More education, shooting civilians is an institutionalized culture within IDF , very few brave souls can speak about it , little over 60 officers and soldiers
UN independent expert warns of ‘mass ethnic cleansing’
An independent UN-appointed human rights expert warned on Saturday that Gaza’s civilian population was now in grave danger of “mass ethnic cleansing” on the international community to urgently mediate a ceasefire
"Yop, Hamasis. Always honest, trustworthy to the bone. "
You sought emotion and accusation, you got discussion.
You can always look at the numbers, if you really want discussion: 6000 bombs on Gaza within the first 6 days after the attack with an (Israeli) estimated 60-70000 Hamas militants in Gaza. What is the plan here? 1 bomb per Hamas militant in "precision strikes"?
I think you are antisemtic if you support genocide and crimes against humanity
German police arrest a single elderly Jewish woman in Berlin for protesting againest the atrocities on Gaza with a single carton board on one side written in english (as a jew please stop war on Gaza" the other side may be written in German , German government is really going nuts! What is happening in the world really!
You obviously do not know that Arabs are Semitic people too actually more so than the descendants of European and Asians, so it is you who does not even know what antisemitic really means
So you think only one race deserve protection from hatred, violence and genocide and others do not?
Why do you bring religion into this ? There Jews standing with Gaza and getting arressted for it like the link I provided , or is it since they are not Zionists then they are not really jews or what?
Have reported & banned him. I'm so fed of insistence on double standards - can't say.
Characters of such kind are so much immersed into their supremacism-based ideologies, they cannot even imagine I'm 'damned' by them and at the same time damned by Arabs who think I'm 'paid by Mossad' and 'European leftist'... 🙄
No problem: gaffers like you can always go anywhere else to satisfy their thirst for prejudice, racism, chauvinism, supremacist-theoreticians and similar junk.
Yes as we can clearly see during the current crises , bombing the hell out of Gaza and already killed some of the hostages and the government shown no regard to thier safety and attempted to negotiate thier retrieval , and once all are finished you'll blame thier deaths on Hamas but it does not matter, Hannibal works exactly as intended
But cutting baby milk water food and medicine and killing over 700 babies and children is not genocide to you ?
Are Israeli civilians are the only human beings to you ? How is killing babies and children is going to prevent the future killing of Israeli civilians in the future?
So tageting a Baptist hospital today murdering 500-800 of mostly children was another way for Israelis to move Palestinians away and reduce thier civilian casualties?
Cutting baby milk and water and water off babies is a good thing ? Man you are admitting and advocating genocide? Do you support cutting baby milk and water off Israeli babies????!!!!!!
"Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;..."
How do you know the life of its hostages isn't worth anything to Hamas - AND that AFTER they've launched an operation of this kind precisely with the aim of taking hostages? Can you read Hamas' minds?
So again civilians does not matter Hannibal works if you can find a justification for sacrificing of even 1 civilian or a million, you've written your own people off because 'enemy bad', what you said is the essence of the Hannibal doctrine distill5
Today, the 'best air force of the world' bombed out the National Arab Hospital in Gaza.
The building - crammed full with medical personnel, hundreds of sick and wounded, nearly 1,000 displaced people, and bodies of dozens of those already killed in Israeli bombardment - was completely bombed out.
Destroyed.
Number of victims cannot even be guessed about... 'over 500' is the absolute minimum.
....while you're all the time wasting my time and babbling about 'they would never do that, but the others would do that'....?
You know what's really disappointing? That somebody like you thinks he's got the right to waste my time with the kind of discussions I've had probably before you were doing nasty things to your diapers.
...and I'm a bigger sarcastic arsehole than that 'famous' Dr. House, from the TV-show of the 1990s: I've got nothing at lall to learn from your guessing and prejudice. You're just boring.
Hamas attacked in at least 17, perhaps 20 spots at the same time. At most, we know by now what exactly happened at 2 or 3 of these.
That's too little to say.
Of course, one can do what 99% of people are doing, guess and gauge by own prejudice (or, and worst of all: one can subject him/herself to the dictate of our governments and the media).
I am applying the same approach like in the case of all other conflicts I'm studying and say: be patient, collect more evidence, reconstruct what's going on. Only then can one say it was this or it was that.
- a) Hamas (where clearly marked as such), murdering civilians
- b) some other Palestinians (where not clearly marked as Hamas), murdering civilians.
You just can't jump to the conclusion that this is the way ALL the Israeli civilians killed in this terrorist attack have been killed. This even more so if
- a) Hamas' ordered 'capture for negotiations',
- b) there are videos showing Hamas terrorists doing nothing to Israeli civilians,
- c) there are testimonies of Israeli hostages that Hamas treated them (quote) 'humanely', and
- d) 'at least' two survivors say 'nope, persons X, Y, Z, N, and D were killed by Israeli forces'.
Which is why it is crucial not to assume, not to guess, and not to jump to conclusions or succumb to the mass hysteria, but obtain evidence, cross-check everything and then draw sober conclusions.
Hannibal is not about telling your triggermen we are monsters on the contrary it about the rationalization of writing ypur people off
If you and family are taken hostage would you prefer your people storm the place guns blazing and risk going down with the hijacker, or may it would be if they negotiate a safe exit for you and family and one gets heart.,especially if the hijakers sound reasonable?
Just a little background info to your source. Democracy Nows Faculty is judged „Mixed“ and ther Political Bias is judged „Left“ by Ground News. Not saying it’s wrong, but might be a a one sided picture.
You said that the Hannibal Directive is a (quote) 'purely Israeli issue', and 'affecting Israeli citizens only'.
I've asked: a mass murder of their own citizens is a purely Israeli issue, you say?
You say you do not understand my question....
OK. Why did I ask this?
Because if you are argumenting the way you do, it means that you're willingly ignoring the fact that Israel has a doctrine for, and has mass-murdered its own citizens - as depicted in the account by one of survivors of the terrorist attack - while 'washing own hands in innocence', and blaming Hamas for everything.
With other words: you're ready to buy any kind of propaganda, even obvious lies, and are ready to (if not preferring to) ignore Israeli war crimes - as long as this is satisfying your prejudice about Hamas, Palestinians etc.
The point is the ratio of propaganda to truth in the news, and what is the intent of the news. All the Ukrainians, including me, are Nazi and should be eradicated, as you must have already heard many times.
What is your point here? This is anectodal evidence at best. How can we distinguish it from anecdotal evidence which says otherwise? But one thing I find odd about this piece: it repeatedly tries to highlight the good intentions of the Hamas fighters without ever acknowledging that it was the Actions of the Hamas which put the IDF fighters into a position to react quickly and strongly.
It is not presenting the intentions of Hamas as "good", only as "non-lethal" in the first instance (i.e. keep victims alive as hostages, do not kill them immediately). Thus the immediate on-site killing of hundreds of civilians on Israeli territory may not be in accordance with Hamas doctrine.
