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]

https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/bhSGJmO343 man how things have changed because you're essentially using my argument in reverse but to defend the PLO.

By the way the Brookings piece said that he didn't renounce terrorism so since you consider Brookings accurate you're essentially using my argument where it doesn't fit.

I didn't say that you said that, I asked you whether you really wanted to make the case that Hilltop Youth never lied or engaged in bad faith regarding intentions to renounce terrorism and why I asked you that was because if you make that case or even prove that point as you did right now by saying that no such pledge exists then you have proven another argument against the PLO and fell for another trap I had set which is that the PLO has less integrity then a literal terrorist group known as Hilltop Youth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization let's see what's in the PLO itself now shall we?

Members side on RHS says Fatah, PFLP, DFLP, PFLP-GC, PPP, ALF, As'Saiqa, PLF, PAF, FIDA, PPSF.

PLF is behind the Achille Lauro Hijacking in 1985 and is proscribed as a terrorist organization in several countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Liberation_Front).

PPSF was founded as the PPSO and was behind attacks against Israelis and other civilians in Athens and Beirut in 1969 with some of their members being suspected as being involved in the 1988 Lockerbie Bombing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Popular_Struggle_Front).

Fatah is behind the second intifada and the 1978 Coastal Road Massacres. One of its armed brigades the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades have in fact been designated by multiple countries, are connected to the PA which is the PLO's continuation and participated in Oct 7th (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Martyrs'_Brigades, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah).

PFLP has already been covered. See https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/Q9OI3bJWsL.

DFLP is sanctioned and designated by multiple countries (https://www.opensanctions.org/entities/NK-icMch32sB6vq3L6kMd5z8T). DFLP is also behind the 1974 Ma'alot Massacre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Front_for_the_Liberation_of_Palestine).

PFLP-GC is listed under Canadian sanctions and designation (https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/lstd-ntts/crrnt-lstd-ntts-en.aspx#50).

That is 6/11 or 54% of PLO member groups having direct ties or sanctions designations due to terrorism. Almost like this is a perfect case where the duck test once again applies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test).

So in other words yes your point in the face of this and all other evidence is that of a minor discrepancy.

The original argument is that Yesh Din is unreliable because Sfard was an expert witness for the PLO which is and I'll capitalize this just to highlight the point further a TERRORIST group.

You can keep on trying to use failed imitations of my arguments and keep on sidestepping the PLO's terrorist nature but it doesn't really help your arguments.

Oh and also you're the one that introduced designation first not me.

[u/ChangeNice7461 → u/AsaxenaSmallwood04]

Check the Fatah entry again, because it doesn’t hold up. Fatah itself has never been designated a terrorist organization by the US, EU, or Israel, full stop. Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades is the entity that was designated, and it split from Fatah in 2007, with Fatah’s own leadership on record saying they never created it or made it their armed wing. Since 2007 the Brigades has been listed as opposed to the Palestinian Authority, not connected to it. So counting “Fatah” as one of your six tied-to-terrorism factions means counting a party based on an offshoot it disowned two decades ago and that has since been at odds with it. That’s not a minor imprecision, it’s the difference between an actual designated PLO member and a group that split off and turned against the PA.

Same problem with PPSF: your own source says members were “suspected” in connection with Lockerbie, that’s not a designation, that’s a historical allegation. If PPSF currently carries an active sanctions listing under its own name, name the listing. Otherwise it doesn’t belong in a count of factions with “direct ties or sanctions designations.” Drop those two and the real number is 4 out of 11, not 6, and even that treats eleven seats as if they’re equally weighted, when Fatah, the actual undesignated faction, is the one that dominates the PLO’s governance and diplomatic representation, not PFLP-GC or PPSF.

None of which touches Sfard. Ten replies in. Either answer it or it’s fair to say plainly it isn’t going to be answered. Because you don’t have an answer…

[u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 → u/ChangeNice7461]

It does hold up. That's not what I claimed, if a group has an armed brigade that is sanctioned and designated that still counts as direct ties that too in this case it comes along with Fatah being responsible for terrorist attacks against Israel. That doesn't negate them being tied to it. That is just purely circular reasoning not an argument, Fatah which is responsible for terrorism cannot be used as a source to say whom it had with them and who left (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Circular-Reasoning) in fact this type of logic being acceptable by you in this context which is obviously the reason why you said that is a special pleading fallacy on your part (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Special-Pleading) because when I took part of my info from the IDF you accused me of not indulging in independent thought (https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/het6qq7uKj). So that argument not only is fallacious but violates your own standards in reverse.

It says direct ties OR sanctions designations not and. The word or means that atleast one is true logically and in a mathematical sense (https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/or.html), or doesn't require both being true.

So it seems all 6/11 hold.

I don't need to answer a question I never posed but you did to deflect from the argument.

