Right, so you didn’t accept the Haaretz article written by an Israeli Jew despite it being an Israeli newspaper with a respected international reputation for reporting as verification of over a hundred Gaza women being detained by IDF. Despite the fact that everything they publish must be approved by the IDF military censor. You’ve said “IDF denies it” when all they denied was detaining unaccompanied children, they never denied detaining women. Why would they when there are photographic and video proof of it? So why wouldn’t you accept that article again?
So I post the same story also verified by a European human rights monitor, Euromed. Now you say you would not accept the same information, because it hires “Arabs” on its staff.
What race/religion staffed entity would you accept then as an “independent source”?
I though we had agreed that “detaining without charge” was more preferable to you than my emotive “kidnapped” although the word kidnapping itself was invented by the Irish in the 1670s to describe the action of when British troops would simply round up off the streets random Irish civilians, usually women and children, for the purpose of then deporting them to the colonies as forced labour despite these civilians never being charged with or suspected of any crime whatsoever. Kidnapping, in its original meaning, was about the military of an occupying force just taking civilians. So while I am happy to modulate my language to your modern sensibilities and refer to it as “detaining without charge”, I would like you to be aware that under the original intended meaning of “kidnap” the IDF mirrors exactly what the British did.