These same people claimed to have seen pictures of 40 beheaded babies last week and had to immediately walk that back. The IDF also claimed not to have assassinated journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, but months later admitted to it. This is a well know IDF playbook, they are not a credible source.
The tally of multiple hundreds of civilians murdered is easily verifiable - for about 400 civilians, names have been published [1].
One reason for the considerable delay in victim identification has been the burnt and fragmentary state of recovered human remains. This has been reported by dozens of forensic workers, including Dr. Chen Kugel, head of Israel's Institute for Forensic Medicine. [2]
A piece by a social worker published a day ago at Haaretz casually mentions a meat truck filled with children's bodies at the triage site, in particular mentioning the remains of a fetus. [3]
[1] https://www.haaretz.co.il/news/2023-10-12/ty-article-magazin...
[2] https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/1697531028-they...
[3] https://www.haaretz.co.il/opinions/2023-10-19/ty-article-opi...
Question: It is also a well-known Hamas playbook, they are also not a credible source, so why blindly take _either_ at face value? Why blindly take anything at face value without verifying facts?
"So-and-so says" isn't news, it's gossipmongering.
Aside, the doctors at the hospital said Israel bombed them, they are not Hamas.
How on earth would they know who bombed them?
Nonetheless I don't see how doctors at the hospital would know who bombed the hospital
But I'm seeing a lot of vociferous blow-back on the Gaza hospital thing -- maybe rightfully so -- but so much less on the other "side." When concerns were brought up about the beheading things, and other claims of veracity it was treated as callous quibbling.
This is not whataboutism: The fundamental reality is it doesn't in the grand scheme of things matter who caused the casualties in the specific instance in the hospital. What matters is that a cessation of conflict is not being considered, and that civilians are being murdered by political actors as a result.
Any ethical grown-up in charge would be working to de-escalate.
For instance, fear is a major driver of violence: attack "them" to reduce their ability to attack "us". A ceasefire is a good solution here, because it develops a mutual trust that you'll leave each other alone.
But if there are other reasons for attack, e.g. one party is unhappy with the status quo and sees something to be gained by violence, a ceasefire doesn't work. They will just wait for the next opportunity and strike again, regardless of how peaceful the situation is.
I'm not making a moral statement here, just a practical one. A ceasefire today would not magically make everyone content to leave each other alone.
Then what?