Incidents like the recent killing of 14 rescue workers in Gaza would be far less likely if Hamas did not routinely commit the war crime of misusing emergency vehicles as taxis.
"Hamas military operative, Mohammad Amin Ibrahim Shubaki"
The key questions are whether this Hamas operative and 5 other Hamas members were part of this Red Cross convoy and whether that organization routinely provides taxi service for Hamas.
Your title says it all. How is an honorable Israeli soldier supposed to know the good ambulance from the consistent terrorist driven taxicab…no war crime here.
Two organizations that I don't trust. The UN and UNICEF. The UN because it supports terrorism. UNICEF because it has refused to help Israel's wounded in wars. The Red Cross is just a joke, a completely rotten, politically corrupt organization when we talk about Jews. What I have personally heard. there is also pure antisemitism inside the red cross. An aid organization should be neutral, and completely outside of politics.
Personally, I don't think the truth will ever be revealed. And a question arises. Why wasn't the Israeli military leadership informed about the movement? Was Hamas's intention to send them to the region on purpose to get world media attention back from Trump's bumbling?
My view is based purely on the news and reports I have read. Anti-Semitism is still simmering in the West.
Andrew, thank you. Very competent and professional report. I agree that further investigation is needed, and I am sure it is underway.
In any case, the mainstream media is now giving out very contradictory information, on the one hand claiming that Israel admitted some mistakes, that is, referring to the IDF information, and on the other hand completely ignoring other information from the Israeli side, publishing pro-Hamas information.
That is, there is no mention anywhere of the IDF fighting with Hamas, there is no mention of the IDF reporting a burial, and the videos (screenshots) give a story of a shooting in close proximity, which Israel did not confirm.
That is, the reader gets a picture of the incident, that the IDF confirmed the shooting, knowing full well about the unarmed people.
If the battle took place at a distance, and the IDF soldiers received information from drones, then it is clear that the battle took place at a distance. But then all the stories shown and told by numerous media outlets are, at the very least, unverified information.
I also don't understand why, if the IDF reported the burial, and the unit left the area, it took about a week to search for the bodies. And during that time, it was possible to prepare a convenient version, shoot a video and carry out any falsification actions.
Let me remind you that we know from the "unverified" pro-Hamas video that the column of rescuers and medics (according to the pro-Hamas side) was marked with lights and signals.
Another small remark. Many have the impression that IDF bulldozers drive around Gaza like taxis in a European capital and can immediately bury anything and leave.
I have some doubts that an infantry unit in ambush has a bulldozer, and regular army D-9 bulldozers do not travel long distances without special transport vehicles. But the other side, especially after the unit left the area, had a few days to present everything for the media as they needed.
Sorry, but after years of falsifications, bias and outright lies, I do not trust the information from the UN, ICRC, UNRWA and many mainstream media.
I appreciate your call for further (independent) investigation, several of your assertions require clarification—particularly regarding media bias, forensic plausibility, and the IDF’s own admissions.
1. Media Coverage vs. idf Admissions
You argue that media outlets ignore idf accounts while amplifying "pro-Hamas" narratives. Yet the core contradiction here stems from the idf’s own shifting statements:
- Initially, the idf claimed the ambulances had no lights or markings—a claim retracted after video evidence proved otherwise.
- The idf later admitted the vehicles were clearly marked but argued soldiers acted on "suspicious movement" observed via drone.
This isn’t media bias; it’s the idf correcting its own false claims. The burden of transparency lies with the attacking force, especially when medical personnel are killed.
2. The "Distance" of the Engagement
You note the idf claims the firefight occurred at a distance, while footage suggests closer-range shooting. Both can be true:
- Drone operators may have misidentified the convoy from a distance, but the soldiers’ subsequent actions (burying bodies, failing to report lights) suggest proximity issues.
- The New York Times video (from a victim’s phone) shows medics fleeing at close range—consistent with idf troops being near enough to see markings.
The idf’s claim that "six of the dead were Hamas operatives" remains unsubstantiated. Without evidence, it’s indistinguishable from post-hoc justification.
3. The Burying of Bodies and Vehicles
Your skepticism about bulldozers is misplaced:
- The idf has routinely used D9 bulldozers in Gaza for demolitions, burials, and clearing routes. Infantry units do not need to own them—they’re deployed as needed.
- The idf admitted to burying the bodies, citing "preventing animal scavenging." Yet this contradicts standard procedure:
- Why not secure the scene for investigators?
- Why did the UN need days to locate the gravesite despite idf coordinates?
This suggests either gross incompetence or deliberate obfuscation.
4. The "Falsification" Argument
You imply the Red Crescent or UN could have staged the scene. This ignores:
- The burden of proof lies with the idf, which conducted the strike.
- The video evidence aligns with the idf’s admitted errors (lights on, marked vehicles).
