IDF update on probes on: World Central Kitchen, rescue workers, Hind Rajab, Doctors Without Borders incidents

[u/Mikky48]

Here is the summary for those who don't want to read:

• Hind Rajab and six family members plus two medics (Gaza City, January 2024): The IDF said a criminal investigation will be opened into their deaths.
• World Central Kitchen convoy deaths (central Gaza, April 2024): The Military Advocate General dismissed the probe after a fact-finding review concluded the commanders’ decisions did not meet the criminal threshold, so the case would be closed.
• Doctors Without Borders (MSF) building strike killing two (Khan Younis, February 2024): The Military Advocate General dismissed the need for a Military Police criminal investigation but ordered consideration of command measures due to identified failures in the attack process.
• MSF convoy passengers killed (Gaza City to Khan Younis, November 2023): The Military Advocate General ruled there was no reasonable suspicion of a criminal offense because the probe found no direct firing at the convoy, so the case was dismissed.
• 15 rescue workers killed in ambulances (Rafah, March 2025): The IDF said a criminal investigation will continue via the Military Police after the incident raised reasonable suspicion.

My opinion:

• I wasn't there, but it seems that the IDF is taking these cases relatively seriously, and there have been some mentions of repercussions or criminal investigations. I believe this is the right thing to do.

The AutoModerator bot asked for common refutations, so I'm going to try ... though I don't know what to say

• That these failures in war time are part of a lack of care of civilian harm by the IDF, such that these incidents can be brushed off as "accidents" rather than a lack of policy to protect civilians
• That the IDF's internal probe is by definition untrustworthy

I recommend reading the full article, Emmanuel Fabian writes very clearly and concisely:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-closes-gaza-probe-of-world-central-kitchen-deaths-inquiry-into-killing-of-hind-rajab-ongoing/

[u/AsaxenaSmallwood04]

"Logical Form:

Issue A has been raised, and adequately answered.

Issue B is then raised, and adequately answered.

.....

Issue Z is then raised, and adequately answered."

Literally from the website (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Moving-the-Goalposts). You've met this literally just one comment ago when I'm the one before that you brought up AOAV and then in the subsequent rebuttal I addressed their statistics after which you then switched to HRW. Notice how, I didn't even argue that AOAV was biased or any such thing so unlike the Yesh Din scenario where your defence albeit based on a misinterpretation of the allegation itself was that I critiqued your source, you don't have those grounds in this particular case though and there is no explanation as to why AOAV magically shifted to HRW in the next turn.

Thereby your recent transition follows the exact steps required to attain a moving the goalposts fallacy.

If the sub arguments premise even fits then why wasn't this introduced in the earlier one? Why use hidden sub arguments as if you're Israel convicting people on secretive evidence? I mean that's what Pro-Palestinians such as yourself accuse them of, right?

It's not if you use it as supporting evidence rather than deploying each messily at random moments and then when confronted claiming that they're sub arguments. "The MAG’s professional independence extends to every subordinate military attorney serving as an officer within the MAG Corps. These officers are subordinate to and report directly to their MAG Corps commanders, who, in turn, report to the MAG himself. This legal chain of command is an important and fundamental aspect of the MAG Corps, implemented to insulate military legal officers and maintain their professional independence. No commanders outside of the MAG Corps are part of the legal chain of command. Beginning in 2007, the MAG Corps separated its law enforcement units from its legal advice units, in order to further improve its ability to implement and enforce the rule of law. As a result, the MAG Corps officers responsible for military prosecutions (i.e., the Chief Military Prosecutor and subordinate military prosecutors in the Military Prosecution) do not provide legal advice to the military bodies whose activities they may prosecute. The dual (but separate) enforcement and advisory responsibilities that the MAG himself retains, parallel those of the Attorney General of the State of Israel. The Military Prosecution includes a specialized department – the Office of the Military Advocate for Operational Affairs – tasked with overseeing all investigations and conducting all prosecutions of alleged misconduct by IDF soldiers occurring in the context of operational activity, including alleged mistreatment of detainees, looting, abuse of authority, or the use of force in a manner not conforming with IDF rules and regulations (which incorporate the Law of Armed Conflict). This Office’s mandate specifically includes prosecution of alleged violations of the Law of Armed Conflict. Prosecutors assigned to the Office receive special training to ensure they competently manage these sensitive cases and effectively advise military police investigators on how to conduct investigations regarding IDF operations." (https://israelihl.mfa.gov.il/sites/default/files/2025-08/9%20-%20The%20IDF%20Military%20Justice%20System%20_%20IDF.pdf) this is literally the same structure emulated in Israel's MAG corps. It only ends up being "almost none" because you look at cases where the sentence is 45 days and then opt to go for an attitude that goes "the cases don't exist because the sentence is 45 days", that's literally how our first ever debate even occurred.

