More than a fifth of the remaining hostages being held by Hamas in Gaza are dead, according to available intelligence collated by the Israeli military.
The confidential internal review, leaked to the New York Times, reportedly concluded that a minimum of 32 of the remaining 136 hostages captured by Hamas have died, with their families being informed.
The fate of a further 20 is also in question, amid unconfirmed intelligence they may also have died during their captivity.
The claims emerged as it was disclosed that the Israeli military has begun investigating dozens of incidents where Israeli soldiers may have broken the IDF’s own rules of conduct or violated international law governing conflict, mostly in incidents involving significant civilian casualties or the destruction of civilian infrastructure.
Apt to happen when Israel is blowing them up.
Not remaining anymore, then, are they?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The confidential internal review, leaked to the New York Times, reportedly concluded that a minimum of 32 of the remaining 136 hostages captured by Hamas have died, with their families being informed.
It remained unclear, however, whether the Israel Defense Forces review meant that Hamas was holding the bodies of all of those 32 understood to be dead to bargain with in the future.
The disclosure of the hostages’ apparent deaths came as the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, visited Qatar on Tuesday on his latest Middle East crisis tour, as he sought a new ceasefire and “an enduring end” to the Israel-Hamas war.
Blinken’s visit also comes amid growing concerns in Egypt about Israel’s stated intentions to expand the combat in Gaza to areas on the Egyptian border that are crammed with displaced Palestinians.
UN humanitarian monitors said on Tuesday that Israeli evacuation orders now covered two-thirds of Gaza’s territory, driving thousands more people every day towards the border areas.
Egypt has warned that an Israeli deployment along the border would threaten the peace treaty the two countries signed over four decades ago.
The original article contains 787 words, the summary contains 185 words. Saved 76%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
according to available intelligence collated by the Israeli military
Not really a reliable source of information but I’m sure compliant media will wave it about as if it is fact
Israeli officials say 31 hostages dead as ceasefire negotiations continue
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israel-hostages-ceasefire-negotiation-1.7106546
More Than a Fifth of Hostages in Gaza Are Dead, Israel Says
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-hostages-dead.html
All of your sources all seem to quote the same Israeli statements put out by IDF reps, it is as if you willingly ignored the guy you are replying to and what they were highlighting by providing more of the same.
MBFC rating for The Guardian:
Factual Reporting: MIXED MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
Overall, we rate The Guardian… Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks over the last five years.
They go on to list 11 failed fact checks.
Factual Reporting: MIXED MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
Overall, we rate Al Jazeera… Mixed for factual reporting due to failed fact checks that were not corrected and misleading extreme editorial bias that favors Qatar.
Also worth noting, Al Jazeera is owned by the Qatari state and Qatar cut off ties with Israel due to a military operation in 2009.
I’m sure this will stop no one from posting links to their articles and treating it like gospel in the comments though.
MBFC is itself right wing and heavily biased in favor of Israel.
Funny how these MBFC links are almost exclusively posted here on posts about the Gaza genocide…
Given that the only people I see that support Palestine are either on this website or Palestinian, I’m more inclined to think that this website is heavily biased towards Palestine.
Says much more about who you see/notice than it says about Lemmy, which isn’t a website.
You should get out more
AJ is still a credible news source.
In review, Al Jazeera reports news with minimally loaded wording in their headlines and articles such as this: UN approves team to monitor ceasefire in Yemen’s port city, and Erdogan delays Syria operation, welcomes US troop withdrawal. Both of these articles are properly sourced from credible news agencies. When reporting USA news, there is minimal bias in reporting such as this: Pentagon chief Mattis quits, cites policy differences with Trump. In general, straight news reporting has a minimal bias; however, as a state-funded news agency, Al Jazeera is typically not critical of Qatar.
Al Jazeera also has an opinion page that exhibits significant bias against Israel. In this article, the author uses highly negative emotional words as evidenced by this quote: “Europe is increasingly sharing Israel’s racist approach to border security and adopting its deadly technologies.” This article, however, is properly sourced from credible media outlets. Another article, “How many more ways can Israel sentence Palestinians to death?” also uses loaded language that is negative toward Israel. Further, the opinion page does not favor US President Donald Trump through this article: ‘Barbed wire-plus‘: Borders know no love. In general, opinion pieces are routinely biased against Israel and right-wing ideologies.
And the two articles that failed fact checks were an article about India and an article about South Africa both in 2018.
Here’s another metric for bias and credibility
https://adfontesmedia.com/al-jazeera-bias-and-reliability/
Ad Fontes Media rates Al Jazeera (website) in the Skews Left category of bias and as Reliable, Analysis/Fact Reporting in terms of reliability.
When it comes to Qatar, India, or Africa then AJ is not a good source to turn to.
First time on Lemmy, huh? People here will follow AJ even if (or as long as) it states IDF is eating palestinian children…
Israeli military credibility rating: ZERO CREDIBILITY
