Israel calling Francesca Albanese a witch!?

If Israel continued to deny it happened, I would say it's not verified but, they did admit it so even I can assume it's verified.

Oh make your mind up. I thought you didn't know anything because there were no journalists who could 'independently verify' stuff so how do you KNOW all this? You don't believe Hamas, you don't belkeve Israel, there are no journalists, so how do you know anything?

This is going to be my last post on this subject now. I've spent too much time on this today struggling with a hangover instead of getting on with what I had to do. It has been reported that more journalists have been killed in Gaza than the American Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam combined. An independent journalist going into this war would be very brave indeed. We know who's killing the journalists. The point is, even if they weren't in the right place at the right time it's better than the alternative of relying on a military that slaughtered aid workers and then tried to not just bury them but their ambulances as well. Don't you think?

Well there you go. Even if journalists were allowed completely free rein (which they NEVER are in a conflict) a BBC journalist is not going to always be in the right place at the right time to fulfil your independent verification demands. Why the hell should Israel facilitate this shit?

Depends who kills the journalists. If a BBC or most other journalists say that Hamas are lying and Israel are telling the truth, I would definitely take that as verification. If Hamas or the Israeli government say anything, no I don't take that as verified.

Oh give over. You know damn well nothing they do makes the slightest bit of difference to people that are already hostile and if journalists were killed of course they would be blamed. You've already shown you don't believe anything they say and no level of 'independent verification' is good enough.

"and a very hostile international community that is going to believe the worst of them whatever they do." That's the whole point. If they have nothing to hide think how it would help their international reputation if they allowed international journalists in to see exactly how moral an army they are. What are they so scared of?

Security from who. If you're answer is going to be Hamas, that is nothing to do with Israel if the journalists want to take their chances. Israel knows that so what other reason could there be that they won't allow journalists in. If you could enlighten me I would be delighted. If Israel allowed the journalists in and Hamas blocked them, guess what, I'd say Hamas are the liars. We will never know until we get either a plausible explanation from Israel as to why no journalists are allowed in or after journalists are actually allowed in.

And the fact that they have their hands pretty full with security threats on all sides, internal terrorism, and a very hostile international.community that is going to believe the worst of them whatever they do. How much worse would it all be with foreign journalists at risk in Gaza. But also the idea that there is some sort of complete blackout is also nonsense. The media is full of footage coming out of Gaza.

They can be restricted from individual operations for the sake of specific battle conditions but never a blanket ban. Give me an example if you disagree.

Um, I would just like to raise a couple of points relating to the title of this post, as a witch, practising my religion in the Western tradition.

I recognise that some people still use the word as an accusation and as a misogynistic insult, which is how I believe it has been used here.

I know that some people use the word synonymously and incorrectly with "Satanist"

I am also aware that some other cultures, ie some African ones, use the word witch, meaning devil worshippers, or some such thing, and then the"witches" are purged, persecuted or killed.

We have been working to reclaim the word since the repeal of the witchcraft legislation in 1951.
We are both men and women, carrying on with our quiet nature revering religion, based on the old religions of Europe, along with other pagan traditions.
Just saying...

None of this addresses what I wrote. You're trying to swerve the double standard being pointed out, because you want to pretend we can't possibly draw any conclusions about Hamas based on their known behaviour whilst also not taking back your evidence free speculation about their estimates.

Also, I've decided we should have some more balanced denial of the bleeding obvious. You don't know and can't prove that Israel aren't allowing journalists in because they have something to hide. Neither can I actually, it's just what I believe to be true.

But if we're entertaining speculation based on blind faith, one could just as easily argue that the Israeli rationale for not letting journalists in has nothing to do with them not wanting scrutiny, that they're telling the truth about it being down to security.

Sorry what? Journalists are nearly always restricted in war zones.

Okay. One more time. You have obviously accepted Israel is hiding something. "Israel have something to hide, which they demonstrably do". That is good. On top of that, "There is no rule that one side in a conflict must be happy to allow full journalistic access". Name me one war where journalists have been denied access by either side. Finally you are talking about faith but your faith is that Hamas will lie. I have no idea if they will but guess what, there is one way to find out!

There's no obfuscation. You've made two contradictory points, and continue to do so. Saying that you'd bet on Hamas being correct if you had to (you don't) is literally speculation and making an assumption.

If it's ok for you to speculate about numbers based on nothing more than faith, you aren't in any position to tell people who have drawn a different conclusion to you, but based their on the known behaviour of Hamas that they're making assumptions based on lack of logic because we simply cannot say. It's one or the other.

You also need to be clear that reiterating how Israel have something to hide, which they demonstrably do, does not even address the point that Hamas blatantly do as well. Much less refute it. There is no rule that one side in a conflict must be happy to allow full journalistic access. You don't make the case that Hamas wouldn't try and hide anything by continuing to point out that the Israelis are preventing them from being in that position in the first place, we all know that.

I have no idea what you are trying to say other than you think you can obfuscate a simple point. At this moment in time, and since the beginning of this conflict, Israel will not allow any independent journalists in. As I have said again and again, it must either be because they don't want the world to see what is going on in Gaza, they are worried that IDF soldiers won't be able to distinguish between international and Palestinian journalists so are liable to cause an international incident by shooting an international journalist or it is a combination of the two. We know these things because there is no other explanation unless you think you have one. As far as how Hamas would react in the event that journalists were allowed into Gaza, I would not choose to speculate or make assumptions as we will never know until they are allowed in. Whatever Israel is hiding must be significant since they wouldn't even let international journalists take a photo out of a plane window.

The first paragraph is inconsistent with your statement that you don't think there's any way to tell, though. If there's no way to tell then the only answer is that you couldn't possibly say. Again, you have to pick one and go with it. Whereas you do not have to bet. You're not doing a very good job of sticking to your claims.

The second is immaterial. Nobody thinks there aren't international journos who want to go.

Israel still has control over 47% of Gaza? Where there is no Hamas. Could they not let independent journalists in the Israeli occupied Gaza?

I understand you're trying to be inflammatory at the same time as crying "personal attack" so I'll take my own advice now and stop engaging.

As I said, you didn't understand the nuance in the way I said it. Perhaps I should have been more blunt and said 72% of Israelis are worse because they were in favour of blocking all aid into Gaza in order to starve all the Palestinians including babies. Would that have been more accurate and less jarring. I'll remind you, that isn't a figure I just invented, that was from an official poll in Israel.

It's jarring when anyone makes negative statements insulting whole groups of people whether Palestinians or Israelis. Just because some Israeli politicians have made horrible statements, I don't think that's a valid reason to copy them.

I don't think you understood what I meant by I said it on purpose. On another note though, how is it so galling to you for me to make such a statement, even though you did misunderstand the point, when so many Israeli politicians have made actual statements about there being no innocent Palestinians and worse.

Actually I'm not sensitive to criticism. I have always taught my daughters that when someone sinks to personal insults in a debate, to take it as a victory. You stated that you weren't going to interact with me anymore and then jumped in on a debate that you weren't involved in with nothing more than a personal attack.

You're sensitive to any hint of criticism for someone who happily described a whole country as being worse than a proscribed terrorist organisation.

And then admitted you said it on purpose (in case anyone thought you said it accidentally).