The bodies of 109 Palestinians including 23 children and 11 women were taken to Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital, and spokesperson Khalil Degran told the Associated Press that more than 100 wounded also arrived to the hospital. In addition, he said the rest of the 210 Palestinians killed were taken to Al-Awda Hospital after the spokesman said he spoke to the director there. But the numbers at that hospital could not be confirmed by the AP.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to continue the war until all hostages are freed, but Bassem Naim, a senior Hamas official now based in Lebanon, struck a drastically different tone.

“The horrific massacre committed today by Netanyahu and his fascist government against the Palestinian people in Gaza, which led to slaughter of 210 and more than 400 wounded so far — under the pretext of liberating those detained by the resistance — confirms what the resistance has said repeatedly: that Netanyahu doesn’t plan to reach an agreement to stop the war and free the captured Israelis peacefully,” Naim said, according to the Associated Press.

  • NateNate60@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s really hard to take either of them seriously because both have been known to lie through their teeth and blatantly violated the rules of war.

    It’s almost certain that the truth of what happened will never be known for certain, because basically none of the parties to this conflict have any credibility whatsoever.

    • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      6 months ago

      Well we could have independent journalists but Israel won’t allow any in and shoots them often.

      • NateNate60@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Correct, and that’s very much part of the problem. We have very unreliable information about the state of the war. They stop journalists to prevent information from getting out, and they succeeded.

    • kaffiene@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Historically the figures released by the Palestinian health system have been acknowledged as pretty accurate. From the Telegraph : “In previous rounds of fighting in the Strip, the total number of deaths reported by the Gazan authorities have been found to be broadly accurate, not differing significantly from estimates produced by the UN or IDF. There have, however, always been disputes over the civilian/combatant split.”

      • NateNate60@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I don’t doubt the accuracy of those figures but when it comes to things like Israel accusing Hamas of using human shields or setting up bases inside schools and Hamas saying “nuh uh”, without photo or video proof it’s hard to say either way.

        • kaffiene@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          I see your point. I tend to believe the Palestinian figures simply because they have a history of being reasonably accurate with casualty numbers and the IDF has a history of lying or at least playing down casualties

          • NateNate60@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            I don’t believe it is correct to call them “Palestinian” figures. There is no unified government in Palestine. There is a collection of multiple organisations exercising various amounts of authority over the Palestinian territories. The figures from the Gaza Health Ministry regarding civilian casualties are probably close to reality. But that doesn’t mean anything else is accurate. I give credibility to the Gaza Health Ministry on the topic of civilian death counts and other related humanitarian figures only.

    • Land_Strider@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      With one, you have to be cautious against infrequent exaggeration. With the other, you have to work your way through their constant denial. Both are not on point in scale of truth, and both can be used to completely subvert it for some intended purposes, but I think one is closer to the truth more frequently and by a lot than the other.

      You can definitely pick the exaggerating side to start with, then work your way to the truth as much as you can from there and you’d be closer to it than starting with the other one, having a lower rate of going astray.