Belgian officials expressed outrage Thursday after Israeli forces reportedly bombed the office building of the Belgian Agency for Development Cooperation in the Gaza Strip, an attack that came after Belgium declined to join the U.S. and more than a dozen other countries in cutting off funding to the United Nations’ Palestinian refugee agency.
The timing of the attack on the Belgian office building raised eyebrows, with observers pointing to the nation’s status as one of the handful of Western countries not suspending aid to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) in response to Israel’s allegation that a dozen of the agency’s employees took part in the October 7 attacks.
Yeah maybe it’s an accident related to a complete lack of concern for which building they bomb, or maybe it’s not an accident and that’s why it’s timed so conveniently. Who cares, fuck Israel either way.
If they hadn’t built up so much bad will and distrust recently people probably wouldn’t rush to this conclusion. But they have. So they get to lie in the bed they made
Oh I agree. But if we start using unproven scenarios to further demonize them, then we do no better than what they did to Palestine. It’s hypocritical and follows the path they’re taking. So what’s the point then?
You want to wait for an investigation?
So do you also agree that we shouldn’t use unproven scenarios to demonize Palestinians or UNRWA just because a few of their workers ALLEGEDLY are members of hamas? And that we shouldn’t cut of funding to the humanitarian organization the same day the ICJ ruling ordered Israel provide humanitarian aid? Because otherwise it would be hypocrisy right?
Oh no, please don’t tell me that is totally different!
Nice loophole find after the post was deleted.
To answer your reply, I agree. It’s exactly the same and it’s a shame the bias exists so blatantly.
Yeah I see your point and agree to an extent. But if we don’t assume the obvious explanation because of Israel and it’s supporters generally casting doubt on basically any report of it’s crimes until an unspecified “investigation” is (possibly) concluded at some point in the future, then we allow them to escape blame for their actions.
You must know that they will never admit this is what happened, and there is no plausible way to settle the issue in the fog of war (e.g. the hospital car park explosion from early in the war, still debated and unclear).
So your approach basically lets them off the hook. Going with the obvious explanation is kind of better imo
It might be. I won’t say I know better.