- The UN and ICRC are not monolithic entities; their Gaza staff include Palestinian and international personnel with documented histories of neutrality.
Dismissing all critical reporting as "pro-Hamas" is a rhetorical escape hatch, not analysis.
5. Trust in Institutions
You distrust the UN/ICRC due to past controversies—yet the idf’s own Fact Finding Mechanism has cited these groups’ data in prior investigations (e.g., the WCK strike). Selective skepticism undermines accountability.
Conclusion
This incident hinges on three unresolved issues:
- Why did the idf falsely claim the ambulances were unmarked?
- Why were bodies buried before forensic review?
- Where is the evidence that slain medics were "Hamas operatives"?
Until these are answered, dismissing conflicting accounts as "biased" is premature. The idf’s mechanism for investigation is credible—but only if it confronts these inconsistencies directly.
It seems to me that you do not quite understand what is happening in war.
"The burden of proof is on the attacking side"? This is nonsense.
Unless you have invented a new legal system, the burden of proof is on the accuser.
The IDF does not provide evidence or justify itself. It only makes statements.
When (and if) someone files an accusation in any legal system, only then will Israel have anything to prove and explain.
And the biased New York Times is neither an accuser nor a legal system, although it takes on the responsibility of accusing, having in its hands (as always) very dubious facts.
Let me remind you that Israel is not the "attacking side" either. Israel did not start this war, but Hamas, which the residents of Gaza gave all the powers, and therefore approved of its actions and contributed to, is the attacking side. And to look for crimes in every war for every combat incident if Israel is involved, this is called bias.
Regarding international, public and other "organizations", then already in 2014 the main means of transportation of Hamas militants were ambulances, and now all the structures you listed UNRWA, the UN, the ICRC in Gaza are part of the Hamas combat units and it is difficult to name even one structure whose members in Gaza would not be members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations.
Ambulances were seen transporting militants (and maybe hostages) on 10/7/23, and all structures that participate in military actions or crimes are deprived of immunity or special status.
Main conclusion:
1. Legal grounds for accusing Israel of something and demanding an explanation must be carried out legally, and not by relying on press and media reports. 2. The moral claims against Israel that you can make, explaining this by the desire to observe the laws during the war, seem like obvious bias, if you have not made claims for a year and a half (and seventeen previous years) against all the crimes on the part of Hamas. After all, you clearly make it clear that you support the version of Hamas + the New York Times and do not believe the version expressed by the pro-Israeli side (let me remind you that Israel has not yet voiced an official version of what happened), although mistaken identity is a completely normal version. Why you prefer the version of deliberate, brutal shooting of innocent people, I can only guess.
Oh, my apologies—I forgot that in war, laws and basic accountability just vanish like Hamas in a tunnel! Silly me for expecting the side dropping 2,000-pound bombs to explain why it shot clearly marked ambulances. But since you’re clearly a legal scholar, let’s break this down:
1. "The Burden of Proof Isn’t on the idf!"
- Wrong. International humanitarian law (you know, the Geneva Conventions?) explicitly places the burden of distinction on attackers. If you bomb a hospital or shoot medics, you must prove it was a valid target.
- The idf already admitted it falsely claimed the ambulances were "unmarked." So much for "not justifying itself."
- Legal proceedings aren’t required for moral or factual scrutiny. By your logic, Russia can shell Ukrainian schools all day until The Hague files paperwork.
2. "Israel Didn’t Start This War!"
- Irrelevant. Even justified wars have rules. The U.S. didn’t get to massacre Japanese medics after Pearl Harbor.
- Hamas’s atrocities on Oct. 7 don’t magically turn every Palestinian ambulance into a "legitimate target."
3. "All Gaza Aid Groups Are Hamas!"
- Proof? Or just vibes? The idf coordinates with these groups daily for aid deliveries. Are they also Hamas when convenient?
- Ambulances on Oct. 7? Show me one verified case where the Red Crescent (let alone the ICRC) transported militants. Otherwise, this is just racist hand-waving to justify killing medics.
4. "The NYT Is Biased!"
- The NYT published idf-contradicting footage from a victim’s phone. If Israel has exonerating drone footage, release it.
- Meanwhile, the idf’s own spokesman walked back their initial lie about the ambulances. Who’s "biased" again?
5. "Why Assume Israel Did It on Purpose?"
- Because burying the bodies and falsely claiming the ambulances were unmarked aren’t "mistakes"—they’re cover-up tactics.
- If this was a "normal mistaken identity," why not immediately report the error instead of hiding evidence?
Your "Main Conclusion" Is a Joke
- "Legal grounds must be carried out legally": Brilliant insight. Meanwhile, the idf is blocking ICC investigators from Gaza. Convenient!
- "You didn’t criticize Hamas for 17 years!": Ah, the classic "but what about?" I condemn Hamas every time. But right now, we’re talking about the idf killing medics—something you seem weirdly eager to excuse.
