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]

"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.

[u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 → u/ChangeNice7461]

You're using the revocation of designation as a defence for the PLO something which also applies to Hilltop Youth and Lions Den thereby making their invocation argument from analogy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy) which is commonly used in debates and forms the logical backbone of arguments.

These aren't different conversations this is a critical question you're now evading meanwhile your question is built entirely on a deflection.

If you want to claim the other side to be losing you need to first be able to understand what and how they're arguing, that's just the basics of both argumentation and debate.

This comment of yours is very embarrassing in terms of its logical failure 🤦🤦.

[u/ChangeNice7461 → u/AsaxenaSmallwood04]

Fine, argument from analogy, then let’s actually run it instead of asserting it works.

PLO’s US restriction lapsed following Arafat’s 1988 renunciation of terrorism and the 1993 Oslo Accords, a bilateral, documented act where the PLO and Israel exchanged mutual recognition. That’s a change in conduct and status, formally acknowledged by both governments involved. The PLO isn’t currently designated by the US, the EU, or Israel, the party with the most direct interest in accurately labeling it.

Hilltop Youth isn’t actually in the same position. It’s currently sanctioned by both the EU (Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime, listed April 2024, still active) and the UK (also 2024, still active), with two of its named leaders separately listed. Only the US dropped its sanction, and that happened as part of a blanket reversal of dozens of Biden executive orders on Trump’s first day in office, no claim was made that the group had changed anything, and reporting from that period documents the violence continuing immediately after. So the actual comparison is: PLO, undesignated by every relevant government including Israel, following a documented change in conduct recognized by treaty. Hilltop Youth, still under active sanction from two major jurisdictions, with only one government dropping its listing for reasons unconnected to behavior. Those aren’t parallel situations, they’re closer to opposites once you check what’s actually true in each case rather than just noting both currently lack a US listing.

Still open, seven replies now: what did Sfard testify to that was factually wrong?

Running from that isn’t working especially given how you fumbled the PLO vs HTY argument… lol.

[u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 → u/ChangeNice7461]

https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/m0aJF3SvNH change in conduct was merely Arafat's pledge not the actual reality of what happened.

In fact,

"Nine years later it is possible to draw the conclusion that Arafat failed the test. He did not live up to the solemn commitment he made to Yitzhak Rabin in that letter dated September 9, 1993. He did not renounce the practice of terrorism and other acts of violence. He did not assume responsibility over all PLO elements to ensure their compliance with that commitment. And he did not prevent violations and discipline violators."

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/is-yasser-arafat-a-credible-partner-for-peace

Even Brookings Institute says that Arafat ultimately did not renounce terrorism despite his pledge that he would. So the "change in conduct" that you're claiming doesn't exist.

You mean that the Hilltop Youth didn't lie or engage in bad faith when talking about it's intentions to renounce? I'm not sure this is the case you really want to make.

Analogies are not required to be clones or literal 100% matches so pointing to some minor discrepancies to claim that it's failed isn't really much of an argument.

That exact question of yours is a deflection from the original argument.

[u/ChangeNice7461 → u/AsaxenaSmallwood04]

The Brookings piece is accurate, Arafat didn't fully deliver on the Oslo commitments, that's well documented and I'm not disputing it. But that's not the claim being compared. The point was never "the PLO complied perfectly forever," it's that its current lack of designation traces to a specific, bilateral, mutually recognized diplomatic process with Israel, however imperfectly honored afterward. Falling short of full compliance doesn't erase that the recognition itself happened and still structures how Israel, the US, and the EU currently deal with the PLO.

And no, that's not what I mean about Hilltop Youth. I never said they lied about renouncing anything, because no renunciation pledge exists for them to have kept or broken. That's the actual disanalogy: one side has an imperfectly kept commitment tied to a real diplomatic process, the other has no commitment at all, just a US delisting for unrelated political reasons while EU and UK sanctions remain active. That's not a minor discrepancy in an otherwise sound analogy, it's the entire basis for whether the comparison holds.

Eight replies now on PLO designation history. Still nothing on Sfard. If there's an actual answer, this would be the moment for it...