3 ms·

This is very thorough. Thanks for the direct link. The case seems pretty clear, especially since the soldiers tried to hide all evidence.

ignoramous 8mo ago
> case seems pretty clear, especially since the soldiers tried Even if the 'soldiers' didn't, it wouldn't have mattered as the governing apparatus usually goes out of its way to protect their own militants. Ex A: Detainees executed, unarmed civilians killed in their sleep, a child, handcuffed and shot, all covered up by the chain of command – this is the testimony of more than 30 eyewitnesses, former members of UK Special Forces ... Panorama – Special Forces: I Saw War Crimes ... reported a series of cold-blooded murders by UK military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan over a period of ten years, followed by years of official cover-up. https://www.counterfire.org/article/cold-blooded-murder-and-years-of-cover-up-uk-veterans-speak-out/ https://www.counterfire.org/article/cold-blooded-murder-and-...
- austin-cheney 8mo ago
  Yes and no. It does matter because it illustrates both malicious intent and evidence of guilt, as in the guilty party knew they were perpetrating a criminal action. However, you are also correct, the IDF has little or no accountability for criminal behavior.
  - ignoramous 8mo ago
    > the guilty party knew they were perpetrating a criminal action ... the IDF has little or no accountability for criminal behavior. May be the brazenness is why they make the best Tech CXOs? "The Israeli tank commander who has fought in one of the Syrian wars is the best engineering executive in the world. The tank commanders are operationally the best, and are extremely detail oriented. This is based on twenty years of experience — working with them and observing them." Eric Schmidt (Start-up Nation / Saul Singer et al / pg. 41)
    - actionfromafar 8mo ago
      The tank commanders of another, bygone war also had the reputation for attention to detail. Funny how history rhymes.
  - YZF 8mo ago
    The IDF has some accountability for criminal behavior. If you search you will find plenty of examples were soldiers were held criminally responsible for their actions. It's true that the default (and maybe the correct default) is to shield soldiers from actions taken during the course of war. This is not unique to the IDF, it's true for all western armies. Try and find me if the US pilot that bombed a hospital in Kandahar, or the US security contractors that mowed down people in the Baghdad market, were ever held criminally responsible. And just to be clear, my position is that if there was a criminal act here the IDF should absolutely prosecute. To my understanding this is still not settled for this case, i.e. there has not been a decision to not prosecute. But we shouldn't kid ourselves that this is somehow different.
    - SiempreViernes 8mo ago
      Indeed, and a fig leaf does technically provide some amount of coverage. For an example of how big this accountability is, when 3 of the hostages escaped they were killed by the IDF and that's ok because there was no malice in the act of shooting bare chested unarmed civilians waving a white flag as they approach.
    - kakacik 8mo ago
      Was there ever a serious prosecution and serious punishments by IDF personnel? They always make PR circus how they investigate another war crime, but nothing ever happens from what I could find. You are correct about others but it doesn't change anything here - war crimes and atrocities are the worst of human behavior. Whataboutism shouldn't diminish outrage, and every such person should be extremely severely punished and ostracized by rest of humankind till end of their days, no exception, doesn't matter what passport they hold. Basic morality and all that.
  - bawolff 8mo ago
    > evidence of guilt, as in the guilty party knew they were perpetrating a criminal action. That might be a little strong. A cover up can happen for other reasons than covering up crimes (for example covering up bad PR that doesn't raise to the level of criminality). It does seem like a crime is what happened in this case, but i don't agree with applying that logic in general.
vibeprofessor 8mo ago
[flagged]
- breakyerself 8mo ago
  What's more suicidal? Wanting to reach a peaceful settlement with your neighbors or funding the radical segments of that society while preaching intolerance towards them? Because that's what the Israeli right has been doing for years.
  - vibeprofessor 8mo ago
    [flagged]
stefan_ 8mo ago
[flagged]
- basilgohar 8mo ago
  That's because it's not a war. It's a genocide. An occupied people have the right to resist their occupation. Occupiers do not have the right to prolong their occupation of said peoples. Israel is on the wrong side in all cases from its inception.
  - YZF 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - basilgohar 8mo ago
      You're right. It wasn't under occupation, it was worse. It was an open-air prison and concentration camp. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/06/14/gaza-israels-open-air-prison-15 https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/06/14/gaza-israels-open-air-pr... https://theintercept.com/2018/05/20/norman-finkelstein-gaza-iran-israel-jerusalem-embassy/ https://theintercept.com/2018/05/20/norman-finkelstein-gaza-... If you're hung-up about the word occupation, then use the word under seige. Gaza was under seige the entire time you claim it was under no occupation. Israel completely controlled what went in and went out, operated a naval blockade over Gaza, and performed military operations known as "mowing the lawn" (population reduction measures) as well as shooting peaceful protestors. They literally counted calories of nutrition going to keep them barely above a starvation diet. Nothing else you said in your reply is relevant. Israel has been occupying Gaza or worse the entire time. Typical Zionist deflection. Ironically, your framing is the failure and your Zionism is showing. Don't defend genocide. Just don't do it.
      - YZF 8mo ago
        [flagged]
        8mo ago
bawolff 8mo ago
I think the only defense here would be if the soldiers came up with some reasonable explanation of why they thought the vehicles were hostile. Its kind of hard to imagine, especially with shooting the follow up vehicles, but motive seems like the only unclear part where there is any potential for a defense. One part that is really confusing, is if they knowingly intentionally targeted the ambulance because they thought they could get away with it if they destroyed the evidence, why leave witnesses alive? If you assume the motive was an intentional massacare with point blank executions, it doesn't entirely make logical sense to leave witnesses.
- dataflow 8mo ago
  > One part that is really confusing, is if they knowingly intentionally targeted the ambulance because they thought they could get away with it if they destroyed the evidence, why leave witnesses alive? If you assume the motive was an intentional massacre with point blank executions, it doesn't entirely make logical sense to leave witnesses. Couldn't the ability to make this very argument be a reason why?
  - bawolff 8mo ago
    Without the witness we probably wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
    - ceejayoz 8mo ago
      We probably would. The most concrete evidence of this incident is clear video, not eyewitness testimony. It was obtained about a year ago from the dead when the grave was unearthed. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/04/world/middleeast/gaza-israel-aid-workers-deaths-video.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/04/world/middleeast/gaza-isr... > A video, discovered on the cellphone of a paramedic who was found along with 14 other aid workers in a mass grave in Gaza in late March, shows that the ambulances and fire truck that they were traveling in were clearly marked and had their emergency signal lights on when Israeli troops hit them with a barrage of gunfire.
- 8mo ago