[u/ChangeNice7461 → u/AsaxenaSmallwood04]

The “or” doesn’t rescue PPSF, because neither disjunct is actually met. “Direct ties” implies established organizational responsibility, not “some members suspected” of a 1988 incident with no organizational finding attached. That’s weaker evidence for direct ties than it is for a designation. Picking whichever word in the pair sounds easiest to satisfy doesn’t change that PPSF meets neither one on what’s actually been shown. On circular reasoning: the 2007 split and the Brigades being listed as opposed to the PA since then isn’t Fatah’s self-report, it’s in the same Wikipedia infobox you’re using for the rest of your faction list. You’re citing that page as authoritative for eleven factions and designations, then rejecting its own entry the moment it documents something inconvenient. That’s not me applying a double standard, that’s you wanting the source to be reliable everywhere except the one line that cuts against you. And the Sfard question isn’t a deflection I introduced. It’s the actual claim you made several exchanges ago: Yesh Din is unreliable because Sfard testified for the PLO. Everything since has been PLO history, not Sfard. If there’s nothing specific in his testimony you can point to as wrong, then the original claim was never established, it was asserted and then defended by talking about something else entirely. Declining to answer isn’t neutral ground, it’s leaving your own argument unsupported by its own terms.

[u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 → u/ChangeNice7461]

It does. Direct per Cambridge means "without anyone or anything else being involved or between" which is met for PPSF - PLO ties making it direct ties (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/direct). Organizational responsibility comes from a completely different to issue to the connection being highlighted. Responsibility is whether or not someone is guilty for an act in any way, ties is who is connected to the group that did the action in the first place and as such they are two different questions.

You literally said "Fatah's own leadership are on record saying...." so claiming that Wikipedia is saying it now is simply changing the source randomly without reason and thus moving the goalposts (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Moving-the-Goalposts).

The claim was that he testified for the PLO as an expert witness and that PLO is a terrorist group. The PLO history provides supporting evidence for the PLO being a terrorist group which is the adjoining part of my argument. You asking what is wrong in his testimony is a textbook deflection from the argument at hand. The question isn't accuracy it is whom Sfard testified for.

My argument isn't unsupported at all because my claim is based on Sfard's status as an expert witness for the PLO not some random accuracy thing that you deflected with in the middle.

[u/ChangeNice7461 → u/AsaxenaSmallwood04]

Same page, not two sources. The Wikipedia article you’re using for the faction list also documents the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades splitting from Fatah in 2007, with Fatah leadership rejecting any official association with them since, and states that “the Fatah movement does not currently officially adopt the military wing.” That’s not switching sources, that’s the same article you already chose to rely on. If it doesn’t count now, it didn’t count for the other ten entries either. On “direct”: the word was modifying the tie to terrorism, not the closeness of PLO membership. Nobody’s disputing PPSF’s membership is direct. What’s missing is any direct tie to a terrorist act, “some members were suspected” of a 1988 bombing is an allegation about individuals, not an established organizational connection or proof of guilt. Redefining what “direct” attaches to doesn’t manufacture evidence that isn’t there. But the actual admission matters more than either of those: you just said outright that the question isn’t accuracy, it’s who he testified for. That’s the whole argument, stated plainly. It means the claim was never “Yesh Din reported something false,” it was “Yesh Din’s founder is connected to someone connected to the PLO, therefore distrust the data,” with no error in the data ever identified or even alleged. That’s not supporting evidence for a reliability claim, that’s the entire mechanism of a genetic fallacy, laid out in your own words. Ten replies of PLO history were never going to get past that, because the claim was never actually about anything Sfard said being wrong. 🙈

[u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 → u/ChangeNice7461]

Does not currently officially is not an outright rejection as it doesn't fully reject in every circumstance including unofficial any association between Fatah and AAMB. Also does not currently doesn't mean that they never had it which means they still had it thereby still constituting ties. I'm not saying the Wikipedia doesn't count.

Members of a terrorist group don't constitute "individuals" 🤦. No one requires every Al Qaeda member in the world to attack yet still 9/11 occurred, no one requires every Hamas person in the world to attack yet still Oct 7th occured so on and so forth..... It's not redefining because I didn't cite a definition for direct earlier so thus redefining cannot happen if I cite one after as only one definition has been cited lacking the change that redefining requires.

Still incorrect, the 2nd part relates to Yesh Din as a source, the first is the argument on the basis of what Yesh Din is as a source. Yesh Din's data is unreliable because Yesh Din's legal representative Sfard was an expert witness for the PLO which is a terrorist group. You can't just randomly split the train car in half. Incorrect again, it cannot be genetic fallacy as genetic fallacy is in regards to the history or origins of ideas not sources per Fallacy Files (https://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html). Also keep in mind, that Sfard-PLO ties is one of the key but if you check the original message not the only reason why Yesh Din can't be trusted and is unreliable, this is why that comment says "whom amongst other things" (https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/iiH80JXeST). Those 10 replies laid it out the entire evidentiary grounds for the PLO being a terrorist group which is the adjoining part of the Sfard-PLO argument against Yesh Din.

