people that step out of line.

We will have to agree to disagree as I do consider them more "predatory" than a normal army as don't care about how many get killed from either side as long as it helps them to achieve their goals.

PinkBobby · 20/08/2025 17:09

Twiglets1 · 20/08/2025 16:59

So as usual we find some overlap in our views but also differences.

I can understand why a different approach was needed, despite the current GHF model having a lot of flaws. As it says in the article (as most people reading this comment won't have read it)
Traditionalists argue it breaches core principles (neutrality, impartiality, independence) by being so closely aligned with one belligerent party. GHF supporters counter that, in an unprecedented situation where the de facto authority (Hamas) is considered too predatory, a new approach was necessary, even if it is imperfect.

henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/HJS-Gaza-Humanitarian-Foundation-Briefing-web.pdf

Whilst I understand the complexity that Hamas presents as terrorists and government, I’m also not sure they are so ‘special’ that a whole new system is necessary. Looting is a huge problem in many conflict zones. In the DRC, for example, the U.N has had huge issues recently with rebels taking significant amounts of food and not respecting the lives of aid workers or civilians. I guess the argument could be to arm everyone and maybe that would be a deterrent no matter where the U.N. work but to me that just means more violence. Humanitarian aid must rely on that foundation of neutrality and independence by not injuring or killing people seeking aid. Otherwise we’re just adding another ‘side’ into conflict zones. I believe it endangers aid workers because there is no longer that (flimsy) protection that humanitarian aid workers shouldn’t be caught up in the fight.

fffiona · 20/08/2025 17:03

"Traditionalists argue it breaches core principles (neutrality, impartiality, independence) by being so closely aligned with one belligerent party. GHF supporters counter that, in an unprecedented situation where the de facto authority (Hamas) is considered too predatory, a new approach was necessary, even if it is imperfect."
But this really isn't unusual in conflict situations. There is very often a "predatory" force in control of regions of people who need food aid. The difference in this case is that Israel has the ability to control all the borders.

Twiglets1 · 20/08/2025 16:59

PinkBobby · 20/08/2025 16:52

I agree that the UN should be involved again asap. Purely from an experience and capacity perspective. I can understand why they are so against working with GHF though - as I’ve said before, it’s sets such a precedent for armed aid distribution to become the norm and I think that would be a huge mistake for humanitarian aid.

So as usual we find some overlap in our views but also differences.

I can understand why a different approach was needed, despite the current GHF model having a lot of flaws. As it says in the article (as most people reading this comment won't have read it)
Traditionalists argue it breaches core principles (neutrality, impartiality, independence) by being so closely aligned with one belligerent party. GHF supporters counter that, in an unprecedented situation where the de facto authority (Hamas) is considered too predatory, a new approach was necessary, even if it is imperfect.

henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/HJS-Gaza-Humanitarian-Foundation-Briefing-web.pdf

PinkBobby · 20/08/2025 16:52

Twiglets1 · 20/08/2025 16:47

I think a collaboration would be best with UN run sites and the GHF run sites (but the UN is reluctant to collaborate with the GHF).

I agree that the UN should be involved again asap. Purely from an experience and capacity perspective. I can understand why they are so against working with GHF though - as I’ve said before, it’s sets such a precedent for armed aid distribution to become the norm and I think that would be a huge mistake for humanitarian aid.

fffiona · 20/08/2025 16:50

Apologies - my post should say a population of 2,000,000 - can't seem to edit