Final Reality Check
- If you’re this invested in defending every idf action, maybe ask why they keep admitting to false claims (WCK, Shireen Abu Akleh, this incident).
- Using AI to generate weak deflections? Not a good look. Try reading the laws of war instead.
I agree that it was most likely a mistake rather than cold-blooded murder of aid workers, but the cover-up is troubling. They tried to present the story in an untruthful way before they realized the existence of the video, and that won’t help with public trust. Though some will use this as an opportunity and they’re probably happy for the entire series of events.
There are logical and ethical flaws in the arguments:
1. Contradictions in idf's narrative
Initially idf claimed that the ambulances had no lights or emergency signals, but the videos and their own later admission contradict this. This is likely false or misleading reporting - whether intentional or due to negligence. If the soldiers misreported this key detail, what else did they misrepresent?
Why did the idf bury the vehicles and bodies?
The claim that this was done to "prevent wild animals from desecrating the dead" is dubious. If the idf knew these were aid workers (as they later admitted), why didn't they immediately hand them over to the Red Crescent or the UN?
Burying evidence (vehicles and bodies) before a proper investigation is conducted suggests obstruction rather than standard procedure.
2. The "mistaken identity" defence is weak
Soldiers claim they believed they were facing combatants, but:
The cars were clearly marked (as seen in the video).
The idf had previously coordinated aid convoys along the same route, meaning they knew medical teams were operating there.
If the drone operators reported "suspicious movement", why didn't they confirm if the vehicles were ambulances before opening fire?
Under international law, the burden of verification is on the attacking force. "Shoot first, ask later" is not a valid defense. Extremely weak argument for covering up a war crime.
3. The rules of engagement (ROE) argument is misleading
Comparing the IDF to the British Army's standards ignores key differences:
British rules of conduct in Afghanistan require positive identification of hostile intent before firing.
In this case, the idf fired at marked ambulances that were stationary and then withdrew - hardly a "hostile act".
Even if the security guard was armed (as suggested but not at all clear what he was carrying), that does not justify idf's initial strike on clearly marked medical personnel. There was no open fire against idf by anyone.
4. The "cover-up" is glossed over
The idf buried the bodies and vehicles before notifying the UN.
The UN was initially unable to locate the bodies, suggesting poor or deliberately misleading coordination.
The false initial report (about the lack of lights) indicates either a breakdown in discipline or a deliberate lie aimed at covering up the crime.
This goes beyond a "mistake" - it suggests systemic problems in accountability and the chain of command.
5. Shifting blame to Hamas is problematic
The entire presentation concludes with the suggestion that Hamas's misuse of ambulances justifies such incidents. This is an unacceptable logical fallacy:
Even if Hamas did use ambulances for military purposes (for which evidence is needed), this does not absolve the idf of the obligation to distinguish between combatants and medics.
The principle of proportionality means that Israel cannot use possible unproven Hamas violations as carte blanche to attack clearly designated medical personnel.
Flaws in the reasoning
Selective skepticism: The changing narrative of the idf is given the benefit of the doubt, while the Red Crescent narrative is treated as unverified.
The comparison with the British military is misplaced, failing to acknowledge that the actions of the idf (shooting at marked ambulances) was likely in violation of the principle of distinction.
Minimising cover-up: Burying corpses and misreporting facts is downplayed as a 'mistake' rather than an attempt to cover-up a potential war crime.
Distraction towards Hamas: The final diversion of readers' attention towards Hamas' actions is an attempt to downplay idf's obligations under international law.
An independent investigation should examine both whether there was any Hamas involvement at all, for which there is no apparent evidence, and idf's conduct (which appears to have been in an attempt to cover up the crime), rather than excusing one for the other. At the moment the evidence points to either a complete disregard for civilian life (consistently displayed by the idf) or a deliberate attack on medical personnel, both of which are serious offences.
What a load of propaganda and biased opinion presented as fact. The biggest tipoff of your slanted assessment is that you obviously know how to capitalize but fail to do so consistently when it comes to IDF. Bugger off.
"Propaganda"? No—it’s called holding perpetrators accountable. And since you’re so fixated on capitalization: for war criminals, the honor of proper grammar is too generous.
The facts don’t care about your nitpicking:
- The idf lied—first claiming the ambulances were "unmarked," then backtracking when video proof exposed them.
- They buried the bodies like they had something to hide (because they did).
- They shot clearly marked medics—a war crime, whether you capitalize their name or not.
If you’re this outraged over typos but silent over dead humanitarian workers, you’ve told us everything we need to know about your priorities.
