4 ms·

Regarding the people that died on October 7, one important detail is evidence surfaced it appears a sizeable fraction was killed due to Israeli military attacki

by Qem 3y ago

Regarding the people that died on October 7, one important detail is evidence surfaced it appears a sizeable fraction was killed due to Israeli military attacking militants and hostages without distinction, to avoid capture, following the so called Hannibal directive: https://thecradle.co/articles/israeli-army-ordered-mass-hannibal-directive-on-7-oct-media https://thecradle.co/articles/israeli-army-ordered-mass-hann... https://thegrayzone.com/2023/11/25/israels-october-7-propaganda-tank-eyewitnesses/ https://thegrayzone.com/2023/11/25/israels-october-7-propaga... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive

shakil 3y ago
Why is this flagged/down voted? Its just a plain statement of fact, supported by credible sources and references. Here's some more references if people think this didn't happen. The IDF attacked and fired on the Nova festival goers with Apache helicopters [1], an Israeli tank fired shells at Kibbutz Be'eri killing hostages and children, and stories of eight babies killed at the kibbutz have been proven to be false, among other things [3], [4] 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/idf-mistakenly-hit-festival-attendees-while-targeting-hamas https://www.businessinsider.com/idf-mistakenly-hit-festival-... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%27eri_massacre#Survivors'_testimony_on_tank_fire,_families'_call_for_IDF_probe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%27eri_massacre#Survivors'_t... 3. https://archive.is/Zn3Bt https://archive.is/Zn3Bt 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L91kG_bYsn0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L91kG_bYsn0
- brighteyes 3y ago
  It is downvoted because it said "sizable fraction", which is a conspiracy theory. It is true that there were a few incidents, but they only account for a very small fraction of the death toll.
  - rsoto2 3y ago
    The report that I saw said that there were 70 vehicles completely destroyed by RPG or Helicopter and the Israeli military did not go into specifics(although they undoubtedly have more data about the event than they have released)
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    “A few… A very small fraction” is a conspiracy theory actually
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      IDF says “immense quantity” of friendly fire, that doesn’t sound like your “a few”: Israel’s army on Tuesday admitted that an “immense and complex quantity” of what it calls “friendly fire” incidents took place on 7 October. The key declaration was buried in the penultimate paragraph of an article by Yoav Zitun, the military correspondent of Israeli outlet Ynet. It is the first known official army admission that a significant number of the hundreds of Israelis who died on 7 October were killed by Israel itself, and not by Hamas or other Palestinian resistance factions. Citing new data released by the Israeli military, Zitun wrote that: “Casualties fell as a result of friendly fire on October 7, but the IDF [Israeli military] believes that … it would not be morally sound to investigate” them.
      - weatherlite 3y ago
        A significant number of Palestinian casualties are killed by Hamas misfires
        SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
        Did you just make it up?
        reducesuffering 3y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explos...
        SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
        "While this is not a conclusive finding, it is currently considered the likeliest explanation based on the evidence gathered in investigations conducted by the Associated Press, CNN, The Economist, The Guardian, and The Wall Street Journal.[7]" No official investigations made (only statements made by pro-israel media eraly in conflict), no proof thefore. Yet israel has track of bombing the Gaza hospitals, which makes aposteriori a more plausible explanation for the incident.
- oeta 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 3y ago
    You can't post like this to HN, regardless of who you have a problem with. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. We have to ban accounts that post this way, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not post this way, we'd appreciate it.
fortran77 3y ago
[flagged]
edanm 3y ago
As far as has been credibly reported, it wasn't a "sizeable fraction", it was a very small number. There's only one incident I know of that is verified. I'm sure more will surface - such is war. Therefore I want to make it very clear - it is not an important detail, despite you calling it such. Hamas are the ones that attacked - if in the process of trying to stop these attacks, the IDF inadvertantly killed Israeli civilians, that is tragic - but is completely the fault of Hamas. This is true both legally and morally.
- SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
  It is absolutely not "true both legally and morally." It all depends on scale and purpose of the operation. If israeli military acted with disregard to the lives of non combatants, that would account to war crimes, against their own population. They have history of war crimes against their own forces, called Hannibal doctrine, so I won't surprised if they have same directives against civilians.
  - edanm 3y ago
    > It is absolutely not "true both legally and morally." It all depends on scale and purpose of the operation. Well I wasn't making a general statement - I was talking in this specific case. Let's give an analogy - if a bunch of bank robbers have taken hostages and are threatening to kill them, and if the police is reasonably certain there is no way of actually getting them out - the police is morally justified in sending in SWAT to try and rescue as many hostages as possible. Even if they know that many hostages will die. The moral fault is with the bank robbers, not the police. > If [I]sraeli military acted with disregard to the lives of non combatants, that would account to war crimes, against their own population. I think that's a totally valid internal matter for debate within Israel. Should this kind of doctrine be the rule? Is it appropriate to attempt to stop militants by any means necessary, including possibly at the cost of your own population? This is in the same vein as "we don't negotiate with terrorists", a principled position that theoretically cuts down on terror, but that has brutal immediate ramaficiations in specific cases. That all said, I don't think this doctrine amounts to war crimes (I'm not sure how it possibly could amount to war crimes). And I think it's an internal matter for debate inside the country, but don't really see how it matters to anyone else. In fact, it kind of proves the opposite of what many people think - that the IDF is specifically trying to kill Gazan civilians. I'm often asked "what would the IDF do if the innocent civilians around a Hamas militant were Jews, not Palestinians, would you still bomb them even though it might cause collateral damage?". And while I think that question has a lot of answers, I think the "Hannibal directive", if implemented on October 7th (as appears likely), is actually proof that the IDF acts consistently, if terribly brutally - civilians are sometimes collateral damage, even if they're Israelis.
NicoJuicy 3y ago
[flagged]