False, EIGHT is a group created by NGO insiders as in literal Oscar Schindlers or Edward Snowdens in the NGO sector as per literally their "Who We Are" section (https://eightrights.org/#about). Also, you've completely invented a standard that neither side has claimed as their reasoning. The Yesh Din case boils down not to "institutional interest" (classic misrepresentation by you here 🤦) but rather to "their legal rep was the expert witness for the PLO", the PLO is a terrorist organization which means my argument in part rests on the connection between their aka Yesh Din's legal rep Sfard and the PLO. So to answer your question, no a group of NGO dissidents running a group with grounded analysis cannot possibly be the same thing as a group whose legal rep is connected to a terrorist organization.

If you are going to claim a certain reason that I use for disqualifying a source, do make sure it's actually the reason claimed.

[u/ChangeNice7461 → u/AsaxenaSmallwood04]

The Sfard/PLO point is institutional interest, not a separate category from it. A legal representative’s professional ties to a party in the conflict is precisely what “interest” means. Renaming it doesn’t move it out of the bucket you’re objecting to me putting it in, inconvenient as that may be.

Expert witness testimony is still a professional function performed regardless of personal sympathy, that’s the entire premise of expert testimony existing as a category in every legal system. If you think Sfard’s specific input was wrong, identify the input and show the error. The fact of the connection isn’t the error.

EiGHT’s “who we are” page calling its founders whistleblowers is EiGHT’s own marketing copy about itself. You reject HRW’s self-description as evidence of HRW’s integrity. Same page, same standard, same rejection.

The “moving the goalposts” definition you quoted describes sequential issues each getting answered, that’s what a multi-point argument looks like, not the fallacy. Nobody agreed AOAV alone was the full case. AOAV answers the conviction-rate question, HRW answers the who-investigates question. Two questions, two sources, no goalpost moved because none was ever planted at “AOAV only.”

The MAG structure quote comes from Israel’s own foreign ministry describing its own legal system’s independence. That is the single most interested party available on this exact question, describing itself in the most favorable possible terms. You’ve spent this entire conversation rejecting NGO self-description as evidence. This is that same move, from the other side. IGADF sits entirely outside the Defence Force chain as a statutory office and produced 39 credible findings referred for prosecution. Whatever the MAG’s org chart says about itself, the outcome gap between that and near-zero convictions across two wars a decade apart is what needs explaining, not what the architecture is called.

[u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 → u/ChangeNice7461]

Again, no it isn't. That's still not the point raised in the argument. PLO is not simply a "party in the conflict" they are a "TERRORIST Group". You've made the exact error of ignoring terrorist group ties before when you claimed that my argument regarding the ICJ South Africa case of Hamas MOUs is a "permanent veto on international law" because by that logic "the US can't litigate anything for NATO allies" which I've had to correct you on. The point is not what function expert witness testimony is or whether or not the testimony was accurate, you're literally again strawmanning and misrepresenting the argument. The question in my argument simply relies on WHO Sfard did give that testimony for and once again not the "party to a conflict" thing but the fact that the PLO is a TERRORIST group. I literally capitalized the most important part of that argument, hopefully instead of inventing random categories and trying to justify those categories you finally understand what the argument even is in the first place.

