The crucial question is whether the IDF shot at people waiting for humanitarian aid. The Times isn't convinced by the IDF drone video:
The drone video, which does not include audio, was edited by the Israeli military with multiple clips spliced together, leaving out a key moment before many in the crowd start running away from the trucks, with some people crawling behind walls, appearing to take cover.After a cut in the drone video, at least a dozen bodies are visible on the ground at the scene; it is not clear whether the people are injured or dead. A small number of people may have been struck by aid trucks during the panic, and two Israeli military vehicles are also visible at the scene.
But another video, from propaganda channel Al Jazeera, is described without any skepticism:
A separate video released by Al Jazeera of the crowd near the aid convoy captures the sound of gunfire and shows multiple tracer rounds, originating from the southwest where an Israeli military base is located.
That video is also heavily edited, but the NYT doesn't mention that.
But most importantly is that the Al Jazeera video shows that all the tracer rounds visible were shot well above the heads of any people.
Al Jazeera captions the video as "The first moments of the occupation shooting towards Palestinians waiting for aid" when the video shows that they are clearly not shooting at them.
People do duck when they hear the gunshots, but there is no indication of anyone shot or injured.
اللحظات الأولى لإطلاق الاحتلال النار باتجاه فلسطينيين ينتظرون وصول المساعدات في شارع الرشيد غربي #غزة#حرب_غزة pic.twitter.com/7VOHuZ2ygI
— قناة الجزيرة (@AJArabic) February 29, 2024
The AJ video doesn't refute the IDF account that they first fired warning shots at a crowd that approached them away from the convoy. It confirms it.
But the NYT also has "witnesses."
Around 100 people with gunshot wounds were brought to Kamal Adwan Hospital in Gaza City, according to its director, Husam Abu Safiya. The hospital had also received 12 bodies, he said. Another witness at the hospital, Hussam Shabat, 22, a journalist, said all the casualties he had seen had bullet wounds, including to the chest, jaw and shoulder.
Husam Abu Safiya has been interviewed numerous times during the war, consistently attacking Israel. In December he told Al Jazeera that the IDF placed weapons in the hospital, photographed them, and then arrested innocent people. He told other outlets that "The occupation shoots anyone who passes in the streets or looks through the windows."
He also accused the IDF of unleashing dogs in the hospital to attack doctors and patients, “They unleashed dogs on us to maul us.”
This hospital director is employed by and paid by Hamas. He will say what Hamas wants him to say. And the Western media knows this. They choose to report on only the accusations that sound credible, because they want to use him for stories like this one.
What about the other "journalist" who claims that "all" the casualties he had seen had bullet wounds?
Hussam Shabat is not a journalist. He doesn't have a media outlet. He only has an Instagram an Facebook page and managed to get a "Press" jacket.
His report from Thursday shows injured or dead people on a donkey cart. No gunshot wounds are visible, and some certainly look like they were trampled.
If he is a journalist with a camera, why not show the evidence?
But Shabat also has a side gig. He started a GoFundMe page to supposedly provide food and shelter to people in northern Gaza, all by himself.
He raised $75,000 in a week, with no accountability at all. No organization, no auditing, nothing but a promise that he will provide aid to Gazans and a couple of videos of him giving children food.
There is an obvious conflict of interest. He wouldn't raise as much money if he says that Gazans were trampled while trying to get food as he would from claiming that Israel shot them. And, very possibly, a large portion of the money he raises goes to...Hussam Shabat.
These are the witnesses that the New York Times deems credible enough to quote without any caveats, any research, any compunction, all at the same time that every Israeli statement and evidence is examined with a fine-toothed comb for inconsistency.