by Qem 3y ago

shakil 3y ago

Why is this flagged/down voted? Its just a plain statement of fact, supported by credible sources and references. Here's some more references if people think this didn't happen. The IDF attacked and fired on the Nova festival goers with Apache helicopters [1], an Israeli tank fired shells at Kibbutz Be'eri killing hostages and children, and stories of eight babies killed at the kibbutz have been proven to be false, among other things [3], [4] 1. https://www.businessinsider.com/idf-mistakenly-hit-festival-attendees-while-targeting-hamas https://www.businessinsider.com/idf-mistakenly-hit-festival-... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%27eri_massacre#Survivors'_testimony_on_tank_fire,_families'_call_for_IDF_probe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be%27eri_massacre#Survivors'_t... 3. https://archive.is/Zn3Bt https://archive.is/Zn3Bt 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L91kG_bYsn0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L91kG_bYsn0

brighteyes 3y ago
It is downvoted because it said "sizable fraction", which is a conspiracy theory. It is true that there were a few incidents, but they only account for a very small fraction of the death toll.
- rsoto2 3y ago
  The report that I saw said that there were 70 vehicles completely destroyed by RPG or Helicopter and the Israeli military did not go into specifics(although they undoubtedly have more data about the event than they have released)
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  “A few… A very small fraction” is a conspiracy theory actually
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    IDF says “immense quantity” of friendly fire, that doesn’t sound like your “a few”: Israel’s army on Tuesday admitted that an “immense and complex quantity” of what it calls “friendly fire” incidents took place on 7 October. The key declaration was buried in the penultimate paragraph of an article by Yoav Zitun, the military correspondent of Israeli outlet Ynet. It is the first known official army admission that a significant number of the hundreds of Israelis who died on 7 October were killed by Israel itself, and not by Hamas or other Palestinian resistance factions. Citing new data released by the Israeli military, Zitun wrote that: “Casualties fell as a result of friendly fire on October 7, but the IDF [Israeli military] believes that … it would not be morally sound to investigate” them.
    - weatherlite 3y ago
      A significant number of Palestinian casualties are killed by Hamas misfires
      - SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
        Did you just make it up?
        reducesuffering 3y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explos...
        SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
        "While this is not a conclusive finding, it is currently considered the likeliest explanation based on the evidence gathered in investigations conducted by the Associated Press, CNN, The Economist, The Guardian, and The Wall Street Journal.[7]" No official investigations made (only statements made by pro-israel media eraly in conflict), no proof thefore. Yet israel has track of bombing the Gaza hospitals, which makes aposteriori a more plausible explanation for the incident.
oeta 3y ago
[flagged]
- dang 3y ago
  You can't post like this to HN, regardless of who you have a problem with. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. We have to ban accounts that post this way, so if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not post this way, we'd appreciate it.

fortran77 3y ago

[flagged]

edanm 3y ago

As far as has been credibly reported, it wasn't a "sizeable fraction", it was a very small number. There's only one incident I know of that is verified. I'm sure more will surface - such is war. Therefore I want to make it very clear - it is not an important detail, despite you calling it such. Hamas are the ones that attacked - if in the process of trying to stop these attacks, the IDF inadvertantly killed Israeli civilians, that is tragic - but is completely the fault of Hamas. This is true both legally and morally.

SomeoneFromCA 3y ago
It is absolutely not "true both legally and morally." It all depends on scale and purpose of the operation. If israeli military acted with disregard to the lives of non combatants, that would account to war crimes, against their own population. They have history of war crimes against their own forces, called Hannibal doctrine, so I won't surprised if they have same directives against civilians.
- edanm 3y ago
  > It is absolutely not "true both legally and morally." It all depends on scale and purpose of the operation. Well I wasn't making a general statement - I was talking in this specific case. Let's give an analogy - if a bunch of bank robbers have taken hostages and are threatening to kill them, and if the police is reasonably certain there is no way of actually getting them out - the police is morally justified in sending in SWAT to try and rescue as many hostages as possible. Even if they know that many hostages will die. The moral fault is with the bank robbers, not the police. > If [I]sraeli military acted with disregard to the lives of non combatants, that would account to war crimes, against their own population. I think that's a totally valid internal matter for debate within Israel. Should this kind of doctrine be the rule? Is it appropriate to attempt to stop militants by any means necessary, including possibly at the cost of your own population? This is in the same vein as "we don't negotiate with terrorists", a principled position that theoretically cuts down on terror, but that has brutal immediate ramaficiations in specific cases. That all said, I don't think this doctrine amounts to war crimes (I'm not sure how it possibly could amount to war crimes). And I think it's an internal matter for debate inside the country, but don't really see how it matters to anyone else. In fact, it kind of proves the opposite of what many people think - that the IDF is specifically trying to kill Gazan civilians. I'm often asked "what would the IDF do if the innocent civilians around a Hamas militant were Jews, not Palestinians, would you still bomb them even though it might cause collateral damage?". And while I think that question has a lot of answers, I think the "Hannibal directive", if implemented on October 7th (as appears likely), is actually proof that the IDF acts consistently, if terribly brutally - civilians are sometimes collateral damage, even if they're Israelis.

NicoJuicy 3y ago

[flagged]