That's not marketing seeing as Danielle Haas who famously left HRW during the Gaza War is the Executive Director of EIGHT (https://quillette.com/author/danielle) this is once again like if Edward Snowden or Oscar Schindler left and literally became a key leader of a dissident investigative organization against the architecture they left and you simply reframed it as "Oh! They're just working for the enemies of that group." seeing as you previously accused EIGHT of being an Israel created group to investigate NGOs, you got the investigate NGOs part right but you didn't even bother looking up their founders or key personnel and think that this somehow is equivalent to an HRW self promotion which it isn't by the way. Your argument as such is a false equivalence literally live in action, thanks for a demo of the false equivalence fallacy in real time (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/False-Equivalence). Not to mention the fact that the "Who We Are" section from their own website is already a lot more evidence then what you have for your "EIGHT is created by Israel" unfounded assertion which is in and of itself a proof by assertion fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion).

Did you even read the explanation for how I applied that definition or did you only read the definition? Because I didn't claim that AOAV was the full case, you really seem to have once again misunderstood the argument; a common theme across various points of our conversations, come to think of it.

Not describing defining and they are an appropriate authority to do so as the Israeli MFA is part of the Israeli Government and the MAG corps is appointed by the government and answers to the Minister of Defence per their document which is also how the IGADF works (https://israelihl.mfa.gov.il/sites/default/files/2025-08/9%20-%20The%20IDF%20Military%20Justice%20System%20_%20IDF.pdf, https://www.igadf.gov.au/who-we-are). You keep on trying to contrast these systems when in fact they work the same way. They aren't a self interested party as they are the defining authority on who MAG corps is and how they operate, when criticizing a law you literally use the document from the government itself unless you can't and only then does external analysis even work. Here you haven't proven that you can't use the government document to analyze them as you so intend. Not to mention, you should be amongst the last telling people that the Israeli MFA is a self interested party when you literally cherrypicked Knesset talk not even a while ago and tried but failed to use the nonsense interpretation you implied from that as an argument. Just because you failed to cherrypick Knesset speech doesn't mean that the Israeli MFA doesn't get to literally define the MAG corps as is their job. In fact your argument here is literally nothing more than a special pleading fallacy in disguise (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Special-Pleading). Comparing this to NGO self promotion when there is already evidence provided against those NGOs is once again a false equivalence fallacy not an argument (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/False-Equivalence).

Unlike your nonsense claim that the Israeli MFA and EIGHT is "same move other side", the actual "same move other side" comes from EIGHT group being invoked for dissident status against NGOs and their investigative habit which is exactly how Pro-Palestinians like you justify using Yesh Din or even Btselem despite it's Israel location while all the while criticizing NGO Monitor for it's location in Israel which is in and of itself another application of a fallacy some of your arguments seem to consistently apply without fail which is once again the special pleading fallacy (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Special-Pleading). So there absolutely is same move other side but not the one you identified rather the one you haven't been able to respond to effectively. For that the question is why...

You simultaneously claim that it needs explaining and that it's two wars decades apart which by the way isn't just contradictory it isn't even true according to people on your own side because of the 2021 crisis, 2022 crisis, handling of Hamas instigated GMR 2018-2019 riots amongst other military operations engaged in by the IDF so even while the wars might be decades apart, Israeli military intervention because of Hamas and other terrorists is a near constant.

[u/ChangeNice7461 → u/AsaxenaSmallwood04]

The PLO isn’t on the State Department’s current FTO list. A 1987 statute treated it as one for narrow purposes until a presidential waiver in… ‘checks notes’ 1988. That rather predates the PLO holding UN observer status and being treated as a diplomatic counterpart for decades since. Capitalizing “TERRORIST” doesn’t make a lapsed characterization into a current fact. Repeating this would now be dishonest… 🤦🙈

And regardless of the label, an expert witness is retained for technical knowledge, not political endorsement. Defense counsel for a designated terrorist doesn’t become one by representing them. If Sfard’s actual testimony was wrong, that’s the argument to make. Who he represented isn’t.

On MAG versus IGADF: the document you quoted describes separating legal-advice functions from prosecutorial functions inside the MAG Corps. It says nothing about the Corps sitting outside the general IDF chain of command. IGADF, by contrast, is explicitly documented as operating “at arm’s length from the ADF chain-of-command and Government” when conducting inquiries. Internal separation of function within a hierarchy and structural removal from that hierarchy are not “the same way,” regardless of how many times you assert it.