ignoramous 8mo ago

> case seems pretty clear, especially since the soldiers tried Even if the 'soldiers' didn't, it wouldn't have mattered as the governing apparatus usually goes out of its way to protect their own militants. Ex A: Detainees executed, unarmed civilians killed in their sleep, a child, handcuffed and shot, all covered up by the chain of command – this is the testimony of more than 30 eyewitnesses, former members of UK Special Forces ... Panorama – Special Forces: I Saw War Crimes ... reported a series of cold-blooded murders by UK military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan over a period of ten years, followed by years of official cover-up. https://www.counterfire.org/article/cold-blooded-murder-and-years-of-cover-up-uk-veterans-speak-out/ https://www.counterfire.org/article/cold-blooded-murder-and-...

austin-cheney 8mo ago
Yes and no. It does matter because it illustrates both malicious intent and evidence of guilt, as in the guilty party knew they were perpetrating a criminal action. However, you are also correct, the IDF has little or no accountability for criminal behavior.
- ignoramous 8mo ago
  > the guilty party knew they were perpetrating a criminal action ... the IDF has little or no accountability for criminal behavior. May be the brazenness is why they make the best Tech CXOs? "The Israeli tank commander who has fought in one of the Syrian wars is the best engineering executive in the world. The tank commanders are operationally the best, and are extremely detail oriented. This is based on twenty years of experience — working with them and observing them." Eric Schmidt (Start-up Nation / Saul Singer et al / pg. 41)
  - actionfromafar 8mo ago
    The tank commanders of another, bygone war also had the reputation for attention to detail. Funny how history rhymes.
- YZF 8mo ago
  The IDF has some accountability for criminal behavior. If you search you will find plenty of examples were soldiers were held criminally responsible for their actions. It's true that the default (and maybe the correct default) is to shield soldiers from actions taken during the course of war. This is not unique to the IDF, it's true for all western armies. Try and find me if the US pilot that bombed a hospital in Kandahar, or the US security contractors that mowed down people in the Baghdad market, were ever held criminally responsible. And just to be clear, my position is that if there was a criminal act here the IDF should absolutely prosecute. To my understanding this is still not settled for this case, i.e. there has not been a decision to not prosecute. But we shouldn't kid ourselves that this is somehow different.
  - SiempreViernes 8mo ago
    Indeed, and a fig leaf does technically provide some amount of coverage. For an example of how big this accountability is, when 3 of the hostages escaped they were killed by the IDF and that's ok because there was no malice in the act of shooting bare chested unarmed civilians waving a white flag as they approach.
  - kakacik 8mo ago
    Was there ever a serious prosecution and serious punishments by IDF personnel? They always make PR circus how they investigate another war crime, but nothing ever happens from what I could find. You are correct about others but it doesn't change anything here - war crimes and atrocities are the worst of human behavior. Whataboutism shouldn't diminish outrage, and every such person should be extremely severely punished and ostracized by rest of humankind till end of their days, no exception, doesn't matter what passport they hold. Basic morality and all that.
- bawolff 8mo ago
  > evidence of guilt, as in the guilty party knew they were perpetrating a criminal action. That might be a little strong. A cover up can happen for other reasons than covering up crimes (for example covering up bad PR that doesn't raise to the level of criminality). It does seem like a crime is what happened in this case, but i don't agree with applying that logic in general.

