Shortly before 7 p.m. Tuesday, a volley of rockets lit up the darkened sky over Gaza. Videos analyzed by The Associated Press show one veering off course, breaking up in the air before crashing to the ground.

Seconds later, the videos show a large explosion in the same area – the site of Gaza’s al-Ahli Arab Hospital.

Who is to blame for the fiery explosion has set off intense debate and finger pointing between the Israeli government and Palestinian militants, further escalating tensions in their two week-long war.

  • Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    I really hope that one day the truth of so many events can come out. Everything is always framed and media lies.

    Is hard to know what’s true and what isn’t

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The news media always engages in a race to be first, never a race to be right.

      So when there’s some horriffic event, just assume a lot of the first reporting is wrong. It’s not done out of outright malice (in MOST cases), it’s carelessness.

      • snooggums@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or just pay attention to who the news is using as a source. When they write “Hamas says X” and “IDF says Y” they are not reporting wrong, they are just passing along who is saying what. You shouldn’t think the news is picking sides u less it is obvious that they are leaving out a ton of context, like how western media is so focused on who fired the missile and not the other thousands of deaths around that one event.

    • ApexHunter
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The evidence available makes it pretty clear that the hospital was not /targeted/. That makes the incident a tragic accident, not a deliberate overt act – regardless of who is ultimately responsible.

      • markr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        At the time of this event Israel had bombed 4 other hospitals. That doesn’t prove Israel did this, but it does address the ‘they would never do this’ argument.

        • burchalka@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Note what this event was actually - a barrage of rockets sent towards regular Israeli cities and towns with the intent of harming civilians. Not military bases, or IDF infrastructure. Add the fact that up to 20% of these missiles land on Gaza’s territory, and their casualties are registered as caused by IDF.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            They don’t exactly “target” civilians in that they don’t target anything because the rockets are too primitive.

            And if we are taking the civilian deaths because these rockets as a deliberate act then we would logically have to do the same for every other actor in every other war that killed civilians because they didn’t have guided munitions.

            • burchalka@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              don’t target anything because the rockets are too primitive. So they’re to be treated like “a bit dangerous fireworks”? The fact they’re primed and sent towards regular Israeli cities - shows that the intent is to kill as many people as possible. The fact that Israeli civilian death count is much lower is only due to superior air alert and defense systems, otherwise the numbers would be much higher.

              • gmtom@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                So you apply similar logic to all wars? Or does it only count when brown people do it?

          • markr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The source of the data on other hospitals attacked was the NYT, an outfit not exactly known for its anti-Israel bias.

            I’ll remain skeptical regarding this incident as to who did it.

            Thanks for your intelligent response.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nah it never does. People still think that Jesus existed. Just subscribe to whatever preconceived notions you want and gather evidence to support it. Only outrage is real.

      • slumlordthanatos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        …He did exist, there are actual historical records. The question is whether or not Jesus was divine and performing miracles.

          • Rengoku@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What a dimwit.

            Jesus is an indisputed historical figure.

            • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m not sure how to break this to you… The first written record of Jesus doesn’t appear until some 70 years after the date of his crucifixion. That’s in the writings of Josephus, but the problem with Josephus is that the copy that survived is from the 4th century, which appears to have been edited by Eusebius, a Christian, inserting the mention of Jesus. Quotations of Josephus prior to Eusebius make no mention of Jesus. Good reading here:

              https://www.jstor.org/stable/43723559

              We know people like Pontius Pilate existed because we have documents from the era talking to and about him. There’s nothing remotely similar for Jesus.

              I describe it like this, the story goes that Jesus was an amazing figure, speaking to the masses at the sermon on the mount, raising the dead, etc. Why is there no written record of him at the time? No letter from one person to another going “Hey, I just saw this Jesus guy and he’s making a lot of sense!” No Roman records for arrest, trial or execution? And man, those Romans loved their documents.

              A modern day equivalent would be having no written record of Elvis until some 70 years after he died, and the only surviving copy of that 70 year document being from another transcriber 400 years after he died. We would still be 24 years away from the first written record of Elvis.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s amazing how a first century Jewish person would be expressing an idea of the Trinity that wouldn’t come around for another two centuries and that of all his writings he only changed topics like this a single time. Also that people familiar with Christianity and his works just never mention this for 200-300 years.

                Imagine a super popular book written in 1723 and only last week someone mentioned what might be the single most important passage. Incredible.

                • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yup. Part of the problem is that people still think the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John when we know, factually, they weren’t.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Hmm not seeing any contemporary records in the Wikipedia article, which I am sure you read, why don’t you list specifically what record you are referring to?

              • slumlordthanatos@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I can lead a horse to water, but I can’t make it drink.

                The sources that do exist were shortly after Jesus’ life, and they were not only consistent with each other, but from radically different sources, including Roman, Jewish, Christian, and even Muslim sources. It’s pretty simple to check the sources against one another and see what lines up.

                Scholars generally agree that someone named Jesus of Nazareth existed in Palestine in the 1st century AD. Is Jesus the Son of God? Depends on who you ask, but to say that he didn’t exist at all is being willfully ignorant.

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Instead of a lecture about why I should accept you on faith why not produce the contemporary records?

                  The sources that do exist were shortly after Jesus’ life

                  Oh like Paul who didn’t see anything? Oh like the Mark Gospel written fifty years later, with no sources, on a different continent filled up with copy and pasted from Elijah? Oh you mean like Josephus (50 years after the supposed events) with two passages one a forgery and the other possibly talking about someone else? Oh you mean Tacticus who was a century later and related hearsay without consulting a single Roman record?

                  How about everyone else, how about the hundreds of letters we have from that area and time period that never once mention any of the events? How about people documenting Messiah figures during the first century not seeing anyone? How about the total lack of records of Nazareth even existing in that century, the entire Joseph family missing from records, all relics missing, the tomb missing, the trial records missing?

                  Now show me a CONTEMPORARY record not what some Muslim said in Saudi Arabia 9 centuries later.

                  • slumlordthanatos@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I did. It seems your definition of “contemporary” is different from mine.

                    Whatever. No point in arguing with the atheist circlejerk; it’s sad how the good points you have get ruined by your inability to do research and understand context.

                • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  were shortly after Jesus’ life

                  So not contemporary to Jesus?

                  • slumlordthanatos@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    “Contemporary” is the period of time where there would be people living who had experienced these events, even if the historian him/herself hadn’t lived to see them.

                    So…yes, still contemporary.