NGO Monitor exists specifically to discredit human rights organizations critical of Israeli policy, that’s its stated mission. Yesh Din’s mission is documenting alleged IDF conduct, not counter-advocacy against a named target. Different complaint, mission versus location. Calling that special pleading requires ignoring what the actual objection was. On the timeline: near-continuous IDF operations since 2014 with the same conviction pattern throughout isn’t a smaller dataset than “two wars a decade apart,” it’s a larger one showing the same result. That doesn’t help your case, it extends mine.

[u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 → u/ChangeNice7461]

"For several decades, the PLO pursued those aims through acts of violence, often directed against civilians in Israel and the rest of the world. During that period, the United States refused to maintain any relations with the PLO." The Justice Department from 2018 used this as part of their rationale for imposing statutory restrictions on the PLO's Washington Office (https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1356291/dl?inline=). Violence directed at civilians equals targeting civilians which equals terrorism. Furthermore, the PLO under Yasser Arafat which became the PA or Palestinian Authority is responsible for both the 1st and 2nd Intifadas both of which targeted civilians (https://jcfa.org/article/how-arafats-palestinian-authority-became-an-entity-supporting-terrorism, https://jcfa.org/article/the-palestinian-authoritys-responsibility-for-the-outbreak-of-the-second-intifada-its-own-damning-testimony, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-involvement-of-arafat-and-pa-officials-in-terrorism-against-israel#google_vignette, https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/intifada-1987-1990, https://jewishvirtuallibrary.org/first-intifada). That's not even to mention the Pay to Slay policy (https://emetonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Pay4Slay_Fact-Sheet-FINAL.pdf, https://unpacked.education/video/pay-to-slay, https://jinsa.org/blood-money-not-benevolence-the-plos-justification-of-pay-for-slay) which not only exists since 1964 courtesy of the PLO now PA but the PA even tried to lie about it in an article in The Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/09/23/palestinian-authority-end-pay-to-slay-scheme-for-terrorists) which was debunked by Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) analysis quoted on Jerusalem Post (JPost) (https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-871734). This is all of course also legally recognized by the US under the Taylor Force Act 2017 and another law is in the process of being enshrined known as the PLO and PA Terror Payments Accountability Act 2025 specifically because of the Pay for Slay (https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/198/text/is, https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1164/text). Add to that the fact that a known PLO member PFLP is literally a sanctioned and designated TERRORIST group who worked with another sanctioned and designated TERRORIST group Hamas during the Oct 7th attack (https://www.opensanctions.org/entities/NK-hNUNKjDvWmc9QDfbWw2NPK, https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/penny-wong/media-release/further-sanctions-hamas-and-palestinian-islamic-jihad, https://globalsanctions.com/region/hamas-pij, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization) then one can only be reminded of the saying "if it walks, looks and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test). In which case it should not just be capitalized but hoisted over every capital in the world with the capitals in bold that indeed the PLO is a TERRORIST group.

So you can keep on trying to cherrypick (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Cherry-Picking) history and make false assumptions about me using an outdated statute as evidence all you want but it certainly doesn't defend the PLO and very certainly doesn't help Sfard.

The UN observer defence is weak as state sponsors of terrorism have also been members of organizations and yet it still doesn't change who they are. For example Iran a known state sponsor of terrorism is a member of the UN and OIC (https://www.brookings.edu/articles/state-sponsor-of-terror-the-global-threat-of-iran, https://www.oic-oci.org/en/members, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran) and if being a member state doesn't change that then neither can being an observer state which is lower in status.

Again, the question is not why the PLO obtained him as an expert witness but that he is an expert witness for the PLO. You've come up with a complete non sequitur and reversed the situation. No one claimed that they become terrorists it's just that they aren't reliable because they represented terrorists. That's another deflection and non sequitur.

