Israel set up a miiltary base ~2 miles from the Ker Shalom crossing to prepare for their Rafah Genocide.

Hamas launched a rocket attack on it. Israel used that as pretext to close the Ker Shalom crossing to humanitarian aid.

Mainstream Western propaganda outlets such as Reuters, NYT and BBC are now laundering the lies that Hamas attacked soldiers at the crossing instead of a military base.

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Evidence for the military base and the Hamas rocket strike on it

    Edit: For people incapable of reading: Haaretz article in the top left image of the original post. Last two lines.

    • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Uhhh… that’s evidence that they are close together, not that its the base that was attacked. Do you have pics of the base or crossing themselves as a comparison?

      You’re also missing the fact that regardless of the target, the attack was launched from a civilian structure.

      • dogsoahC@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        7 months ago

        Hamas doing bad stuff does not absolve the IDF and their Western media henchmen from misrepresenting and exaggerating in order to excuse their actions. Whatever Hamas may or may not be doing, it’s completely immaterial in the face of a fucking genocide.

          • dogsoahC@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            7 months ago

            It isn’t. But abducting and killing civilians is. Using human shields is. Now, sure, there is a lot of legitimate resentment and anger. And I have complete understanding for parts of the Palestinian population being militant, it’s actually a good thing. And maybe there’s even a point at which actions like the ones Hamas commits are valid. I’m not convinced, but I’m open to the idea. But that doesn’t mean I have to think Hamas are the good guys.

            But again, all that doesn’t make what Israel does any less of a genocide, and it doesn’t make shooting at the human shields any less of a despicable war crime.

            • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Shooting at human shields what? Hamas does not use human shields that is an israeli propaganda lie.

              The only party using human shields is israel.

              • dogsoahC@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                I never looked into the veracity of the human shields claims, since it doesn’t really matter - the IDF is committing the worse crimes either way.

            • Woozythebear@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              7 months ago

              Oh fuck off you fucking Nazi, human shields my ass… Why does Israel have a military base right next to a fucking shopping mall? It’s because they are using their population as human shields not Hamas.

              Dip shit propaganda eating neo lib nazi

              • dogsoahC@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                7 months ago

                Dear Woozythebear,

                I regrettably have to to inform you that you are mistaken in your assessment of me being a nazi. Neither am I neoliberal scum. I am, in fact, a dirty commie and not a supporter of the Israeli apartheid state or their military. I apologize if my comment in any way implied that only one side of a conflict can be guilty of war crimes like the aforementioned human shields. Either way, your highly constructive critcism has been duly noted and I wish you a good day.

                Sincerely dogsoahC

                • Woozythebear@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Na you ain’t a commie, you’re just larping as one. You are in fact a neo lib nazi by your comments.

      • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Literally everything is in the post or in my comment. Consider reading before jumping in front of a bullet to shill for israel.

        The attack was launched 350+ metres away from a civilian area which is extremely far considering how densely populated Gaza is. But shills gotta shill.

        • bleistift2@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          I don’t see evidence that Hamas attacked the base, either. Is a hole in a tent and a picture of a tank that could be taken anywhere there is sand supposed to be evidence?

          • aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I don’t think there’s a claim that the base itself was attacked, but instead that soldiers that were stationed at that base (which was a staging area for an invasion of Rafah) were attacked. The original Israeli source says that the soldiers were “near” the crossing. This seems like a far cry from the crossing itself being attacked, which is what the US articles claim or at least imply.