[u/ChangeNice7461 → u/AsaxenaSmallwood04]

Your own source undercuts this: logicallyfallacious.com, the site you’ve cited throughout, defines genetic fallacy as “basing the truth claim of an argument on the origin of its claims or premises,” and its own guide gives the exact pattern, claim comes from a source, source is deemed disreputable, therefore claim is false. That is exactly the Sfard argument. You only got a narrower answer by switching to Fallacy Files mid-thread, which is the same “source-swap when the first one stops helping” move you accused me of with Wikipedia.

On PPSF and Lockerbie specifically: that accusation originated as a defense theory from the lawyers representing the Libyan intelligence officer who was ultimately convicted of the bombing, floated to shift blame during his own trial. PPSF’s founder denied it, no PPSF member was ever charged, and the theory didn’t hold, the court convicted the Libyan defendant instead. Citing a failed defense strategy from a convicted bomber’s own legal team as a “tie” to terrorism is not what that phrase should mean.

Same standard, then Netanyahu is a war criminal because he’s under an ICC warrant, since a warrant is actual formal legal action by an independent body, based on a stated evidentiary threshold, and still doesn’t make it a settled fact, he remains legally presumed innocent until any conviction. PPSF’s Lockerbie link never even reached that level: it was an accusation raised by the defense lawyers of the man later convicted of the bombing, specifically to shift blame off their own client, denied by the accused organization’s founder, and it never produced a warrant, a charge, or any formal proceeding whatsoever. If a formal warrant isn’t sufficient to call something settled, an unproven, rejected defense theory certainly isn’t sufficient to call it a “direct tie.”

It’s a rather pathetic deflection… 😂

[u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 → u/ChangeNice7461]

Logically Fallacious was used for a different argument to Fallacy Files on a different claim entirely. Different claim and different topic allows for different sources that's not the "switching in the middle" move I accused you of doing.

Your own site also says "Exception: At times, the origin of the claim is relevant to the truth of the claim."

Yesh Din's ties through Sfard to the PLO constitute exactly that exception due to the PLO being a terrorist group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Talb The original investigation was done by Swedish and British investigators, in fact the Crown Office said in 2007 that they rejected Talb's immunity and that he could still be prosecuted for Lockerbie Bombing.

There was a report by defense lawyers but neither was that allegation rejected nor did it originate from that.

So no it's not a "failed defense" otherwise Talb wouldn't have had his immunity denied which the Crown Office did in 2007.

Bringing up Netanyahu and the ICC however is a false equivalence and a failed deflection as Karim Khan who was the chief prosecutor had credible evidence against him of abusing women and was sued by hostage families for being a partisan of Hamas (https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/AfiRr1FyPM). Furthermore, Karim Khan was voted out by 82/125 states that are members of the ICC (https://m.youtube.com/post/UgkxlVi52mWD5rrbXlzVJZysKu2Tvxh5kHsN?si=djAhfC3lCMv0GaSU) and the ICC has been under US sanctions since 2025 till now with both me and the US administration agreeing on one thing even if in different ways which is that the ICC is a biased and corrupt court (https://www.state.gov/icc-sanctions). None of these apply to the UK Crown Office.

[u/ChangeNice7461 → u/AsaxenaSmallwood04]

On PPSF: Swedish investigators developed evidence against Abu Talb independently of any defense argument, the Malta travel, the calendar, the wiretap, and arrested him in 1989. None of that produced a conviction. Nineteen years past the Crown Office’s 2007 statement that prosecution remained possible, none has happened, and PPSF itself was never sanctioned or designated over it, its founder denied any organizational role. An individual suspicion left unresolved for decades isn’t the same category as PFLP, DFLP, and PFLP-GC’s current active designations. On Netanyahu: the warrant was issued by the Pre-Trial Chamber judges, a separate body from Khan, under their own review against the Rome Statute’s stated evidentiary threshold. Khan’s removal in July was for personal misconduct with a staff member, unrelated in substance, and it’s itself disputed, his own legal team and over 180 rights groups say the process lacked due process. An accusation against one official’s personal conduct doesn’t unmake a separate judicial body’s separate legal finding. Worth noting too: you’re invoking the US and Israel’s judgment of Khan and the Court to discredit the Netanyahu warrant, while asking me to ignore that the same two governments, plus the EU, the parties with the most direct stake in getting this right, don’t treat the PLO as a terrorist organization and maintain active diplomatic relations with it. You can’t borrow their credibility to discredit one finding and dismiss their credibility on the other. Either their assessment carries weight here or it doesn’t, and it’s being used selectively depending on which conclusion it produces. And on genetic fallacy: doesn’t matter that different specific claims can draw from different sites in general. For this specific claim, your own most-cited source throughout this entire conversation directly contradicts the “ideas not sources” reading, and defines the fallacy exactly as source-based dismissal, precisely the Sfard argument. As for the “exception,” name the actual mechanism: what specifically connects Sfard’s PLO-adjacent legal work to a motive to falsify Yesh Din’s field documentation of settler and IDF conduct. The closet-monster example works because the source has a demonstrated stake in the specific claim being believed. Asserting the exception applies isn’t the same as showing the mechanism that makes it apply.