That the investigation has not been completed, yet you eagerly claim “facts” and convict Israel anyway, confirms you are a “victim” of Israel Demonization Syndrome. Meanwhile, jihadists—masquerading as freedom fighters and whose primary targets are Israeli civilians—are emboldened and enabled by haters and cowards to slaughter, torture, rape, lie, steal, and oppress as an ongoing methodology and strategy to oust the Jews from the 3,000-YO+ Jewish homeland. Muslim intolerance of Jewish (formerly Dhimmi under Islamic rule) sovereignty anywhere in the ME is the sole cause of this conflict. Personally, I care about people who are honest and want to live and let live. I feel badly for the children who have grown up on hate and indoctrination to kill Jews. I do not feel sorry for those whose invented national identity is to slaughter and destroy my family.
You accuse me of "convicting Israel" before an investigation—but the idf already admitted to key failures:
- False initial claim: They said ambulances had "no lights" (debunked by video evidence).
- Burial of bodies & vehicles: This is obstruction, not standard procedure.
- Shooting marked medics: Violates the Geneva Conventions, full stop.
If you reject these admitted facts, you’re not asking for an investigation—you’re denying reality.
2. The ICC and Independent Investigations
- The ICC is investigating Israel for war crimes (alongside Hamas).
- israel refuses to cooperate, while Hamas has no statehood to shield it.
- UN investigations (e.g., UNRWA staff killings) are routinely dismissed by Israel as "biased"—yet they’ve been proven right repeatedly (e.g., Shireen Abu Akleh’s murder).
Where’s Israel’s transparency? Why no independent access to Gaza?
3. The "Jihadist Boogeyman" Distraction
You frame this as "Muslim intolerance" vs. "Jewish sovereignty." Conveniently omitted:
- 50+ years of occupation: Blockades, settlements, and military rule radicalize any population.
- Netanyahu’s Hamas funding: Israel propped up Hamas to undermine Palestinian unity (+972 Magazine).
- 10,000+ dead children in Gaza (UN figures): If Hamas hides behind civilians, why bomb them instead of Hamas leaders in Qatar?
This isn’t "self-defense"—it’s collective punishment, a war crime.
4. Your False Moral Equivalence
You paint Palestinians as "indoctrinated to kill Jews," but:
- Hamas ≠ all Palestinians: 50% of Gaza is children. Polls show most want peace, not genocide. At the same time, 90% of public opinion in israel supports the continuation of this carnage, with the exception of the relatives of the hostages - You apparently have no moral dilemma
- israeli extremism: ben-gvir (a convicted terrorist supporter) is in government. Settlers burn Palestinian villages with idf escorts (B’Tselem).
Where’s your outrage for Jewish terrorists?
5. Stop Hiding Behind Myths
You claim "honesty" but ignore:
- idf’s own admissions
- ICC investigations
- israel’s systemic denial of accountability
This isn’t "demonization"—it’s documentation. If you truly care about "living and let live," stop justifying the slaughter of civilians with whataboutism.
You're so confused, I wonder if I should feel sorry for you. With these cognitive deficits and Zionist indoctrination, I'm not sure you can even boil an egg the way humans do. You're not a moderate - you're just another Zionist out for Palestinian blood. Tell me how many more gallons of spilled blood do you need to be satisfied?
You should have said right away that you are a supporter of the theory of "occupation, genocide and oppression", and not waste time on discussions about the legality of the IDF's military actions.
You are simply justifying the actions of Hamas and condemning the actions of Israel. This is also a position and it is necessary to speak about it openly, without hiding behind discussions about who led and how at a certain moment of the war.
Be honest with yourself and save your opponents time.
Occupation: Israel has militarily controlled Gaza’s borders, airspace, and resources since 1967. Even after "disengagement," it maintains a blockade. That’s the definition of occupation.
Genocide: The ICJ is currently investigating this. When a state cuts off food, water, and medicine to 2.2 million people while its officials call Gazans "human animals," it’s not a "theory"—it’s a legal question.
Oppression: 75 years of occupation, settlements, and military rule might qualify. Just a hunch.
You’re the one dodging honesty.
- Instead of addressing why the idf lied about ambulances having no lights, you cry "bias!"
- Instead of explaining why Israel buries bodies before investigations, you scream "Hamas!"
This isn’t "supporting terrorists"—it’s demanding accountability for clear violations.
Save your time.
- If you think laws of war don’t apply to Israel, just say so. Admit you believe in ethnic exceptionalism.
- But don’t whine when the world (including the ICC) treats Israel like any other state accused of war crimes.
Final offer:
- Defend the idf’s actual actions (shooting marked ambulances, burying evidence) with facts, not whataboutism.
- Or admit you just want a free pass for atrocities as long as they’re done by "your side."
"Hamas military operative, Mohammad Amin Ibrahim Shubaki"
The key questions are whether this Hamas operative and 5 other Hamas members were part of this Red Cross convoy and whether that organization routinely provides taxi service for Hamas.