Conversely, it presents evidence that killing one's own citizens to avoid them being taken hostage may be unofficial IDF doctrine, and may have occurred in this specific instance.
What was the actual truth on the ground? We can't (yet) know.
Tom's "point" is that if you are seeing/reading in the media that Hamas militants murdered all these people in cold blood (and how this might "justify" revenge against Palestinians), it is too early to conclude that this was indeed the case.
Prove me wrong, but existence of order to take some hostages doesn't mean that the killing of civilians is not in accordance with Hamas doctrine. It only says that they planed to take hostages. Nothing more, nothing less. (I'm not judging anything now, I'm just taking care of propositional logic here, don't mind me... :) )
I didn't make ANY assumption, in fact I did opposite - I pointed out on selfsupported assumption... :) PS: I would like to assure you that I am not a fan of what Israel is probably planning in retaliation, and that I am well aware that the Hamas action did not happen without a reason... but... how would I compare it... my point is that just because someone filled up gas on the way to fish doesn't mean their primary goal wasn't fish but gas... :)
- a) of the side that's sticking to the rules (rules are the UN Charter, IHL, Geneva Conventions, Rome Statute),
- b) official orders (preferably in written format), and
- b) facts.
Which is the reason why I'm trying to establish the rules and the facts.
So far, all we've got is a part of rules, and this says, 'to capture' (no lethal intention), not to 'kill' (which would be a lethal intention). Unless more evidence is available, stating anything else is an (unsubstantiated) assumption.
I agree, I'm also fan of facts. :) From link you posted: "Another page labeled “Top Secret Maneuver” describes a plan for a Hamas unit to secure the east side of Kfar Sa’ad while a second unit controls the west. It says “kills as many as possible” and “capture hostages.” Other orders include surrounding a dining hall and holding hostages in it." ... so the document says that goals are 1) to kill a lot of people and 2) to take hostages. Sorry, but I don't read it as non-lethal intensions... ONE of goals is non-lethal, but what does it mean? I means only that they knew, that after that action, it will be very advantageous for them to have a hostages... I simply don't see it as argument. The argument to not support the potentially coming genocide in Gaza is that it is simply unacceptable, unfair, unjust and completely mistargeted...
"It only says that they planed to take hostages" is all that matters here. Whether the documentary evidence represents "doctrine" or "plans" is just semantics.
"It is not presenting the intentions of Hamas as "good", only as "non-lethal" in the first instance" - your words. You can't tell from this document, what is the first instance. That's my point. And it's not about semantics, it changes everything. 1) they came to take hostages and killing was just a side effect (necessary to fulfill the main goal) or 2) they came to kill as much as possible and taking of hostages was just one of the goals (to protect themselves/ to blackmail...). Two ABSOLUTELY different things, not semantics.
My words there do not represent my conclusions. They represent my effort to explain to another commenter what I believed Tom was trying to communicate through this post, including Tom's interpretation of the documentary evidence. Tom has since confirmed this interpretation in his reply to you.
Asking me, someone with no expertise in military doctrine, plans and action, and who is not Tom, to justify Tom's interpretation is pointless.
I am, however, someone with modest expertise in logic, and while I can confirm that your two propositions are absolutely different, the second of them is not plausible. If you send in trained killers with a primary objective of killing (simple and easy) and a secondary objective of bringing back live hostages (complex and difficult), they won't bring back any hostages.
"If you send in trained killers with a primary objective of killing (simple and easy) and a secondary objective of bringing back live hostages (complex and difficult), they won't bring back any hostages." Your assumption seems to be that the soldiers are incapable of following two directives simultaneously- kill and capture. I'd argue that most if not all assault soldiers are capable of killing potential threats and subduing/capturing as hostages "easy" targets like those who surrender or are defenseless.
If that indeed would be the case, that would be at least irritating to me if happening on larger scale. But even if it was happening on a larger scale (which I would find pretty unlikely, because it would defeat the purpose of the IDF) I do not see how this would affect Israel’s right to retaliate. Attacks on Israel are still ongoing. On what basis is a counter attack not justified?
It's not about a right to retaliate, it's about trying to justify the brutality of the retaliation.
I look at it through the lens of "the narrative" and efforts to lead outsiders to the conflict to a binary view in which one side is good and human and peaceful, while the other side is evil and savage and unworthy of human rights.
If you can get the international community to agree that your enemy is subhuman, then their war crimes are appalling while yours are so reasonable and justified that they are not really war crimes at all.
You are making a good point. I do not think there is a good and a bad side in this conflict. But that is also my problem with this piece. It is talking about the first days of the conflict where it still pretty easy assign the role of the „aggressor“ and try to twist that around. No Israeli residents would have been harmed if the Hamas would have stayed within their borders. However after reading the report, without further context one could assume that the IDF have been the cruel party in the first days (I am explicitly talking only about the first days). So doesn’t this go into the direction of changing the aggressor-victim perception if at no point the fault of Hamas is discussed?
I don't know if you've been following Tom's reports on this particular conflict. If you haven't, here is the gist of it:
- Israel has been escalating its violence against Palestinians in recent years. Those who do not follow Israel's actions closely would be unaware of this.
- Palestinians have had no effective means of preventing or redressing this violence other than through terrorist action.
- In this context this latest eruption of violence from Hamas (which might appear to outsiders to be unprovoked) was basically inevitable and predictable.
(Tom has not presented this as his opinion, but has drawn almost entirely upon Israeli sources for his reports.)
Seen with this perspective, the notion of one party being "the aggressor" isn't so clear. We like to think in terms of one side being the aggressor because it makes evaluation intellectually and morally easy for ourselves, and the media tend to cater to that ideal, but it may be more productive to put yourself in each party's shoes over the past, say, 5 years and then ask yourself what your options are.
"- Palestinians have had no effective means of preventing or redressing this violence other than through terrorist action.
- In this context this latest eruption of violence from Hamas (which might appear to outsiders to be unprovoked) was basically inevitable and predictable."
According to the international law, whether in the Gaza Strip or in the West Bank: Israel is the occupation force. As the occupation force, Israel is responsible for what is going on, while the UN says (quote of the Paragraph 2 from here: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-184801/):
>> Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle....
And yes, IDF opening fire and mass-murdering civilians is happening 'regularly'. Here few example:
- an investigation into a mass-murder of 50+ Palestinian civilians in 2015:
I am not saying it is wrong. It is probably right, I know. However this has been going on for decades. It is always the spiral of Suppression of Palestinians by Israel, Military Aggression against Israel followed by Retaliation by Israel. You can’t break this spiral if you cite the incident which night have caused the current event, can you? This would be a never ending story. How much rockets are you allowed to fire for every square meter of land taken from you? How heavy is your retaliation allowed to be if rockets hit your country? Is it okay to just destroy the infrastructure where the rockets came from or can you also kill the people responsible? What happens if you kill civilians in the process of retaliation, do you have to stop or can you continue? Who is responsible for civilian casualties if you shoot from inhabited areas even if warnings are issued before attacking suspected military targets?
