IDF statement on Aid Convoy Stampede

[Yellowducksandrakes]

What’s happened: Following the death of dozens of Palestinians after a stampede broke out around an aid convoy west of Gaza City, the US has blocked an Algerian-sponsored statement at the United Nations Security Council which sought to blame Israel.

• While reports conflict, it appears that:
• Before dawn yesterday morning, approximately 30 trucks containing aid entered the Gaza Strip to deliver food to the Rimal neighbourhood of Gaza City.
• At approximately 4.40 AM, thousands of Gazans swarmed the trucks. Drone footage of the event shows some of the trucks attempting to drive through the crowds, presumably in an effort to extract themselves and deliver the aid they were carrying.
• After a number of trucks were able to continue north, armed men opened fire on what remained of the convoy.
• While the IDF has admitted that its troops did open fire, it says that this was only “when they encountered danger, when the mob moved toward it in a manner that endangered the force”.
• The IDF also says that it “did not fire toward individuals seeking aid and we did not fire toward the humanitarian convoy from the ground nor from the air.”
• It is being reported that at least 112 Gazans were killed in this incident, with approximately 760 being injured. However, as these figures originate from within the Hamas-run Palestinian Ministry of Health, their veracity is questionable.
• The IDF’s initial inquiry into the incident has concluded its troops’ fire killed only 7 or 8 people and that the majority were killed in the chaos, not by shooting.
• “The tanks were there to provide security for the trucks. Our aircraft gave the troops on the ground a full picture from above,” the IDF said.
• “When the hundreds turned into thousands, the IDF complied with international law… Israel did not limit the quantity of humanitarian aid entering Gaza. We recognize the suffering of the Gaza residents.”
• In the aftermath of this event, much of the international community has reiterated calls for an immediate ceasefire and increased aid being allowed into the Gaza Strip.
• At the United Nations Security Council, Algeria sought to issue a statement which explicitly blamed Israel for this deadly incident. While supported by 14 out of 15 council members, it was blocked by the US.
• When asked why the US had not supported this statement, Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations Robert Wood said: “We don’t have all the facts on the ground – that’s the problem.”
• He also said that in the face of contradictory reports, the US was trying to establish facts, including regarding the “circumstances around how people died”.
• President Biden has also discussed this incident with Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. According to a White House statement, they agreed that it “underscored the urgency of bringing negotiations to a close as soon as possible”.
• The White House has also called for this event to be “thoroughly investigated”.

Context: Israel will conduct a thorough investigation into an incident which further highlights the complexity of distributing aid to the Gazan people and the urgent necessity of forming a civilian infrastructure to prevent further incidents of this kind.

I gave a gentle heads up - and you took issue with it - so it's on you petal

And Quds News Network has links to Hamas and other militant groups.

What's your point?

No you didn't - you made a sarcastic remark, anyway, no matter...

Not sarcastic at all - unless you're using a new definition of sarcastic

Whatever...

Indeed

What a fuss about nothing

@Yellowducksandrakes the onus is not on individuals to prove they are not terrorists or combatants - the onus is on the military force (in this case, the IDF) to demonstrate a reasonable level of confidence that a person or group of people are a valid military target. And no, simply being Palestinian doesn't constitute reasonable grounds.

"Are you doubting this is true?"

I just asked who it was reported to, and it would also be interesting what the response was - otherwise it's just 'unverified'

"You were so rude to me last time I posted on this thread I'll not be looking for any articles for you"

I'll take that ^ as meaning it doesn't exist.

I'm not arguing with you.

The IDF will have all the head-cam footage which can be viewed at a de-brief.

Take it however you like, sunshine

Hardly surprising that people are feeling frightened under the circumstances?

That's lovely for them. Is your assumption then that all civilians should be considered viable combat targets until proven otherwise?

"Hardly surprising that people are feeling frightened under the circumstances?"

I have no idea what 'people' feel , however, if they are armed and looting Aid then I suppose they would be frightened of reprisals.

Generally speaking, the requirement for use of lethal force is a legitimate fear of injury or death based on actions and capabilities of an attacker. If a person can make that case, then the person can use lethal force.

Okay let me try again

Hardly surprising that un-armed ordainary people are feeling frightened under the circumstances

ie the vast proportion of the people in Gaza City

Maybe the IDF shoots first, then asks questions later.

There are a lot of "ifs" in your post.

@Yellowducksandrakes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-61808619

Did you read the report? This is from part of it.

"World Vision asked one of the largest international accountancy firms, Deloitte, and global lawyers DLA Piper to carry out an independent forensic audit of its Gaza operations.
Scrutiny of payments and 280,000 emails, as well as dozens of interviews, found no evidence of missing funds or criminal behaviour.
Neither did an Australian government review of funding for World Vision."

Yet an Israeli court found him guilty. What a surprise.

Irresponsible of the BBC to use that headline when the actual article reports on a miscarriage of justice.

I love how you put people in inverted commas there.

Really clarifies how you see Palestinians.

Israeli forces open fire again at residents, who attempted to reach dead bodies of hungry people, who were murdered last night at Al-Kuwait roundabout while waiting for aid.

there is a video on the link
https://twitter.com/QudsNen/status/1768563554435625354

"I love how you put people in inverted commas there."

I'm glad you appreciate my correct use of English.

"Really clarifies how you see Palestinians."

What on earth are you talking about?

The use of double inverted commas is the correct way to show what the speaker/poster actually said ie - reported speech.

Did you not know that?

They just view everything that moves as their enemy, they don't seem to be willing or able to distinguish between innocent civilians and Hamas

I’m really confused by what the point of this latest discussion is.

The leaders of Israel are responsible for this situation by not allowing in enough aid, which then creates the conditions in which people are desperate for food.

IDF are killing civilians who are trying to get food when it’s delivered, which is chaotic given the lack of structure and level of desperation.

Even if Hamas and gangs are looting, this only means they are also guilty, it doesn’t mean that Israeli leaders and the IDF shouldn’t be held accountable.

The main priority should be to protect civilian life.

You put one word in speech marks. The word people. This is not reporting speech. If it is, who are you quoting?

@Yellowducksandrakes "..." is generally accepted as a quotation. '...' is generally used to indicate the meaning should be taken as being ironic or otherwise different from the usually associated meaning (for example, "The canteen served some interesting 'food' today"). The way in which you presented your text was consistent with dehumanising people who are suffering. That is deeply offensive.

And yet at other times have demonstrated that there is the ability to carry out targeted operations, suggesting that it's a lack of desire to mitigate civilian harm, rather than a lack of competence.