A good question. Most likely we won't get any answers.
Your title says it all. How is an honorable Israeli soldier supposed to know the good ambulance from the consistent terrorist driven taxicab…no war crime here.
Two organizations that I don't trust. The UN and UNICEF. The UN because it supports terrorism. UNICEF because it has refused to help Israel's wounded in wars. The Red Cross is just a joke, a completely rotten, politically corrupt organization when we talk about Jews. What I have personally heard. there is also pure antisemitism inside the red cross. An aid organization should be neutral, and completely outside of politics.
Personally, I don't think the truth will ever be revealed. And a question arises. Why wasn't the Israeli military leadership informed about the movement? Was Hamas's intention to send them to the region on purpose to get world media attention back from Trump's bumbling?
My view is based purely on the news and reports I have read. Anti-Semitism is still simmering in the West.
The “Red Cross” is a cancer.
Andrew, thank you. Very competent and professional report. I agree that further investigation is needed, and I am sure it is underway.
In any case, the mainstream media is now giving out very contradictory information, on the one hand claiming that Israel admitted some mistakes, that is, referring to the IDF information, and on the other hand completely ignoring other information from the Israeli side, publishing pro-Hamas information.
That is, there is no mention anywhere of the IDF fighting with Hamas, there is no mention of the IDF reporting a burial, and the videos (screenshots) give a story of a shooting in close proximity, which Israel did not confirm.
That is, the reader gets a picture of the incident, that the IDF confirmed the shooting, knowing full well about the unarmed people.
If the battle took place at a distance, and the IDF soldiers received information from drones, then it is clear that the battle took place at a distance. But then all the stories shown and told by numerous media outlets are, at the very least, unverified information.
I also don't understand why, if the IDF reported the burial, and the unit left the area, it took about a week to search for the bodies. And during that time, it was possible to prepare a convenient version, shoot a video and carry out any falsification actions.
Let me remind you that we know from the "unverified" pro-Hamas video that the column of rescuers and medics (according to the pro-Hamas side) was marked with lights and signals.
Another small remark. Many have the impression that IDF bulldozers drive around Gaza like taxis in a European capital and can immediately bury anything and leave.
I have some doubts that an infantry unit in ambush has a bulldozer, and regular army D-9 bulldozers do not travel long distances without special transport vehicles. But the other side, especially after the unit left the area, had a few days to present everything for the media as they needed.
Sorry, but after years of falsifications, bias and outright lies, I do not trust the information from the UN, ICRC, UNRWA and many mainstream media.
I appreciate your call for further (independent) investigation, several of your assertions require clarification—particularly regarding media bias, forensic plausibility, and the IDF’s own admissions.
1. Media Coverage vs. idf Admissions
You argue that media outlets ignore idf accounts while amplifying "pro-Hamas" narratives. Yet the core contradiction here stems from the idf’s own shifting statements:
- Initially, the idf claimed the ambulances had no lights or markings—a claim retracted after video evidence proved otherwise.
- The idf later admitted the vehicles were clearly marked but argued soldiers acted on "suspicious movement" observed via drone.
This isn’t media bias; it’s the idf correcting its own false claims. The burden of transparency lies with the attacking force, especially when medical personnel are killed.
2. The "Distance" of the Engagement
You note the idf claims the firefight occurred at a distance, while footage suggests closer-range shooting. Both can be true:
- Drone operators may have misidentified the convoy from a distance, but the soldiers’ subsequent actions (burying bodies, failing to report lights) suggest proximity issues.
- The New York Times video (from a victim’s phone) shows medics fleeing at close range—consistent with idf troops being near enough to see markings.
The idf’s claim that "six of the dead were Hamas operatives" remains unsubstantiated. Without evidence, it’s indistinguishable from post-hoc justification.
3. The Burying of Bodies and Vehicles
Your skepticism about bulldozers is misplaced:
- The idf has routinely used D9 bulldozers in Gaza for demolitions, burials, and clearing routes. Infantry units do not need to own them—they’re deployed as needed.
- The idf admitted to burying the bodies, citing "preventing animal scavenging." Yet this contradicts standard procedure:
- Why not secure the scene for investigators?
- Why did the UN need days to locate the gravesite despite idf coordinates?
This suggests either gross incompetence or deliberate obfuscation.
4. The "Falsification" Argument
You imply the Red Crescent or UN could have staged the scene. This ignores:
- The burden of proof lies with the idf, which conducted the strike.
- The video evidence aligns with the idf’s admitted errors (lights on, marked vehicles).
- The UN and ICRC are not monolithic entities; their Gaza staff include Palestinian and international personnel with documented histories of neutrality.
Dismissing all critical reporting as "pro-Hamas" is a rhetorical escape hatch, not analysis.
