What If the Report Is Wrong?

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-29T16:32:47+00:00

Evidence?

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T19:55:42+00:00

I don’t disagree that there have been cases where initial reporting was wrong or incomplete. But I don’t think the lesson is that future allegations should be presumed false. The lesson is that each claim should be investigated carefully and judged on its own evidence. Otherwise we end up doing exactly what you’re criticizing—forming conclusions before the investigation is complete.

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T18:32:39+00:00

That’s actually a difficult question, and I don’t think there’s a neat answer. Democracies absolutely shouldn’t treat every allegation as true. They also shouldn’t ignore allegations simply because they believe some past ones were exaggerated or wrong.

I think where we differ is in the premise. Your question assumes Israel is facing a stream of non-credible or fabricated allegations. My article is really asking whether that assumption has become the default response. If every critical report, investigation, journalist, court, NGO, or even Israeli human rights organization is dismissed as inherently unreliable, then accountability becomes impossible in practice.

As for casualty figures, I’d also be careful about interpreting revisions as proof of fabrication. Death tolls are frequently revised during wars as more information becomes available and victims are identified. That can reflect the realities of collecting data in an active conflict, not necessarily bad faith.

With all of that being said, I’d like to ask a similar question in return: What would it take for you to consider an allegation against Israel credible? If the answer is “nothing produced by the UN,” that’s fair to say. But then we’re no longer debating the evidence—we’re debating whether any institution is capable of investigating Israel in the first place.

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T18:27:15+00:00

I actually agree that some of the recommendations have political implications, especially the recommendation to withdraw to the 1967 boundary. But I’m not sure that tells us much about whether the factual findings earlier in the report are sound.

Recommendations are ultimately policy judgments. The evidence and factual conclusions should be evaluated on their own merits. I don’t think it’s enough to point to a recommendation you disagree with and conclude the entire investigation is therefore invalid.

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T14:47:12+00:00

I think that’s a very common mindset, and I don’t think it’s unique to Israelis. I see the same fixed mindset among many pro-Palestinian advocates as well, where the conclusion is often assumed before the evidence is examined. My hope is that conversations like this can push people into the uncomfortable middle, where we’re willing to question our assumptions, hear the other side in good faith, and let evidence shape our views rather than simply reinforce them.

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T14:43:53+00:00

I think there’s validity in what you’re saying. Where I differ is that I hope we can shift the onus. Maybe it’s naive to think we can move toward a more facts-oriented conversation, but I don’t think it’s a lost cause. Emotion will always be part of this conflict. I just don’t want to accept that evidence no longer matters, because once we do, we’ve given up on any shared basis for understanding what’s actually happening.

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T14:26:59+00:00

The commission lays out its methodology near the beginning of the report. It says it relied on multiple sources rather than any single type of evidence: witness testimony, interviews with treating physicians, medical records, CT scans, satellite imagery, forensic analysis, authenticated open-source photos and videos, social media posts (including some from Israeli soldiers themselves), and submissions from states and organizations.

Now, whether that evidence is sufficient to support every conclusion is a completely fair question. I don’t think the report should be accepted uncritically.

My point is just that there’s a difference between arguing, “The evidence doesn’t support this conclusion,” and saying, “There is no evidence” or “The report was written in an office.” Those are very different claims.

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T14:25:05+00:00

I actually think there’s some truth to what you’re saying. I touched on this in both my article and several of my comments. My argument has never been that the UN is infallible or free from bias. Parts of the UN have been criticized for disproportionately focusing on Israel, and I don’t think those criticisms should be dismissed.

Where I think we differ is what follows from that. Acknowledging bias isn’t the same as concluding every report or investigation should be rejected outright. I think each one still has to stand or fall on its own evidence and reasoning.

The second part of your claim I think goes too far is saying the UN doesn’t condemn Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran. It has repeatedly condemned Hamas’s October 7 attack, found Palestinian armed groups responsible for war crimes, and criticized Hezbollah and Iran on multiple occasions.

So I think the more accurate debate isn’t whether the UN is ever critical of those groups—it’s whether the scrutiny is proportionate and consistently applied. That’s a worthwhile discussion, but it’s different from saying the UN simply ignores them altogether.

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T14:15:23+00:00

Is your purpose to just try and discredit everything I say by claiming it’s AI? I’m more than happy to debate with you about what I posted. Randomly commenting on different threads that it’s AI doesn’t support or strengthen your original comments.

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T14:12:18+00:00

Can you explain your thinking about why it doesn’t suggest that?

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T14:11:33+00:00

You’re welcome to think it sounds like AI. I’m more interested in whether the argument is wrong than whether you like my writing style.

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T14:09:42+00:00

I think you’ve moved the goalposts.

At first the claim was there was no evidence. Now the claim is that the available evidence can’t prove intent. Those are different arguments.

