Netanyahu says Hamas refused Israeli fuel offer for Gaza's Shifa hospital (www.reuters.com)

submitted 1 year ago by DarkGamer@kbin.social to c/world@lemmy.world

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that Israel had offered fuel to Gaza's Al Shifa hospital, which suspended operations after running out of fuel, but that the militants had refused to receive it.

all 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 36 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Netanyahu was asked if Israel has a plan to get fuel into Gaza to power hospitals. "We just offered Shifa hospital the fuel, they refused it," Netanyahu said.

"Hamas, (which) is hiding in the hospitals and placing itself there, doesn't want the fuel for the hospital ... they want to get fuel that they'll take from the hospitals to their tunnels, to their war machine."

Then why didn't they accept the fuel and just take it? People actually believe this genocidal drivel?

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Then why didn’t they accept the fuel and just take it? People actually believe this genocidal drivel?

We can't read Hamas leaders' minds, but I suppose that would have made it harder to blame Israel for killing babies.
This was only 300L, so it would have gone directly into generators with no surplus fuel to take.
Before this war started, IDF released a recording proving that Hamas takes fuel from Gaza hospitals.
Believing this account outright is just as foolish as dismissing it outright.

Edit: In response to denials by Hamas, IDF just released footage of the fuel being delivered.

[-] DreamerofDays@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Believing this account outright is just as foolish as dismissing it outright.

There’s a reason “the first casualty of war is the truth” is a cliche— it’s because it’s very hard to know exactly what’s going on when there’s so much chaos and impetus for people to push agendas.

I have some assumptions I’m confident about, but those are fairly broad, and based on the nature of what happens in any war. Specifics I’m trying hard to slow-roll my reactions to and full acceptance of— I’ve seen way too many news stories about active situations be proven in part or in whole false, and most of those aren’t in war zones.

[-] Therealgoodjanet@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

because we (have) no battle with patients or civilians at all," Netanyahu said.

That’s an interesting statement considering the fact that there have been at least 137 attacks on health care (hospitals, ambulances etc). Source

[-] ShroOmeric@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I mean, if you manage to believe this from the same people bombing refugee camps... and what an hospital is supposed to do with that ridicolous amount of fuel? Keep the lights on maybr an hour while they wait to get bombed anyway?! Fucking bullshit is what it is.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Nov 12 (Reuters) - Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Sunday that Israel had offered fuel to Gaza's Al Shifa hospital, which suspended operations after running out of fuel, but that the militants had refused to receive it.

Netanyahu was asked by NBC News whether Israeli allegations that Hamas had a command post under Gaza's main hospital justified jeopardizing the lives of sick people and babies.

Israel's military said it was ready to evacuate babies from Al Shifa on Sunday, but Palestinian officials said people inside were still trapped, with three newborns dead and dozens at risk from a power outage.

Netanyahu was asked if Israel has a plan to get fuel into Gaza to power hospitals.

"We just offered Shifa hospital the fuel, they refused it," Netanyahu said.

Hamas denies Israeli allegations it has command posts under Shifa and other Gaza hospitals.

The original article contains 228 words, the summary contains 143 words. Saved 37%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] DarkGamer@kbin.social -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Hamas also told people not to leave the evacuation zone, have been using civilians and humanitarian structures as human shields, and have been shooting at refugees trying to leave. It's clear they care more about making Israel look bad in the media than they do about the safety of their own people.

[-] betheydocrime@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago

Hamas also told people not to leave the evacuation zone,

then Israel admitted that they bombed a refugee camp in Jabalia, and then they apparently did it again in al-Maghazi, kinda validating what Hamas said

have been using civilians and humanitarian structures as human shields,

I recently typed out this comment in another thread about how we can't trust Israel's word about human shields because of their actions during the Great March of Return in 2017/2018 and how it's a double standard anyways.

and have been shooting at refugees trying to leave

this is the first I've heard this accusation, and a quick google search for "hamas shoots fleeing refugees" and "hamas shoots gazans" didn't turn up any results for me. Do you mind providing a source? FWIW, there is growing evidence that at least some of the October 7th death toll can be attributed to Israeli friendly fire due to a mix of desperation and combat confusion

[+] DarkGamer@kbin.social -9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

then Israel admitted that they bombed a refugee camp in Jabalia, and then they apparently did it again in al-Maghazi, kinda validating what Hamas said

Jabalia is in the evacuation zone.
The only info I can find about al-Maghazi are from Hamas sources, which are not reliable. IDF has not yet taken credit for this attack.
Israel has stated they will attack Hamas targets anywhere in Gaza, however bombings are significantly more intense in the evacuation zone and they have stated that IDF will consider anyone remaining there to be, "terrorist sympathizers," i.e., potential enemy combatants. It still makes sense to leave.

How exactly does this validate what Hamas said?

I recently typed out this comment in another thread about how we can’t trust Israel’s word about human shields because of their actions during the Great March of Return in 2017/2018 and how it’s a double standard anyways.

You trust Hamas's reports but not Israel's? That seems foolish. Check out this NATO report on Hamas' use of human shields. Plenty of news agencies are cited as having reported on evidence of this, including non-Israeli ones, (ANB TV, Al-Hayat newspaper, Der Spiegel newspaper, Palestine Info Center, Alwatan TV...)