My point is, this conflict is way beyond the point where you one side which is the clear victim. One can only judge on a case by case basis. And in that logic the blame for the first days lies clearly by the Hamas, not depending on single incidents which might or might not have happened during this period. They were the ones who initiated. Without the initialization, nobody would have been harmed. Israel therefore has the right to retaliate, but now it is up to them to do it in a effective manner. This it what they should be judged on.
Why/how is Israel the occupation force? They may have the area under seige but they do not occupy it, do they?
"The Gaza Strip initially emerged as an Egyptian-occupied territory after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Following the 1967 Six-Day War the territory came under Israeli occupation. In the 1990s, as part of the Oslo Accords, the administration over most of the area was handed over to the Palestinian National Authority, alongside the existence of Israeli settlements in some areas, which were evacuated in 2005. In 2006, Hamas won the last-held Palestinian legislative election, and started administering Gaza, and took full control after a brief civil war the following year.[12]"
Gaza was also occupied in 1967, but after Israel's unilateral disengagement in 2005 the status has become disputed, with conflicting opinions on whether or not the occupation has ended.
Hamas themselves released on their own telegram GoPro footage of their own fighters shooting civilians. Maybe the communications department didn't get the memo?
"Conversely, it presents evidence that killing one's own citizens to avoid them being taken hostage may be unofficial IDF doctrine, and may have occurred in this specific instance."
By this specific instance what do you mean? What do you think happened at the concert for example? Was it just random Gazans who came in after the breach? Or maybe IDF? There's no evidence either way right?
"We can't (yet) know." you say. If you pretend not to see tons of evidence pointing one way and desperately look for tiny bits of evidence pointing the other way to create some alternative explanation out of nothing. Why is it that some at the concert were taken hostages while many more were killed? Do you think maybe the plan was to take as many hostages as you can and kill the rest? We just can't know...(only 99.999% certainty).
That you think of existence of unofficial IDF doctrine about killing own citizens to avoid them being taken hostage tells me that you know nothing about Israelis. Sorry for such a categorical reply, but it’s really a nonsense.
Tom literally left link to wikepedia, that describes this directive, that it's official and even shows few cases when this directive was used...like come on dude
Yes, please, read this link yourself. The existence, interpretation and real usage of it is more then questionable, and in any case it’s about military. To think that IDF would kill hundreds of civilians to prevent them being taken hostage is not just kind of weird conspiracy theory, it’s pure madness. But... believe whatever you want.
no doubt, it could have happened ax dexcribed - some places. Does this proove anything? IMO, if you really want good to your people you just don't start massacre in the last weeks / months of the most promising peace talks ever since -at least- mindle of the XXst century... Best intention: this is short-sighted. Suspect: this is to lock peacetalks for the sake of ongoing war.
agreement w the Saudis following the Abraham accords, don't agree these were huge steps towards a meaningfull co-operation instead of maintained conflicts for the sake of... and with the aime towards... what?
I have access from Ukraine via the original link. It is possible that either your country banned the web site, or that too many readers came in and the site could not serve everybody.
I believe Tom's point, for those who didn't get it, is that Israel - never mind whether for history or good reasons or bad excuses or just insanity - is focused on revenge, which is a very bad strategy. It will perpetuate violence and hatred and instability.
A better strategy would be to get serious about a two state solution and indicate that when negotiations can be arranged, Israel will be generous next time, unlike last time.
If I would have a point: I would prefer having to study a 'knightly' air combat between, say, an Israeli F-15 and something similar flown by a Palestinian.
....instead, I've got to work myself through a 'sea' of fake news, PRBS, and lies - and all of that about war crimes of worst sorts.
Hmm, I guess it was my point rather than Tom's point. Just a bit annoyed to see someone say to Tom: "What is your point here? This is anectodal evidence at best"
If Hamas is a bunch of noble freedom fighters just trying to take hostages then who were all the terrorists in the video butchering young men and women at point blank range? Who were the terrorists parading that dead German girl around like she was a trophy? What's the end result of this 'evidence'? That the IDF butchered over 1300 Israelis? Or, well Hamas only murdered 1250 Israelis and the IDF killed the rest? It doesn't make sense. It really seems like we're grasping at straws to find evidence that supports a particular narrative.
I would like to know the answer to your first question, too.
And re. rest of your 'reaction': if you're argumenting with '1,300 Israelis butchered', why don't you pay attention at all the Palestinians butchered before the Israelis in question were butchered?
You didn't know there's an ongoing war in that area, or are monitoring this conflict just 1 day a year?
Is not the kidnapping of civilian hostages and using one as a human shield a war crime? I sort of understand what you are saying but the bottom line is this is evidence of a Palestinian war crime.
Yes but actually building settlements in occupied land is violation of article 49 of the Geneva conventions (and denounced by every government in planet earth) not mention settling civilians 2km from frontline im warzone is another warcrime , so the saintly Israelis committed 2 warcrimes by having civilians who should not be there
The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal on one of two bases: that they are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, or that they are in breach of international declarations. The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the Israeli-occupied territories
But the Russians did something similar, for example, they recorded on camera how they tortured and abused Ukrainian prisoners of war. The meaning of these videos is clear, to cause aggression towards Russians, so that Ukrainians would also become beasts and then in Europe Russians would say: "Look what Ukrainians are sadists, and you help them".
I think if it is clear to us ordinary citizens, then Israel's special services should have understood what will be the consequences of indiscriminate bombing of residential neighbourhoods in the Gaza Strip, responding to the violence of Hamas terrorists.
With due respect, Tom, but are we sure the resource called "Electronic Intifada" transcripted her interview correctly? I am a bit skeptical about that "good treatment" thing. That's slightly strange when, at one place, fighters are shooting people on the streets and dragging them around in the dirt, while at another, they are comforting them and giving them water.
Tom previously wrote that the fighters in uniforms captured civilians while others in civilian clothes were killing everybody. This makes sense if Gaza citizens, fed with a decade of propaganda and owning weapons for self-defense, went through those teared wall segments to kill Israelis on their own (or some instigators') initiative.
I did a Twitter search on “go-pro” and “Hamas”. Lots of footage from the helmet cams of dead Hamas guys, and even some they seem to have put online themselves. To me it looked looks damning but what do I know? It seems to refute the notion that the ‘bad stuff’ was done by the untrained followers that came through the fences with Hamas, or by the IDF themselves. I hope that experts like TomC and Malcolm Nance can weigh in on it’s legitimacy, to put this issue to bed.