5. Trust in Institutions
You distrust the UN/ICRC due to past controversies—yet the idf’s own Fact Finding Mechanism has cited these groups’ data in prior investigations (e.g., the WCK strike). Selective skepticism undermines accountability.
Conclusion
This incident hinges on three unresolved issues:
- Why did the idf falsely claim the ambulances were unmarked?
- Why were bodies buried before forensic review?
- Where is the evidence that slain medics were "Hamas operatives"?
Until these are answered, dismissing conflicting accounts as "biased" is premature. The idf’s mechanism for investigation is credible—but only if it confronts these inconsistencies directly.
It seems to me that you do not quite understand what is happening in war.
"The burden of proof is on the attacking side"? This is nonsense.
Unless you have invented a new legal system, the burden of proof is on the accuser.
The IDF does not provide evidence or justify itself. It only makes statements.
When (and if) someone files an accusation in any legal system, only then will Israel have anything to prove and explain.
And the biased New York Times is neither an accuser nor a legal system, although it takes on the responsibility of accusing, having in its hands (as always) very dubious facts.
Let me remind you that Israel is not the "attacking side" either. Israel did not start this war, but Hamas, which the residents of Gaza gave all the powers, and therefore approved of its actions and contributed to, is the attacking side. And to look for crimes in every war for every combat incident if Israel is involved, this is called bias.
Regarding international, public and other "organizations", then already in 2014 the main means of transportation of Hamas militants were ambulances, and now all the structures you listed UNRWA, the UN, the ICRC in Gaza are part of the Hamas combat units and it is difficult to name even one structure whose members in Gaza would not be members of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations.
Ambulances were seen transporting militants (and maybe hostages) on 10/7/23, and all structures that participate in military actions or crimes are deprived of immunity or special status.
Main conclusion:
1. Legal grounds for accusing Israel of something and demanding an explanation must be carried out legally, and not by relying on press and media reports. 2. The moral claims against Israel that you can make, explaining this by the desire to observe the laws during the war, seem like obvious bias, if you have not made claims for a year and a half (and seventeen previous years) against all the crimes on the part of Hamas. After all, you clearly make it clear that you support the version of Hamas + the New York Times and do not believe the version expressed by the pro-Israeli side (let me remind you that Israel has not yet voiced an official version of what happened), although mistaken identity is a completely normal version. Why you prefer the version of deliberate, brutal shooting of innocent people, I can only guess.
Oh, my apologies—I forgot that in war, laws and basic accountability just vanish like Hamas in a tunnel! Silly me for expecting the side dropping 2,000-pound bombs to explain why it shot clearly marked ambulances. But since you’re clearly a legal scholar, let’s break this down:
1. "The Burden of Proof Isn’t on the idf!"
- Wrong. International humanitarian law (you know, the Geneva Conventions?) explicitly places the burden of distinction on attackers. If you bomb a hospital or shoot medics, you must prove it was a valid target.
- The idf already admitted it falsely claimed the ambulances were "unmarked." So much for "not justifying itself."
- Legal proceedings aren’t required for moral or factual scrutiny. By your logic, Russia can shell Ukrainian schools all day until The Hague files paperwork.
2. "Israel Didn’t Start This War!"
- Irrelevant. Even justified wars have rules. The U.S. didn’t get to massacre Japanese medics after Pearl Harbor.
- Hamas’s atrocities on Oct. 7 don’t magically turn every Palestinian ambulance into a "legitimate target."
3. "All Gaza Aid Groups Are Hamas!"
- Proof? Or just vibes? The idf coordinates with these groups daily for aid deliveries. Are they also Hamas when convenient?
- Ambulances on Oct. 7? Show me one verified case where the Red Crescent (let alone the ICRC) transported militants. Otherwise, this is just racist hand-waving to justify killing medics.
4. "The NYT Is Biased!"
- The NYT published idf-contradicting footage from a victim’s phone. If Israel has exonerating drone footage, release it.
- Meanwhile, the idf’s own spokesman walked back their initial lie about the ambulances. Who’s "biased" again?
5. "Why Assume Israel Did It on Purpose?"
- Because burying the bodies and falsely claiming the ambulances were unmarked aren’t "mistakes"—they’re cover-up tactics.
- If this was a "normal mistaken identity," why not immediately report the error instead of hiding evidence?
Your "Main Conclusion" Is a Joke
- "Legal grounds must be carried out legally": Brilliant insight. Meanwhile, the idf is blocking ICC investigators from Gaza. Convenient!
- "You didn’t criticize Hamas for 17 years!": Ah, the classic "but what about?" I condemn Hamas every time. But right now, we’re talking about the idf killing medics—something you seem weirdly eager to excuse.
Final Reality Check
- If you’re this invested in defending every idf action, maybe ask why they keep admitting to false claims (WCK, Shireen Abu Akleh, this incident).
- Using AI to generate weak deflections? Not a good look. Try reading the laws of war instead.
