Nobody is asking you to be a domain expert. When it comes to almost any other issue, people ask how and demand evidence. But when it comes to Hamas's claims of a certain number of dead, nobody seems to ask "How do they calculate it? Are they looking at morgue data? Are they doing photographs of mass burial sites, as Ukraine did? What is their method?"
So people are asking you to be scientific and critical rather than to uncritically repeat the claims of a belligerent in combat.
Finally, I'm not sure if you're saying this facetiously or if you genuinely don't know what Israel is capable of, or the lengths its gone to to reduce civilian harm but Israel is not doing indiscriminate mass slaughter. That's what Hamas did on October 7.
Ok, fair. My curiosity about methodology was satisfied when I saw an interview with a UN relief director who explained the retrospective examination of past casualty reporting that had happened.
I mean completely seriously that Israeli occupation forces are engaging in deliberate mass slaughter, including widely reported upon declarations of certain zones as safe for civilians followed by the bombing of those zones (https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-01-03-2024-...).
The UN is unfortunately not a credible source when it comes to this issue. Hostages have been held at UN employees' houses; the UN failed to condemn the October 7 attack for months; and they denied that rape occurred for months.
While you rely on authorities, I'll do what enlightenment thinkers do. Ask questions like "how" and "what is their method."
Israel has a vested interest in discrediting the UN, this does not mean that the UN is in fact not a credible source. I'll glaze over their non-condemnation (since nobody required to condemn the IDF to participate in this discourse) and I'll say that independent investigations have yet to substantiate the accusations of sexual violence and infant beheadings that the Israeli state makes. So at least on that accord, the facts are on the side of the UN denials.
It may well be the case that Israel has a vested interest in discrediting the UN, but it's also pretty clear that the UN doesn't have much of an interest in establishing its own credibility. The Human Rights Council includes military dictatorships and countries responsible for unquestioned genocides. It has had a standing agenda item ("Item 7") regarding Palestine and the "occupied Arab territories"; Israel is the only country to receive such attention. The Special Rapporteur on Palestine, Francesa Albanese, has accused the US and Europe of being "subjugated by the Jewish lobby". The UN itself sponsors several organizations dedicated to the Israel/Palestine conflict, despite drastically more severe human rights issues elsewhere on the globe.
None of this is to defend any of the Netanyahu administrations actions in Gaza. I think these discussions on HN are largely cursed, and nobody is going to persuade anybody to "switch sides". You don't have to agree that the UN is, as Israel's supporters would say, so clearly biased against Israel as to be fatal to their credibility. But I don't think you can dismiss the charge easily. If you dig in, you're going to read some uncomfortable stuff.
Probably not, plus as a former UN brat (DISCLOSURE!), this stuff tends to get my goat a little.
Since the org is huge, multipurpose and multifaceted (and often less than the sum of its parts), I'd say it's best to stay as specific as possible both when using some UN thing to buttress an argument or to critique the thing - so, what is the thing, by what org, person, representative, etc.
In this case, the specific thing is
an interview with a UN relief director who explained the retrospective examination of past casualty reporting that had happened
Which doesn't seem to be linked? From there the whole thing swerves into a discussion of 'The UN' which turns to vague generalities that are mostly (I think often unintentionally) recycled talking points. 'Israel seeks to discredit the UN' is a recycled talking point itself, of course. But I think 'HRC has bad members' is too - the UN is full of bad members. The Security Council has an aggressor state on it with veto power and everything! UN has a lot of orgs and items dedicated to the conflict? Sure, but Israel and the UN were almost born together and the conflict is one of the closest things the UN has to a foundational, OG issue - state formation, genocide, wars of aggression, right to defense, refugees, it's all there. Special Rapporteurs are kind of unserious (and why is there no Special Raconteur)? A real thing but doesn't seem clearly related to whatever interview the poster read.
Anyway, sorry for the grumptone, I just think substantive UN critique is such a fecund orchard of low hanging fruit there's not much point in settling for the frozen trope concentrate stuff.
These are all points well taken, and my general approach of dipping into fever threads only when there's something concrete I think can be added to the thread does in this case seem to be contributing to veering. It's just memorable to me because I got my ass handed to me in a conversation with a friend about how credible the anti-Israel bias argument was. But I don't pretend this is dispositive of anything; my only claim is that there's a colorable argument here, it's not just some random made-up thing.
Hey Paul, I just want to clarify that you are an idol of mine and I hugely respect your thinking. I've read your essays for decades. I think there may be an imbalance between your knowledge and confidence when it comes to these matters, but I still highly respect you and I know you're more philosemite than antisemite. Thanks for inspiring me for decades.
Hey, I'm sorry I didn't link the specific interview! I believe it was PBS, and I'm highly confident the individual from the UN in the interview was Martin Griffiths.
With regard to the evidence for sexual violence, can I ask you what would be an acceptable form of evidence for you that doesn't include watching a video of a girl getting raped?
Also, with regard to the beheadings, I know this is uncomfortable, but it's worth looking into a bit more than you have. There is lots of evidence that would pass muster in any court.
> With regard to the evidence for sexual violence, can I ask you what would be an acceptable form of evidence for you that doesn't include watching a video of a girl getting raped?
> “She said she then watched another woman “shredded into pieces.” While one terrorist raped her, she said, another pulled out a box cutter and sliced off her breast. “One continues to rape her, and the other throws her breast to someone else, and they play with it, throw it, and it falls on the road.”
If people accept that at face value from a party that calls people "human animals" and turns off water for civilians and all that, while prepping to take over occupied territory it doesn't even consider occupied but theirs, well.
> Also, with regard to the beheadings, I know this is uncomfortable, but it's worth looking into a bit more than you have. There is lots of evidence that would pass muster in any court.
If it would pass in court, you can link to it here. Because, again, so far it's been claims accepted at face value, then attacking those who ask for evidence (it's in the OP article even, someone asking for evidence being flagged as "terrorist/fake"), then still no evidence.
I'm kind of tired of showing people evidence of rape, but yes, all the evidence does exist, and at some point you will see it. You can even find it today if you search around carefully.
So people are asking you to be scientific and critical rather than to uncritically repeat the claims of a belligerent in combat.
Finally, I'm not sure if you're saying this facetiously or if you genuinely don't know what Israel is capable of, or the lengths its gone to to reduce civilian harm but Israel is not doing indiscriminate mass slaughter. That's what Hamas did on October 7.