Different terrorist groups (Hamas, PIJ, ISIS, ...), different people inside one group, lot of bad emotions, ... It's not uncommon in such situations that people behave differently.
Using google translator, I could see in the image you attached that there was order for taking hostages (no order of killing civilians). Sadly, couldn't use translator effectively on the image attached in the NBC news article as the quality was very bad. But the article does say that there was order of killing ("kill as many people as possible") alongside taking hostages. Any idea if the news is propaganda or there really was such order in those documents?
I do not think NBC news have created fakes by themselves. (But they may be victim of a scam, of course.) Particularly, NBC article states:
"Documents exclusively obtained by NBC News show that Hamas created detailed plans to target elementary schools and a youth center in the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Sa'ad, to "kill as many people as possible," seize hostages and quickly move them into the Gaza Strip"
There is a picture of these document, but of a poor quality. (That's the common case, journalists do not want to copy and misuse their original materials.)
There's indeed two different sets of orders, the one you managed to translate there's no order for killing civilians.
The other, on the NBC's link, I managed to translate after cropping the first page. The image is too small then (around 300px) but "copy text" function works so the relevant part reads:
"The Eastern Sector, and the second group, by controlling the Arab Sector of the kibbutz and inflicting the greatest amount of human casualties and taking hostages (and transferring a portion to the Gaza Strip in cars)"
Judging just by captured docs it seems some units had the orders to kill and take hostages, other were charged just with hostage taking.
But, in the ensuing chaos - judging by the evidence Tom gathered here, and other pieces of info meanwhile made available - with the arrival of Israeli troops seems in some cases hostages were killed in the crossfire, while in the other cases killing civilians was part of the plan all along, made worse probably by a bunch of civilian vigilantes and other armed groups crossing the border fence after Hamas assault squads breached it. With the Israeli response being slow and chaotic the whole op turned into a bloodbath.
What OCR engine and translator did you use? I have used the copy text functionality of google translator and couldn't find words saying "inflicting the greatest amount of human causalities" or similar wordings. Rather there was "the first group controls the human causalities" and " the second group controlled the western sector of the kibbutz and captured the largest possible number of hostages (and transferred a portion to the Gaza Strip in different cars)."
I am adding the whole translated text here (w/o any edits):
"No. 152 in the direction of Street 55, then 56, then 57, using two jeeps and
no idea of maneuvering, the reduced faction advances through the
approaches. Motorcycles, including an insurance force on bicycles in the division, sciences, the power of sleepers, in Fateh Taghra, on
the northwestern side, in the place shown on the map from the Al-Kibouli fence. The two groups do not advance, so the first group controls
the human casualties.
The eastern sector, and the second group controlled the western sector of the kibbutz and captured the largest possible number
of hostages (and transferred a portion to the Gaza Strip in different cars).
2 Duties of the units.
Unit
the duty
Opening the loophole in the specified location on the target's outer fence.
Destroy the guard room at the kibbutz gate
3 Seizing the kibbutz secretariat.
group
Combat 1
Take control of the dining room.
7.
Control the group breaker, and create 3 violins.
Gathering hostages in the dining room, and preparing for the departure of a number of them to the sector.
6.
Controlling the new Daat School.
1. To neutralize any hostile air presence during the period of our forces’ encirclement.
Collect hostages and hand them over to the first
group. 3 Inspection of the Ali Akiva Youth Movement area.
group
He said
.4
Inspection of the old Daat School.
5.
Control the group breaker, and set up 3 ambushes
Coordination instructions and procedures.
J
Distance and speed.
.1
Progress path distance between starting point and target (meters)
7100 meters
Average speed of the group’s advance towards the target (km/h)
Movement time to reach the target when giving the command (minute)
7 minutes
Time to reach the target from zero hour point (minutes)
I used Google Translate, though, I first cropped their image to only show the first page like this: https://ibb.co/7GzQdVG
And here's the whole text dump from it:
1 The idea of the consultation is that the reduced faction advances to approach No. 12 in H Street 55 to 50 M 57 using two jeeps and
no motorcycles, including an insurance force on bicycles in the front. Sciences of the insurance force opens a gap on the northwestern
side in the place shown on the map from the kibouli tourists. If the two groups meet, then they will rise. The first group controlled
The Eastern Sector, and the second group, by controlling the Arab Sector of the kibbutz and inflicting the greatest amount of human casualties and taking
hostages (and transferring a portion to the Gaza Strip in cars):
Unit duties.
Unit
the duty
Opening the loophole in the specified location on the target's outer fence.
Destroy the guard room at the kibbutz gate
Seizing the UNS secretariat.
Take control of the dining room.
group
Combat 1
Gather hostages in the dining room, and prepare for the departure of a number of them to
the sector. 6 Controlling the new Daat School.
Controlling the group cutter and setting up ambushes
To neutralize any hostile air presence within the continent, our forces are fenced off.
Gather hostages and hand them over to the first group.
Unfortunately, after the Iraq invasion, it's not possible to believe a news based on only the reputation of a media , especially when we have already seen pushing fake/unverified news to support certain narratives in this very war.
More education, shooting civilians is an institutionalized culture within IDF , very few brave souls can speak about it , little over 60 officers and soldiers
https://youtu.be/L3-0LC-yCL8?si=L-reRAItb8a-R8U5
UN independent expert warns of ‘mass ethnic cleansing’
An independent UN-appointed human rights expert warned on Saturday that Gaza’s civilian population was now in grave danger of “mass ethnic cleansing” on the international community to urgently mediate a ceasefire
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/un-expert-warns-new-instance-mass-ethnic-cleansing-palestinians-calls
"Yop, Hamasis. Always honest, trustworthy to the bone. "
You sought emotion and accusation, you got discussion.
You can always look at the numbers, if you really want discussion: 6000 bombs on Gaza within the first 6 days after the attack with an (Israeli) estimated 60-70000 Hamas militants in Gaza. What is the plan here? 1 bomb per Hamas militant in "precision strikes"?
I think you are antisemtic if you support genocide and crimes against humanity
German police arrest a single elderly Jewish woman in Berlin for protesting againest the atrocities on Gaza with a single carton board on one side written in english (as a jew please stop war on Gaza" the other side may be written in German , German government is really going nuts! What is happening in the world really!
Video below:
https://fb.watch/nJDMYff73z/?mibextid=Nif5oz
You obviously do not know that Arabs are Semitic people too actually more so than the descendants of European and Asians, so it is you who does not even know what antisemitic really means
So you think only one race deserve protection from hatred, violence and genocide and others do not?
Why do you bring religion into this ? There Jews standing with Gaza and getting arressted for it like the link I provided , or is it since they are not Zionists then they are not really jews or what?
Have reported & banned him. I'm so fed of insistence on double standards - can't say.
