IDF Interview 7.30

Originally posted by Scott th Ratbag: ↑

October 7 was the date when Hamas terrorists entered Israel and killed about 1,200 people, according to Israeli figures.
Lieutenant Colonel Lerner said that incident influenced the thinking of the military on the night Ms Frankcom was killed.
"This was the conclusion that the operator and the forces understood," Lieutenant Colonel Lerner said.
"They came to a conclusion that this must be Hamas."
He then said that despite the suspected presence of Hamas, senior military figures told IDF drone operators not to strike due to the proximity of the aid warehouses.
However, he said that thinking changed shortly after when some of the trucks left the area.
ABC LINK.

Lerner gave a competent interview. he stuck to the story and added some interesting detail.

unfortunately I didn't find him credible. but that just imo.

to me the details are like a action story with some inconvenient known facts left out. other details left dangling. and many questions, such as
why did the IDF team ignore the four other vehicles they identified as Toyota utes, and only attack the WCK trucks? and why in sequence?
and why was the fact that the WCK had liaised with the IDF that they were leaving the storage shed not mentioned by the Lt.Col.? this is a key part of the story and, reportedly, was confirmed by the WCK CEO.
also the convoy followed a clearly marked 'aid vehicle route'. the IDF knew it was an aid convoy and that it was on the move. surely the missile team knew this and, as they identified the other utes, should sensibly have switched to those.

disagree or explain my questions if you want. I'm keen to read alternatives.

Expand

I thought the interview was hamstrung by the artlessness of the interviewer. She was attempting to establish that the IDF didn't take all reasonable measures to establish the identity of people in the vehicles. Instead of asking questions about what steps they took to identify, what steps they usually take, what additional steps could have been taken, she blurted out that it's a war crime not to seek to identify those you're engaging with in civilian areas, which telegraphed where she wanted the interview to go: a statement from the IDF spokesman that they could reasonably have done more to identify the identity of those in the vehicle. Having been forewarned, the IDF rep wasnt about to make any incriminating admissions.
. The interviewer then concluded by asserting that she didn't believe the Israelis when they claim the killings were a mistake. It's her right not to believe them, but is her opinion actually worth anything given that she's not in possession of evidence to back her belief? Surely the way an interviewer makes that inference is to ask the subject of the interview "What do you say to people who believe you're lying when you say this was a mistake?" Thus inserting the narrative that while it's questionable whether the subject is telling the truth, it does also afford him the opportunity to rebut that position. Ferguson seems to have lost sight of the fact that it's her place to elicit information from people she interviews, and examine the integrity of that information, not simply assert without evidence her opinion on the subject.

. Reaper