IDF bombs Nasser hospital and then bombs the rescue worker a second time.

[Kakeandkake]

It is so sickening that they continue to act with such impunity. The bombed the hospital killing four journalists and THEN struck a second time killing the rescue workers who were trying to retrieve the bodies of the dead and injured.

The genocide continues in plain sight.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp89rp48246o

And now they are trying to justify it rather than accept that they colossally fucked up and carried out a war crime live on air.

That doesn't mean they accepted it! At this point they are still investigating the whole situation and have no reason to respond to Sky news who are anti Israel anyway.

It's hardly a "feeble excuse" if Hamas militants were using the camera for surveillance purposes is it?

Oh i have heard it all now. Sky news are anti - Israel🙄

It's a lost case.

The majority of the British public will read news from our MSM media and see the truth for themselves.

Some will continue to believe the IDF lies. Maybe one day after the war they will see how they were duped.

Institute for Middle East Understanding doesn't sound very impartial @Everexpanding

IMEU takes a firmly negative view of Israel in general, and its website repeatedly refers to Israel’s “oppression” of and imposition of “apartheid” on Palestinians.

www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/institute-for-middle-east-understanding-imeu/

Because alleged civilians had also been killed so that is of course regrettable.

It is not a 'feeble excuse' to target a surveillance camera.

Let's hope hamas operatives and their collaborators have learnt a lesson that they need to have separate areas to hang out than hospitals where they put others at risk

The fact sheet reports on the investigations of others, the organisation itself is well respected and example below
Then-Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and the Israeli military blamed Abu Akleh’s death on Palestinians, distributing unrelated video of Palestinian gunfire during the invasion as supposed proof. However, multiple independent investigations, including by The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Associated Press, and CNN, as well as by human rights groups like Amnesty International, and the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, all concluded that Abu Akleh was killed by an Israeli soldier. The Israeli military itself later backtracked, stating that Abu Akleh may have been killed by one of its soldiers.

are none of those organisations trustworthy?

I don't know anything about that particular incident or what different media sources had to say about it.

What I do know is that the IMEU is not unbiased because as posted above MEU takes a firmly negative view of Israel in general, and its website repeatedly refers to Israel’s “oppression” of and imposition of “apartheid” on Palestinians.

Seems those who run “influence watch” also deny climate change so forgive me if I do not trust their judgement

• Overall, we rate Capital Research Right-Center Biased based on an editorial bias that always favors the right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to rejecting the consensus of science on climate change and the use of Questionable sources for support of claims.

@twiglets you should read up about the murder of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, long before this current situation Israel had a history of killing journalists. They initially blamed the incident on Palestinians but had to backtrack in the face of incontrovertible evidence that she was shot purposefully by an Israeli sniper

@MNHQ why was EverExpandings post responding to this with the same words 'use your brain' deleted? But Twiglets post who said it first stands? Can we have some consistency in moderation please.

I mean TBF, hamas could have been by watching Reuters like anyone else...

The logical thing would be for a phone call to Reuters to complain about their perfectly reasonable decision to broadcast footage from Gaza, in the hope that they'd stop. Not to bomb it and kill 20 people in the process.

It all fits with Israel's attitude towards journalism though, that a journalistic camera is considered a military threat, so potent it's worth killing civilians for. In a place of safety.

If the IDF are really going with this as their reasoning, it settles the question is whether they are targeting journalists once and for all. They are a threat in case Hamas are watching the news!

Well said.

'The logical thing would be for a phone call to Reuters to complain about their perfectly reasonable decision to broadcast footage from Gaza, in the hope that they'd stop'

Maybe they'd tried ringing the gazans working for Reuters and already asked them to desist surveillance of the IDF?

I doubt we will get to know all their decisions based on their Intel but for a military force who consistently warn civilians of strikes it is an about turn to target alleged innocent journalists isn't it?

If Israel is not targeting journalists, how to explain the at least 180 killed to date ?

According to the United Nations, the number of Palestinian journalists killed by Israel since the start of the war stood at 242 by 11 August 2025.[4][5] On the other hand, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reported that 192 journalists, at least 184 of them Palestinian, had been killed by Israel as of 10 August 2025[6][7] while the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) reported the killing of at least 180 Palestinian journalists and media workers by Israel as of 11 August 2025

This was when it first occurred to me that Israel was not what I had always thought.

Yes the idfs behaviour at her funeral also shocked me to my core, the idf beat the
pall bearers and her coffin almost dropped to the ground

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y11CVGz7toM&pp=0gcJCRsBo7VqN5tD

@twiglets I think you should know that influence watch who you quoted earlier is far from a reliable source. It was set up by the capital research centre which is indeed very biased please see below an article on it’s previous vice president, current employee to give you a taste of the kind of minds behind it

www.salon.com/2011/09/02/voting_vadum/

See also their “work” on behalf of the tobacco industry, all round nice people

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Capital_Research_Center_and_the_tobacco_industry#:~:text=While%20the%20Capital%20Research%20Center,sponsors%2C%20including%20the%20tobacco%20industry.

It's interesting to me that some on here are happy to parrot the Hamas version of events with no acknowledgment even that this is who is providing their version of events.

I don't mind saying I'm getting my information from what the IDF say and I've stated previously that I know they have lied on occasion in the past. So why the reluctance to admit the source of your information about this incident? (not who reported it, who said it originally).

As reported by Reuters: In a statement issued later on Tuesday, Hamas challenged the Israeli account of the hospital casualties, denying that any of the Palestinians killed were militants.

The Hamas government media office said in a statement that one of the six Palestinians who Israel alleged were militants was killed in al-Mawasi some distance from the hospital, and another was killed elsewhere at a different time.

The Hamas statement did not clarify whether the two men were civilians or fighters.