Characters of such kind are so much immersed into their supremacism-based ideologies, they cannot even imagine I'm 'damned' by them and at the same time damned by Arabs who think I'm 'paid by Mossad' and 'European leftist'... 🙄
No problem: gaffers like you can always go anywhere else to satisfy their thirst for prejudice, racism, chauvinism, supremacist-theoreticians and similar junk.
Yes as we can clearly see during the current crises , bombing the hell out of Gaza and already killed some of the hostages and the government shown no regard to thier safety and attempted to negotiate thier retrieval , and once all are finished you'll blame thier deaths on Hamas but it does not matter, Hannibal works exactly as intended
But cutting baby milk water food and medicine and killing over 700 babies and children is not genocide to you ?
Are Israeli civilians are the only human beings to you ? How is killing babies and children is going to prevent the future killing of Israeli civilians in the future?
Are you publicity advocating genocide ?
So tageting a Baptist hospital today murdering 500-800 of mostly children was another way for Israelis to move Palestinians away and reduce thier civilian casualties?
Cutting baby milk and water and water off babies is a good thing ? Man you are admitting and advocating genocide? Do you support cutting baby milk and water off Israeli babies????!!!!!!
Mind explaining why the Palestinian militias have to be destroyed?
What is making your opinion worth more than the UN conclusion that (paragraph 2 from here: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-184801/):
"Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;..."
How do you know the life of its hostages isn't worth anything to Hamas - AND that AFTER they've launched an operation of this kind precisely with the aim of taking hostages? Can you read Hamas' minds?
So again civilians does not matter Hannibal works if you can find a justification for sacrificing of even 1 civilian or a million, you've written your own people off because 'enemy bad', what you said is the essence of the Hannibal doctrine distill5
Can you read minds of Hamas?
Today, the 'best air force of the world' bombed out the National Arab Hospital in Gaza.
The building - crammed full with medical personnel, hundreds of sick and wounded, nearly 1,000 displaced people, and bodies of dozens of those already killed in Israeli bombardment - was completely bombed out.
Destroyed.
Number of victims cannot even be guessed about... 'over 500' is the absolute minimum.
....while you're all the time wasting my time and babbling about 'they would never do that, but the others would do that'....?
Friendly recommendation: fade away.
You know what's really disappointing? That somebody like you thinks he's got the right to waste my time with the kind of discussions I've had probably before you were doing nasty things to your diapers.
...and I'm a bigger sarcastic arsehole than that 'famous' Dr. House, from the TV-show of the 1990s: I've got nothing at lall to learn from your guessing and prejudice. You're just boring.
Hamas attacked in at least 17, perhaps 20 spots at the same time. At most, we know by now what exactly happened at 2 or 3 of these.
That's too little to say.
Of course, one can do what 99% of people are doing, guess and gauge by own prejudice (or, and worst of all: one can subject him/herself to the dictate of our governments and the media).
I am applying the same approach like in the case of all other conflicts I'm studying and say: be patient, collect more evidence, reconstruct what's going on. Only then can one say it was this or it was that.
Ah, a mass murder of their own citizens is a purely Israeli issue, you say?
They are evidence of,
- a) Hamas (where clearly marked as such), murdering civilians
- b) some other Palestinians (where not clearly marked as Hamas), murdering civilians.
You just can't jump to the conclusion that this is the way ALL the Israeli civilians killed in this terrorist attack have been killed. This even more so if
- a) Hamas' ordered 'capture for negotiations',
- b) there are videos showing Hamas terrorists doing nothing to Israeli civilians,
- c) there are testimonies of Israeli hostages that Hamas treated them (quote) 'humanely', and
- d) 'at least' two survivors say 'nope, persons X, Y, Z, N, and D were killed by Israeli forces'.
Which is why it is crucial not to assume, not to guess, and not to jump to conclusions or succumb to the mass hysteria, but obtain evidence, cross-check everything and then draw sober conclusions.
Hannibal is not about telling your triggermen we are monsters on the contrary it about the rationalization of writing ypur people off
If you and family are taken hostage would you prefer your people storm the place guns blazing and risk going down with the hijacker, or may it would be if they negotiate a safe exit for you and family and one gets heart.,especially if the hijakers sound reasonable?
Here is little education , shooting civilians is an establishment culture within IDF and very few brave souls can protest
https://youtu.be/L3-0LC-yCL8
Just a little background info to your source. Democracy Nows Faculty is judged „Mixed“ and ther Political Bias is judged „Left“ by Ground News. Not saying it’s wrong, but might be a a one sided picture.
Who Judge ground news ?
Ah, that's not the point. So, why did you start talking about something that is not the point?
You said that the Hannibal Directive is a (quote) 'purely Israeli issue', and 'affecting Israeli citizens only'.
I've asked: a mass murder of their own citizens is a purely Israeli issue, you say?
You say you do not understand my question....
OK. Why did I ask this?
Because if you are argumenting the way you do, it means that you're willingly ignoring the fact that Israel has a doctrine for, and has mass-murdered its own citizens - as depicted in the account by one of survivors of the terrorist attack - while 'washing own hands in innocence', and blaming Hamas for everything.
With other words: you're ready to buy any kind of propaganda, even obvious lies, and are ready to (if not preferring to) ignore Israeli war crimes - as long as this is satisfying your prejudice about Hamas, Palestinians etc.
Factuality*
The point is the ratio of propaganda to truth in the news, and what is the intent of the news. All the Ukrainians, including me, are Nazi and should be eradicated, as you must have already heard many times.
Interesting as usual
Thanks Tom
What is your point here? This is anectodal evidence at best. How can we distinguish it from anecdotal evidence which says otherwise? But one thing I find odd about this piece: it repeatedly tries to highlight the good intentions of the Hamas fighters without ever acknowledging that it was the Actions of the Hamas which put the IDF fighters into a position to react quickly and strongly.
It is not presenting the intentions of Hamas as "good", only as "non-lethal" in the first instance (i.e. keep victims alive as hostages, do not kill them immediately). Thus the immediate on-site killing of hundreds of civilians on Israeli territory may not be in accordance with Hamas doctrine.
Conversely, it presents evidence that killing one's own citizens to avoid them being taken hostage may be unofficial IDF doctrine, and may have occurred in this specific instance.
What was the actual truth on the ground? We can't (yet) know.
Tom's "point" is that if you are seeing/reading in the media that Hamas militants murdered all these people in cold blood (and how this might "justify" revenge against Palestinians), it is too early to conclude that this was indeed the case.
Prove me wrong, but existence of order to take some hostages doesn't mean that the killing of civilians is not in accordance with Hamas doctrine. It only says that they planed to take hostages. Nothing more, nothing less. (I'm not judging anything now, I'm just taking care of propositional logic here, don't mind me... :) )
Have you got a copy of Hamas doctrine to support what you say?
....or is that just another assumption?