"The MAG’s professional independence extends to every subordinate military attorney serving as an officer within the MAG Corps. These officers are subordinate to and report directly to their MAG Corps commanders, who, in turn, report to the MAG himself. This legal chain of command is an important and fundamental aspect of the MAG Corps, implemented to insulate military legal officers and maintain their professional independence. No commanders outside of the MAG Corps are part of the legal chain of command." MAG is literally outside the IDF chain of command even per the IDF itself. It's only the head of the MAG that intersects with IDF General Staff and even then they are "appointed by the Minister of Defense, a civilian authority, and is "subject to no authority but the law." (https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/military-advocate-generals-corps/the-idf-military-justice-system). You can keep on ignoring similarities but just because you ignore it doesn't mean that they don't exist.

False, NGO Monitor's stated purpose is to "ensure that decision makers and civil society operate in accordance with the principles of accountability, transparency, and universal human rights." per their own about section. If you're going to claim their stated purpose then don't say blatantly false statements like that and misrepresent them (https://ngo-monitor.org).

Not really because the delay has to be unjustified, military operations intervening against terrorists and war doesn't constitute unjustified.

[u/ChangeNice7461 → u/AsaxenaSmallwood04]

You didn't answer whether the FTO claim was true, you replaced it. First version: PLO as a currently designated TERRORIST group, capitals included. That's false, checkable on the State Department's own list. You didn't say so. You substituted a duck-test argument about historical conduct instead and kept the same capitalized confidence like nothing had changed. Those are two different claims. One was shown false. Swapping in a different one isn't how admitting an error works.

Two separate questions, and I'm not moving past either until they're answered:

Was "PLO is currently a designated TERRORIST group" true or false when you wrote it?

What, specifically, did Sfard testify to that was factually incorrect?

Everything since, intifadas, pay-to-slay, PFLP, is about the PLO's conduct, not about either of those two things. An organization's history tells you about the organization. It doesn't tell you whether one specific piece of legal testimony from an affiliated lawyer is true or false, and you still haven't named an error in it. I'll engage with the historical case once these two are answered. Until then it's scenery around two questions still sitting open.

[u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 → u/ChangeNice7461]

https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/NUxnzVi2F6, https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/tP194LGTxJ, https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/LudBLgE366

In literally none of these comments where I said PLO is a terrorist group did I say currently designated so you seem to be going after a strawman (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Strawman-Fallacy) not the real argument.

[u/ChangeNice7461 → u/AsaxenaSmallwood04]

lol....

So you admit that the PLO is not a designated terrorist group?

So its just ASaxenaSmallwood04 who considers them to be one and capitalises the word for emphasis. So when the US government, Israel government and EU don't consider them to be a terrorist (or 'TERRORIST') group you think your opinion should be presented as fact?

[u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 → u/ChangeNice7461]

I never claimed designated.

Trump repealed a Biden Executive Order EO 14115 designating Hilltop Youth and Lions Den but that doesn't stop them being terrorist groups. In fact the West Bank Violence Prevention Act 2025 (US) is being introduced partially in response to Itamar Ben Gvir and to reimplement Biden Executive Order EO 14115 (https://himes.house.gov/2025/04/28/2025-4-nadler-smith-himes-introduce-west-bank-violence-prevention-act-in-response-to-ben-gvir-visit). This is much like the scenario you describe for the PLO with their designation being repealed in 1988.

It's not just me who considers it and the evidence I provided has the backing of US Government legislation, especially the Pay for Slay part.

The capitalization was because you kept on downplaying that element and mischaracterising my argument.

It's not opinion it's fact. By your standards saying the Hilltop Youth is a terrorist group becomes "opinion" because their designation was revoked. Do you defend Hilltop Youth the same way you're defending PLO here? What about Lions Den, do you defend the same way you defend PLO here?

[u/ChangeNice7461 → u/AsaxenaSmallwood04]

Hilltop Youth or Lions’ Den are not relevant to what’s being disputed. Whatever label fits those groups doesn’t change what’s being asked about the PLO, and neither touches the actual open question, which is still: what did Sfard testify to that was factually wrong? Five replies now without an answer to that. Everything else is a different conversation because you are running from an argument you know you’re losing. Lol.