vibeprofessor 8mo ago

[flagged]

breakyerself 8mo ago
What's more suicidal? Wanting to reach a peaceful settlement with your neighbors or funding the radical segments of that society while preaching intolerance towards them? Because that's what the Israeli right has been doing for years.
- vibeprofessor 8mo ago
  [flagged]

stefan_ 8mo ago

[flagged]

basilgohar 8mo ago
That's because it's not a war. It's a genocide. An occupied people have the right to resist their occupation. Occupiers do not have the right to prolong their occupation of said peoples. Israel is on the wrong side in all cases from its inception.
- YZF 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - basilgohar 8mo ago
    You're right. It wasn't under occupation, it was worse. It was an open-air prison and concentration camp. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/06/14/gaza-israels-open-air-prison-15 https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/06/14/gaza-israels-open-air-pr... https://theintercept.com/2018/05/20/norman-finkelstein-gaza-iran-israel-jerusalem-embassy/ https://theintercept.com/2018/05/20/norman-finkelstein-gaza-... If you're hung-up about the word occupation, then use the word under seige. Gaza was under seige the entire time you claim it was under no occupation. Israel completely controlled what went in and went out, operated a naval blockade over Gaza, and performed military operations known as "mowing the lawn" (population reduction measures) as well as shooting peaceful protestors. They literally counted calories of nutrition going to keep them barely above a starvation diet. Nothing else you said in your reply is relevant. Israel has been occupying Gaza or worse the entire time. Typical Zionist deflection. Ironically, your framing is the failure and your Zionism is showing. Don't defend genocide. Just don't do it.
    - YZF 8mo ago
      [flagged]
      - 8mo ago

bawolff 8mo ago

I think the only defense here would be if the soldiers came up with some reasonable explanation of why they thought the vehicles were hostile. Its kind of hard to imagine, especially with shooting the follow up vehicles, but motive seems like the only unclear part where there is any potential for a defense. One part that is really confusing, is if they knowingly intentionally targeted the ambulance because they thought they could get away with it if they destroyed the evidence, why leave witnesses alive? If you assume the motive was an intentional massacare with point blank executions, it doesn't entirely make logical sense to leave witnesses.

dataflow 8mo ago
> One part that is really confusing, is if they knowingly intentionally targeted the ambulance because they thought they could get away with it if they destroyed the evidence, why leave witnesses alive? If you assume the motive was an intentional massacre with point blank executions, it doesn't entirely make logical sense to leave witnesses. Couldn't the ability to make this very argument be a reason why?
- bawolff 8mo ago
  Without the witness we probably wouldn't be having this conversation at all.
  - ceejayoz 8mo ago
    We probably would. The most concrete evidence of this incident is clear video, not eyewitness testimony. It was obtained about a year ago from the dead when the grave was unearthed. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/04/world/middleeast/gaza-israel-aid-workers-deaths-video.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/04/world/middleeast/gaza-isr... > A video, discovered on the cellphone of a paramedic who was found along with 14 other aid workers in a mass grave in Gaza in late March, shows that the ambulances and fire truck that they were traveling in were clearly marked and had their emergency signal lights on when Israeli troops hit them with a barrage of gunfire.
8mo ago