I didn't make ANY assumption, in fact I did opposite - I pointed out on selfsupported assumption... :) PS: I would like to assure you that I am not a fan of what Israel is probably planning in retaliation, and that I am well aware that the Hamas action did not happen without a reason... but... how would I compare it... my point is that just because someone filled up gas on the way to fish doesn't mean their primary goal wasn't fish but gas... :)
When it comes to warfare, I'm a 'fan'
- a) of the side that's sticking to the rules (rules are the UN Charter, IHL, Geneva Conventions, Rome Statute),
- b) official orders (preferably in written format), and
- b) facts.
Which is the reason why I'm trying to establish the rules and the facts.
So far, all we've got is a part of rules, and this says, 'to capture' (no lethal intention), not to 'kill' (which would be a lethal intention). Unless more evidence is available, stating anything else is an (unsubstantiated) assumption.
I agree, I'm also fan of facts. :) From link you posted: "Another page labeled “Top Secret Maneuver” describes a plan for a Hamas unit to secure the east side of Kfar Sa’ad while a second unit controls the west. It says “kills as many as possible” and “capture hostages.” Other orders include surrounding a dining hall and holding hostages in it." ... so the document says that goals are 1) to kill a lot of people and 2) to take hostages. Sorry, but I don't read it as non-lethal intensions... ONE of goals is non-lethal, but what does it mean? I means only that they knew, that after that action, it will be very advantageous for them to have a hostages... I simply don't see it as argument. The argument to not support the potentially coming genocide in Gaza is that it is simply unacceptable, unfair, unjust and completely mistargeted...
"It only says that they planed to take hostages" is all that matters here. Whether the documentary evidence represents "doctrine" or "plans" is just semantics.
"It is not presenting the intentions of Hamas as "good", only as "non-lethal" in the first instance" - your words. You can't tell from this document, what is the first instance. That's my point. And it's not about semantics, it changes everything. 1) they came to take hostages and killing was just a side effect (necessary to fulfill the main goal) or 2) they came to kill as much as possible and taking of hostages was just one of the goals (to protect themselves/ to blackmail...). Two ABSOLUTELY different things, not semantics.
My words there do not represent my conclusions. They represent my effort to explain to another commenter what I believed Tom was trying to communicate through this post, including Tom's interpretation of the documentary evidence. Tom has since confirmed this interpretation in his reply to you.
Asking me, someone with no expertise in military doctrine, plans and action, and who is not Tom, to justify Tom's interpretation is pointless.
I am, however, someone with modest expertise in logic, and while I can confirm that your two propositions are absolutely different, the second of them is not plausible. If you send in trained killers with a primary objective of killing (simple and easy) and a secondary objective of bringing back live hostages (complex and difficult), they won't bring back any hostages.
Thanks for to all for thoughtful analysis.
"If you send in trained killers with a primary objective of killing (simple and easy) and a secondary objective of bringing back live hostages (complex and difficult), they won't bring back any hostages." Your assumption seems to be that the soldiers are incapable of following two directives simultaneously- kill and capture. I'd argue that most if not all assault soldiers are capable of killing potential threats and subduing/capturing as hostages "easy" targets like those who surrender or are defenseless.
If that indeed would be the case, that would be at least irritating to me if happening on larger scale. But even if it was happening on a larger scale (which I would find pretty unlikely, because it would defeat the purpose of the IDF) I do not see how this would affect Israel’s right to retaliate. Attacks on Israel are still ongoing. On what basis is a counter attack not justified?
You mean right to enact Genocide and wanton crimes against humanity
It's not about a right to retaliate, it's about trying to justify the brutality of the retaliation.
I look at it through the lens of "the narrative" and efforts to lead outsiders to the conflict to a binary view in which one side is good and human and peaceful, while the other side is evil and savage and unworthy of human rights.
If you can get the international community to agree that your enemy is subhuman, then their war crimes are appalling while yours are so reasonable and justified that they are not really war crimes at all.
You are making a good point. I do not think there is a good and a bad side in this conflict. But that is also my problem with this piece. It is talking about the first days of the conflict where it still pretty easy assign the role of the „aggressor“ and try to twist that around. No Israeli residents would have been harmed if the Hamas would have stayed within their borders. However after reading the report, without further context one could assume that the IDF have been the cruel party in the first days (I am explicitly talking only about the first days). So doesn’t this go into the direction of changing the aggressor-victim perception if at no point the fault of Hamas is discussed?
I don't know if you've been following Tom's reports on this particular conflict. If you haven't, here is the gist of it:
- Israel has been escalating its violence against Palestinians in recent years. Those who do not follow Israel's actions closely would be unaware of this.
- Palestinians have had no effective means of preventing or redressing this violence other than through terrorist action.
- In this context this latest eruption of violence from Hamas (which might appear to outsiders to be unprovoked) was basically inevitable and predictable.
(Tom has not presented this as his opinion, but has drawn almost entirely upon Israeli sources for his reports.)
Seen with this perspective, the notion of one party being "the aggressor" isn't so clear. We like to think in terms of one side being the aggressor because it makes evaluation intellectually and morally easy for ourselves, and the media tend to cater to that ideal, but it may be more productive to put yourself in each party's shoes over the past, say, 5 years and then ask yourself what your options are.
"- Palestinians have had no effective means of preventing or redressing this violence other than through terrorist action.
- In this context this latest eruption of violence from Hamas (which might appear to outsiders to be unprovoked) was basically inevitable and predictable."
I think Mohatama Ghandi has proven otherwise.
According to the international law, whether in the Gaza Strip or in the West Bank: Israel is the occupation force. As the occupation force, Israel is responsible for what is going on, while the UN says (quote of the Paragraph 2 from here: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-184801/):
>> Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle....
And yes, IDF opening fire and mass-murdering civilians is happening 'regularly'. Here few example:
- an investigation into a mass-murder of 50+ Palestinian civilians in 2015:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3-0LC-yCL8
- an investigation into a mass murder of about 60 peaceful Palestinian protesters back in 2018, run by an Israeli citizen:
https://www.972mag.com/gaza-return-march-gunfight-hillel-bardin/
...and is nowadays a matter of official doctrine of the Israeli government:
https://www.reddit.com/r/israelexposed/comments/176eq8x/former_israeli_prime_minister/?rdt=64719
Meanwhile, Hamas reports that more than 20 hostages held in the Gaza Strip have been killed in Israeli bombardment.
Of course, you can always provide evidence that all of the above is wrong.
I am not saying it is wrong. It is probably right, I know. However this has been going on for decades. It is always the spiral of Suppression of Palestinians by Israel, Military Aggression against Israel followed by Retaliation by Israel. You can’t break this spiral if you cite the incident which night have caused the current event, can you? This would be a never ending story. How much rockets are you allowed to fire for every square meter of land taken from you? How heavy is your retaliation allowed to be if rockets hit your country? Is it okay to just destroy the infrastructure where the rockets came from or can you also kill the people responsible? What happens if you kill civilians in the process of retaliation, do you have to stop or can you continue? Who is responsible for civilian casualties if you shoot from inhabited areas even if warnings are issued before attacking suspected military targets?