Is it so difficult for Red Cross to warn the soldiers that they were coming to pick up the dead?
I agree that it was most likely a mistake rather than cold-blooded murder of aid workers, but the cover-up is troubling. They tried to present the story in an untruthful way before they realized the existence of the video, and that won’t help with public trust. Though some will use this as an opportunity and they’re probably happy for the entire series of events.
There are logical and ethical flaws in the arguments:
1. Contradictions in idf's narrative
Initially idf claimed that the ambulances had no lights or emergency signals, but the videos and their own later admission contradict this. This is likely false or misleading reporting - whether intentional or due to negligence. If the soldiers misreported this key detail, what else did they misrepresent?
Why did the idf bury the vehicles and bodies?
The claim that this was done to "prevent wild animals from desecrating the dead" is dubious. If the idf knew these were aid workers (as they later admitted), why didn't they immediately hand them over to the Red Crescent or the UN?
Burying evidence (vehicles and bodies) before a proper investigation is conducted suggests obstruction rather than standard procedure.
2. The "mistaken identity" defence is weak
Soldiers claim they believed they were facing combatants, but:
The cars were clearly marked (as seen in the video).
The idf had previously coordinated aid convoys along the same route, meaning they knew medical teams were operating there.
If the drone operators reported "suspicious movement", why didn't they confirm if the vehicles were ambulances before opening fire?
Under international law, the burden of verification is on the attacking force. "Shoot first, ask later" is not a valid defense. Extremely weak argument for covering up a war crime.
3. The rules of engagement (ROE) argument is misleading
Comparing the IDF to the British Army's standards ignores key differences:
British rules of conduct in Afghanistan require positive identification of hostile intent before firing.
In this case, the idf fired at marked ambulances that were stationary and then withdrew - hardly a "hostile act".
Even if the security guard was armed (as suggested but not at all clear what he was carrying), that does not justify idf's initial strike on clearly marked medical personnel. There was no open fire against idf by anyone.
4. The "cover-up" is glossed over
The idf buried the bodies and vehicles before notifying the UN.
The UN was initially unable to locate the bodies, suggesting poor or deliberately misleading coordination.
The false initial report (about the lack of lights) indicates either a breakdown in discipline or a deliberate lie aimed at covering up the crime.
This goes beyond a "mistake" - it suggests systemic problems in accountability and the chain of command.
5. Shifting blame to Hamas is problematic
The entire presentation concludes with the suggestion that Hamas's misuse of ambulances justifies such incidents. This is an unacceptable logical fallacy:
Even if Hamas did use ambulances for military purposes (for which evidence is needed), this does not absolve the idf of the obligation to distinguish between combatants and medics.
The principle of proportionality means that Israel cannot use possible unproven Hamas violations as carte blanche to attack clearly designated medical personnel.
Flaws in the reasoning
Selective skepticism: The changing narrative of the idf is given the benefit of the doubt, while the Red Crescent narrative is treated as unverified.
The comparison with the British military is misplaced, failing to acknowledge that the actions of the idf (shooting at marked ambulances) was likely in violation of the principle of distinction.
Minimising cover-up: Burying corpses and misreporting facts is downplayed as a 'mistake' rather than an attempt to cover-up a potential war crime.
Distraction towards Hamas: The final diversion of readers' attention towards Hamas' actions is an attempt to downplay idf's obligations under international law.
An independent investigation should examine both whether there was any Hamas involvement at all, for which there is no apparent evidence, and idf's conduct (which appears to have been in an attempt to cover up the crime), rather than excusing one for the other. At the moment the evidence points to either a complete disregard for civilian life (consistently displayed by the idf) or a deliberate attack on medical personnel, both of which are serious offences.
What a load of propaganda and biased opinion presented as fact. The biggest tipoff of your slanted assessment is that you obviously know how to capitalize but fail to do so consistently when it comes to IDF. Bugger off.
"Propaganda"? No—it’s called holding perpetrators accountable. And since you’re so fixated on capitalization: for war criminals, the honor of proper grammar is too generous.
The facts don’t care about your nitpicking:
- The idf lied—first claiming the ambulances were "unmarked," then backtracking when video proof exposed them.
- They buried the bodies like they had something to hide (because they did).
- They shot clearly marked medics—a war crime, whether you capitalize their name or not.
If you’re this outraged over typos but silent over dead humanitarian workers, you’ve told us everything we need to know about your priorities.