Do you mind providing a source?

Article: Viral video appears to show Hamas firing on civilians fleeing Gaza hospital

[-] betheydocrime@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Thank you for that study from 2015. I don't doubt that Israel took it into consideration when they made the claims they did about the Great March of Return in 2017 and 2018. I want to draw your attention to two of the key points mentioned:

National governments should be able to publicly justify their position, and reveal their adversary’s use of civilians in combat. This can only be accomplished by thoroughly documenting incidents, preparing supportive messages, and working across multiple channels to convey those narratives.

Would you say that any of the recent claims Israel has made were "thoroughly documented"? Or was the world supposed to take Israel at its word?

Priority should be given to information activities aimed at the very civilians who are used as human shields, in order to undermine the adversary and convince civilians to actively or passively refuse to serve as human shields. Such activities need to be coherent, consistent and coordinated.

What coherent, consistent, and coordinated activities has Israel taken to undermine Hamas in the eyes of civilians? Has Israel taken any coherent, consistent, and coordinated activities to increase Hamas's authority?

Also, thank you for providing a source about those shots. I checked the source you posted, and the article says this:

Media intelligence agency Storyful confirmed that the video was recorded at the al-Nasr Pediatric Hospital based on Google Maps images, but was unable to say whether the terror group or Israeli forces was responsible.

Independent journalist Alexander Higgins reported on X that jihadists began shooting after Israeli forces agreed to allow civilians to evacuate the hospital.

The Israel Defense Forces have surrounded the facility — which it says doubles as a terrorist citadel — as it attempts to root out Hamas in response to its Oct. 7 attack on southern Israel that killed more than 1,400 people, including 33 Americans.

Clicking through to the twitter link shows a video where it's unclear who is firing shots, where they come from, or where they land. The only source saying that it was Hamas is Some Dude On Twitter whose bio reads "Freed by Elon". The video also shows zero civilian casualties on screen, and the general lack of terror in the crowd makes me assume that there were also no off-screen civilian casualties.

There is no evidence saying that Hamas fired these shots--and even if it was Hamas that did the shooting, they didn't hit any civilian targets. IDF snipers can not or will not show that same level of restraint.

[-] ShadowRam@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

shooting at refugees trying to leave. It's clear they care more about making Israel look bad in the media than they do about the safety of their own people.

Why don't I see video's of Palestinians complaining about Hamas?

Why don't I see video's of Palestinians fighting Hamas and dragging them out into the street?

If Hamas is really killing their own people, why do we never hear about splinter groups of Palestinians enacting revenge against Hamas?

[-] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 3 points 1 year ago

OP is an IDF sympathiser and will vigorously defend them, but my take is, and this is what i tell the pro-genocide crowd, Hamas is a militant group that run on ideology and will not hesitate to kill, you can't expect a normal folks to take up arm and fight them. Gazan is already struggling with day to day life, with Israel blockade and harsh control and incredibly prejudice against them, and Hamas being a shitty government, they're stuck between two devil.

[-] No1@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

It's wild to me how many people on here refuse to acknowledge this kind of thing.

[+] Kalkaline@leminal.space 15 points 1 year ago

[deleted]

[+] skeezix@lemmy.world -16 points 1 year ago

The US has been striking targets of opportunity for years all while racking up hundreds of civilian casualties. Where has your outrage been for them?

[-] treefrog@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago

You're making a lot of assumptions about someone else's feelings on US military operations based on one post where they're talking about something else.

Pepsi changed it's flavor and I'm outraged! Where's your outrage about Coke? Well shit, that also pissed me off.

See the assumption when I illustrate it? If not it's likely your comment was in bad faith to begin with

[-] skeezix@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago

The question wasn’t really about you. You I’m glad there is outrage and an outpouring of support for the innocent Palestinians almost to the point of civil unrest. But if we’re going to champion innocent lives then let’s be consistent. School shootings don’t evoke the same level of fervor that this tragedy has. Hamas stands behind innocent people to bolster their political stance. And too many of us are doing it too. Once this conflict winds down there will be a return to quiet resignation over tragic events that happen elsewhere every day.

[-] treefrog@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

That may be true.

But you made an assumption about if someone else is outraged about US actions without knowing them at all.

Or, that's my assumption. Maybe you stalk this person all over social media to know their feelings so well that you could make an informed judgement.

But, my assumption is that you don't and that your comment wasn't in good faith but rather an expression of your own frustrations about other acts of violence that are also happening.

Because the person you responded to may very well be as frustrated as you about all of the rest too.

Take care.

[-] loobkoob@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

People can be angry or upset about more than one thing at a time. And you've no idea whether the person you responded to has been outraged about the US' strikes or not. Just because a society as a whole has a viewpoint that trends a certain way doesn't mean you can assume each and every individual you talk to has that exact viewpoint.

By all means, criticise society as a whole - it's a very valid thing to be critical of. But making assumptions about individuals - and being rude to / critical of them based on those assumptions - isn't the way to win anyone over.

[-] rxbudian@lemmy.ca -5 points 1 year ago

It's easier to kill the terrorists in the hospitals when the hospitals are more flammable...

this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2023

23 points (62.9% liked)

World News

38969 readers

2196 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.