My point is, this conflict is way beyond the point where you one side which is the clear victim. One can only judge on a case by case basis. And in that logic the blame for the first days lies clearly by the Hamas, not depending on single incidents which might or might not have happened during this period. They were the ones who initiated. Without the initialization, nobody would have been harmed. Israel therefore has the right to retaliate, but now it is up to them to do it in a effective manner. This it what they should be judged on.
Legally Israel is an occupying force , they are responsible for the protection of the occupied civilians
How is cutting baby milk , water , food and medicine and carpet bombing residential areas is retaliation not genocide?
Why/how is Israel the occupation force? They may have the area under seige but they do not occupy it, do they?
"The Gaza Strip initially emerged as an Egyptian-occupied territory after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Following the 1967 Six-Day War the territory came under Israeli occupation. In the 1990s, as part of the Oslo Accords, the administration over most of the area was handed over to the Palestinian National Authority, alongside the existence of Israeli settlements in some areas, which were evacuated in 2005. In 2006, Hamas won the last-held Palestinian legislative election, and started administering Gaza, and took full control after a brief civil war the following year.[12]"
Gaza was also occupied in 1967, but after Israel's unilateral disengagement in 2005 the status has become disputed, with conflicting opinions on whether or not the occupation has ended.
Thanks
Hamas themselves released on their own telegram GoPro footage of their own fighters shooting civilians. Maybe the communications department didn't get the memo?
"Conversely, it presents evidence that killing one's own citizens to avoid them being taken hostage may be unofficial IDF doctrine, and may have occurred in this specific instance."
By this specific instance what do you mean? What do you think happened at the concert for example? Was it just random Gazans who came in after the breach? Or maybe IDF? There's no evidence either way right?
"We can't (yet) know." you say. If you pretend not to see tons of evidence pointing one way and desperately look for tiny bits of evidence pointing the other way to create some alternative explanation out of nothing. Why is it that some at the concert were taken hostages while many more were killed? Do you think maybe the plan was to take as many hostages as you can and kill the rest? We just can't know...(only 99.999% certainty).
That you think of existence of unofficial IDF doctrine about killing own citizens to avoid them being taken hostage tells me that you know nothing about Israelis. Sorry for such a categorical reply, but it’s really a nonsense.
Tom literally left link to wikepedia, that describes this directive, that it's official and even shows few cases when this directive was used...like come on dude
Yes, please, read this link yourself. The existence, interpretation and real usage of it is more then questionable, and in any case it’s about military. To think that IDF would kill hundreds of civilians to prevent them being taken hostage is not just kind of weird conspiracy theory, it’s pure madness. But... believe whatever you want.
no doubt, it could have happened ax dexcribed - some places. Does this proove anything? IMO, if you really want good to your people you just don't start massacre in the last weeks / months of the most promising peace talks ever since -at least- mindle of the XXst century... Best intention: this is short-sighted. Suspect: this is to lock peacetalks for the sake of ongoing war.
Sorry but: what 'most promising peace talks ever since the middle of the 20th Century'?
agreement w the Saudis following the Abraham accords, don't agree these were huge steps towards a meaningfull co-operation instead of maintained conflicts for the sake of... and with the aime towards... what?
As reported earlier, these negotiations were stopped already in mid-August.
....it's only our glorious media that 'caught with the news' two months later.
Couldn't access the link to the interview of the survivor. But found the archived page. Here is the link: https://web.archive.org/web/20231016190643/https://electronicintifada.net/content/israeli-forces-shot-their-own-civilians-kibbutz-survivor-says/38861
I have access from Ukraine via the original link. It is possible that either your country banned the web site, or that too many readers came in and the site could not serve everybody.
Yes, probably the 2nd one as I can access it now.
I believe Tom's point, for those who didn't get it, is that Israel - never mind whether for history or good reasons or bad excuses or just insanity - is focused on revenge, which is a very bad strategy. It will perpetuate violence and hatred and instability.
A better strategy would be to get serious about a two state solution and indicate that when negotiations can be arranged, Israel will be generous next time, unlike last time.
I've got no points.
I'm trying to find out what's going on.
If I would have a point: I would prefer having to study a 'knightly' air combat between, say, an Israeli F-15 and something similar flown by a Palestinian.
....instead, I've got to work myself through a 'sea' of fake news, PRBS, and lies - and all of that about war crimes of worst sorts.
Hmm, I guess it was my point rather than Tom's point. Just a bit annoyed to see someone say to Tom: "What is your point here? This is anectodal evidence at best"
If Hamas is a bunch of noble freedom fighters just trying to take hostages then who were all the terrorists in the video butchering young men and women at point blank range? Who were the terrorists parading that dead German girl around like she was a trophy? What's the end result of this 'evidence'? That the IDF butchered over 1300 Israelis? Or, well Hamas only murdered 1250 Israelis and the IDF killed the rest? It doesn't make sense. It really seems like we're grasping at straws to find evidence that supports a particular narrative.
I would like to know the answer to your first question, too.
And re. rest of your 'reaction': if you're argumenting with '1,300 Israelis butchered', why don't you pay attention at all the Palestinians butchered before the Israelis in question were butchered?
You didn't know there's an ongoing war in that area, or are monitoring this conflict just 1 day a year?
Is not the kidnapping of civilian hostages and using one as a human shield a war crime? I sort of understand what you are saying but the bottom line is this is evidence of a Palestinian war crime.
Or maybe I'm stupid.
Nope, you're not stupid. And yes, kidnapping civilians, using them as 'human shields', causing them injuries....that's all a war crime.
Just: simply killing everybody in order to avoid the enemy getting any hostages - is nothing better.
Yes but actually building settlements in occupied land is violation of article 49 of the Geneva conventions (and denounced by every government in planet earth) not mention settling civilians 2km from frontline im warzone is another warcrime , so the saintly Israelis committed 2 warcrimes by having civilians who should not be there
I'm a good enough lawyer that I can see the flaws in yr argument.
It is not even debatable
The international community considers the establishment of Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied territories illegal on one of two bases: that they are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, or that they are in breach of international declarations. The United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the International Court of Justice and the High Contracting Parties to the Convention have all affirmed that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to the Israeli-occupied territories
But the Russians did something similar, for example, they recorded on camera how they tortured and abused Ukrainian prisoners of war. The meaning of these videos is clear, to cause aggression towards Russians, so that Ukrainians would also become beasts and then in Europe Russians would say: "Look what Ukrainians are sadists, and you help them".
I think if it is clear to us ordinary citizens, then Israel's special services should have understood what will be the consequences of indiscriminate bombing of residential neighbourhoods in the Gaza Strip, responding to the violence of Hamas terrorists.