That the investigation has not been completed, yet you eagerly claim “facts” and convict Israel anyway, confirms you are a “victim” of Israel Demonization Syndrome. Meanwhile, jihadists—masquerading as freedom fighters and whose primary targets are Israeli civilians—are emboldened and enabled by haters and cowards to slaughter, torture, rape, lie, steal, and oppress as an ongoing methodology and strategy to oust the Jews from the 3,000-YO+ Jewish homeland. Muslim intolerance of Jewish (formerly Dhimmi under Islamic rule) sovereignty anywhere in the ME is the sole cause of this conflict. Personally, I care about people who are honest and want to live and let live. I feel badly for the children who have grown up on hate and indoctrination to kill Jews. I do not feel sorry for those whose invented national identity is to slaughter and destroy my family.
You accuse me of "convicting Israel" before an investigation—but the idf already admitted to key failures:
- False initial claim: They said ambulances had "no lights" (debunked by video evidence).
- Burial of bodies & vehicles: This is obstruction, not standard procedure.
- Shooting marked medics: Violates the Geneva Conventions, full stop.
If you reject these admitted facts, you’re not asking for an investigation—you’re denying reality.
2. The ICC and Independent Investigations
- The ICC is investigating Israel for war crimes (alongside Hamas).
- israel refuses to cooperate, while Hamas has no statehood to shield it.
- UN investigations (e.g., UNRWA staff killings) are routinely dismissed by Israel as "biased"—yet they’ve been proven right repeatedly (e.g., Shireen Abu Akleh’s murder).
Where’s Israel’s transparency? Why no independent access to Gaza?
3. The "Jihadist Boogeyman" Distraction
You frame this as "Muslim intolerance" vs. "Jewish sovereignty." Conveniently omitted:
- 50+ years of occupation: Blockades, settlements, and military rule radicalize any population.
- Netanyahu’s Hamas funding: Israel propped up Hamas to undermine Palestinian unity (+972 Magazine).
- 10,000+ dead children in Gaza (UN figures): If Hamas hides behind civilians, why bomb them instead of Hamas leaders in Qatar?
This isn’t "self-defense"—it’s collective punishment, a war crime.
4. Your False Moral Equivalence
You paint Palestinians as "indoctrinated to kill Jews," but:
- Hamas ≠ all Palestinians: 50% of Gaza is children. Polls show most want peace, not genocide. At the same time, 90% of public opinion in israel supports the continuation of this carnage, with the exception of the relatives of the hostages - You apparently have no moral dilemma
- israeli extremism: ben-gvir (a convicted terrorist supporter) is in government. Settlers burn Palestinian villages with idf escorts (B’Tselem).
Where’s your outrage for Jewish terrorists?
5. Stop Hiding Behind Myths
You claim "honesty" but ignore:
- idf’s own admissions
- ICC investigations
- israel’s systemic denial of accountability
This isn’t "demonization"—it’s documentation. If you truly care about "living and let live," stop justifying the slaughter of civilians with whataboutism.
You're so confused, I wonder if I should feel sorry for you. With these cognitive deficits and Zionist indoctrination, I'm not sure you can even boil an egg the way humans do. You're not a moderate - you're just another Zionist out for Palestinian blood. Tell me how many more gallons of spilled blood do you need to be satisfied?
You should have said right away that you are a supporter of the theory of "occupation, genocide and oppression", and not waste time on discussions about the legality of the IDF's military actions.
You are simply justifying the actions of Hamas and condemning the actions of Israel. This is also a position and it is necessary to speak about it openly, without hiding behind discussions about who led and how at a certain moment of the war.
Be honest with yourself and save your opponents time.
Ah, the classic "you’re just pro-Hamas" card—the last refuge of someone who can’t defend the indefensible. Let’s be very clear:
Condemning the idf’s documented strikes on ambulances ≠ supporting Hamas.
- The world condemned the U.S. for the My Lai Massacre without endorsing the Viet Cong.
- You can demand Israel follow the laws of war while still wanting Hamas destroyed. Try nuance.
"Occupation, genocide, oppression" aren’t "theories."
Occupation: Israel has militarily controlled Gaza’s borders, airspace, and resources since 1967. Even after "disengagement," it maintains a blockade. That’s the definition of occupation.
Genocide: The ICJ is currently investigating this. When a state cuts off food, water, and medicine to 2.2 million people while its officials call Gazans "human animals," it’s not a "theory"—it’s a legal question.
Oppression: 75 years of occupation, settlements, and military rule might qualify. Just a hunch.
You’re the one dodging honesty.
- Instead of addressing why the idf lied about ambulances having no lights, you cry "bias!"
- Instead of explaining why Israel buries bodies before investigations, you scream "Hamas!"
This isn’t "supporting terrorists"—it’s demanding accountability for clear violations.
Save your time.
- If you think laws of war don’t apply to Israel, just say so. Admit you believe in ethnic exceptionalism.
- But don’t whine when the world (including the ICC) treats Israel like any other state accused of war crimes.
Final offer:
- Defend the idf’s actual actions (shooting marked ambulances, burying evidence) with facts, not whataboutism.
- Or admit you just want a free pass for atrocities as long as they’re done by "your side."