With due respect, Tom, but are we sure the resource called "Electronic Intifada" transcripted her interview correctly? I am a bit skeptical about that "good treatment" thing. That's slightly strange when, at one place, fighters are shooting people on the streets and dragging them around in the dirt, while at another, they are comforting them and giving them water.
Tom previously wrote that the fighters in uniforms captured civilians while others in civilian clothes were killing everybody. This makes sense if Gaza citizens, fed with a decade of propaganda and owning weapons for self-defense, went through those teared wall segments to kill Israelis on their own (or some instigators') initiative.
Is perfectly possible. But, right now, 'not yet substantiated'.
I did a Twitter search on “go-pro” and “Hamas”. Lots of footage from the helmet cams of dead Hamas guys, and even some they seem to have put online themselves. To me it looked looks damning but what do I know? It seems to refute the notion that the ‘bad stuff’ was done by the untrained followers that came through the fences with Hamas, or by the IDF themselves. I hope that experts like TomC and Malcolm Nance can weigh in on it’s legitimacy, to put this issue to bed.
Different terrorist groups (Hamas, PIJ, ISIS, ...), different people inside one group, lot of bad emotions, ... It's not uncommon in such situations that people behave differently.
You're free to obtain or help prepare a better transcript.
Right now, that one is the only one I've got.
And what are you (or me) skeptical about: doesn't matter. All that matters is evidence.
Using google translator, I could see in the image you attached that there was order for taking hostages (no order of killing civilians). Sadly, couldn't use translator effectively on the image attached in the NBC news article as the quality was very bad. But the article does say that there was order of killing ("kill as many people as possible") alongside taking hostages. Any idea if the news is propaganda or there really was such order in those documents?
The translated image: https://imgur.com/MoD38VJ
I do not think NBC news have created fakes by themselves. (But they may be victim of a scam, of course.) Particularly, NBC article states:
"Documents exclusively obtained by NBC News show that Hamas created detailed plans to target elementary schools and a youth center in the Israeli kibbutz of Kfar Sa'ad, to "kill as many people as possible," seize hostages and quickly move them into the Gaza Strip"
There is a picture of these document, but of a poor quality. (That's the common case, journalists do not want to copy and misuse their original materials.)
The 'journalist' in question is _presuming_ lethal intentions, _although_ the order clearly says 'capture (alive) for negotiations'.
Thanks, got my answer.
There's indeed two different sets of orders, the one you managed to translate there's no order for killing civilians.
The other, on the NBC's link, I managed to translate after cropping the first page. The image is too small then (around 300px) but "copy text" function works so the relevant part reads:
"The Eastern Sector, and the second group, by controlling the Arab Sector of the kibbutz and inflicting the greatest amount of human casualties and taking hostages (and transferring a portion to the Gaza Strip in cars)"
Judging just by captured docs it seems some units had the orders to kill and take hostages, other were charged just with hostage taking.
But, in the ensuing chaos - judging by the evidence Tom gathered here, and other pieces of info meanwhile made available - with the arrival of Israeli troops seems in some cases hostages were killed in the crossfire, while in the other cases killing civilians was part of the plan all along, made worse probably by a bunch of civilian vigilantes and other armed groups crossing the border fence after Hamas assault squads breached it. With the Israeli response being slow and chaotic the whole op turned into a bloodbath.
What OCR engine and translator did you use? I have used the copy text functionality of google translator and couldn't find words saying "inflicting the greatest amount of human causalities" or similar wordings. Rather there was "the first group controls the human causalities" and " the second group controlled the western sector of the kibbutz and captured the largest possible number of hostages (and transferred a portion to the Gaza Strip in different cars)."
I am adding the whole translated text here (w/o any edits):
"No. 152 in the direction of Street 55, then 56, then 57, using two jeeps and
no idea of maneuvering, the reduced faction advances through the
approaches. Motorcycles, including an insurance force on bicycles in the division, sciences, the power of sleepers, in Fateh Taghra, on
the northwestern side, in the place shown on the map from the Al-Kibouli fence. The two groups do not advance, so the first group controls
the human casualties.
The eastern sector, and the second group controlled the western sector of the kibbutz and captured the largest possible number
of hostages (and transferred a portion to the Gaza Strip in different cars).
2 Duties of the units.
Unit
the duty
Opening the loophole in the specified location on the target's outer fence.
Destroy the guard room at the kibbutz gate
3 Seizing the kibbutz secretariat.
group
Combat 1
Take control of the dining room.
7.
Control the group breaker, and create 3 violins.
Gathering hostages in the dining room, and preparing for the departure of a number of them to the sector.
6.
Controlling the new Daat School.
1. To neutralize any hostile air presence during the period of our forces’ encirclement.
Collect hostages and hand them over to the first
group. 3 Inspection of the Ali Akiva Youth Movement area.
group
He said
.4
Inspection of the old Daat School.
5.
Control the group breaker, and set up 3 ambushes
Coordination instructions and procedures.
J
Distance and speed.
.1
Progress path distance between starting point and target (meters)
7100 meters
Average speed of the group’s advance towards the target (km/h)
Movement time to reach the target when giving the command (minute)
7 minutes
Time to reach the target from zero hour point (minutes)
11 minutes
Page 4 of 6 Strictly
confidential"
I used Google Translate, though, I first cropped their image to only show the first page like this: https://ibb.co/7GzQdVG
And here's the whole text dump from it:
1 The idea of the consultation is that the reduced faction advances to approach No. 12 in H Street 55 to 50 M 57 using two jeeps and
no motorcycles, including an insurance force on bicycles in the front. Sciences of the insurance force opens a gap on the northwestern
side in the place shown on the map from the kibouli tourists. If the two groups meet, then they will rise. The first group controlled
The Eastern Sector, and the second group, by controlling the Arab Sector of the kibbutz and inflicting the greatest amount of human casualties and taking
hostages (and transferring a portion to the Gaza Strip in cars):
Unit duties.
Unit
the duty
Opening the loophole in the specified location on the target's outer fence.
Destroy the guard room at the kibbutz gate
Seizing the UNS secretariat.
Take control of the dining room.
group
Combat 1
Gather hostages in the dining room, and prepare for the departure of a number of them to
the sector. 6 Controlling the new Daat School.
Controlling the group cutter and setting up ambushes
To neutralize any hostile air presence within the continent, our forces are fenced off.
Gather hostages and hand them over to the first group.
Inspection of the Ali Akiva Youth Movement area.
the group
Empty
Flashing old Daat school.
Control the group breaker and create 3
ambushes
3 Coordination instructions and procedures
Distance and speed.
Unfortunately, after the Iraq invasion, it's not possible to believe a news based on only the reputation of a media , especially when we have already seen pushing fake/unverified news to support certain narratives in this very war.