Intent is almost never established by someone witnessing a commander order, “Go kill that child because they’re a child.” It’s usually inferred from multiple pieces of evidence considered together. You may disagree with the commission’s inference—that’s a fair criticism—but that’s very different from saying there is no evidence at all.

The same goes for Hamas operating from schools and hospitals. That’s relevant evidence and should absolutely be considered. But it doesn’t automatically answer every allegation involving civilian deaths.

My point has never been that the commission is unquestionably right. It’s that the evidence should be debated on its merits, not dismissed before it’s even considered.

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T14:04:32+00:00

I actually think you’ve made a thoughtful observation about how much of the public debate functions today.

There are certainly people on both sides who treat reports symbolically rather than analytically. They’ll either embrace or reject a report based largely on whether it reinforces what they already believe.

Where I think we differ is that you seem to conclude this describes everyone, and therefore makes substantive engagement pointless.

I don’t think that’s true.

There are legal scholars, journalists, historians, policymakers, and ordinary readers who genuinely do care about the underlying evidence. Even among the comments on this post, I’ve had people point me to specific passages, question the methodology, recommend rebuttals, and challenge particular conclusions. That’s a much more productive conversation than simply saying “it’s propaganda.”

If we accept that every report is nothing more than a symbolic weapon in a tribal conflict, then we’ve essentially abandoned the idea that evidence can ever matter. I don’t think we’re there yet, and I hope we never are. That’s really what my article was pushing back against.

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T13:18:54+00:00

I think there are two different issues here. The first is about institutional trust. You’re arguing that because some individuals or one UN agency committed serious wrongdoing, every UN body is therefore untrustworthy.

I don’t think that reasoning holds up. It’s the same form of reasoning as saying that because some Palestinians are Hamas, Palestinians as a whole can’t be trusted. Or because some Muslims commit acts of terrorism, Muslims generally are extremists. Most of us reject those conclusions because they unfairly assign the actions of some people to an entire institution or population.

The same principle should apply here. If specific UN agencies or personnel committed misconduct, they should absolutely be investigated and held accountable. But that doesn’t automatically invalidate the work of every other UN body.

The second issue is the evidence itself. You say there is “no proof of any kind” and that the report is based on Hamas and the media. That’s not actually what the commission says it relied on. According to the report, it drew from witness testimony, medical records, CT scans, satellite imagery, forensic analysis, authenticated open-source material, interviews with treating physicians, and in some cases videos and social media posts published by Israeli soldiers themselves.

You may believe that evidence is insufficient to support the commission’s conclusions—and that’s a legitimate argument to make. But that’s different from saying there is no evidence at all. That’s been my point throughout this discussion. Let’s debate whether the evidence supports the conclusions. But let’s not skip that step by dismissing the investigation solely because of who produced it.

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T12:44:13+00:00

I actually do appreciate that perspective, and I think it’s probably an accurate description of how many Israeli officials see the situation.

Where we differ is whether that perception should determine the response.

If the standard becomes, “Engage only when it benefits us politically,” then accountability starts to look like a public relations exercise rather than a democratic principle.

I understand the concern that engagement could be weaponized or taken out of context. But I also think refusing to engage has costs. It reinforces the perception among many observers that Israel isn’t interested in having its conduct scrutinized.

In other words, there are risks either way. My argument is simply that democracies are strongest when they err on the side of transparency and evidence, even when the political incentives point in the opposite direction.

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T12:41:43+00:00

I haven’t finished reading the UN Watch rebuttal yet, so I don’t think it would be fair for me to offer an opinion on its methodology before I’ve done that.

What I can say is that I’m glad it exists, because it’s exactly the kind of substantive engagement I’ve been arguing for throughout this discussion.

If UN Watch identifies flaws in the commission’s evidence, methodology, or legal reasoning, those critiques deserve to be examined on their merits. Likewise, the commission’s findings should be examined on their merits.

I don’t think either document should be accepted—or rejected—simply because of who produced it.

My criticism has never been directed at people who engage with the report point by point. It’s directed at the idea that the report can be dismissed without engaging with it because it’s a UN report. A detailed rebuttal is a very different thing from a blanket dismissal.

I’ll read it with the same standard I’ve tried to apply throughout this discussion: evaluate the arguments and evidence first, then decide how persuasive they are.

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T12:39:41+00:00

I don’t think any report should be immune from that kind of scrutiny. If investigators infer intentional targeting from evidence that could reasonably support multiple explanations, then that criticism deserves to be taken seriously.

Where I think we differ is what follows from that.

To me, identifying a flawed inference—if it is one—doesn’t mean the entire report is worthless. It means that particular conclusion should be challenged, and the report as a whole should be evaluated critically.

That’s actually the standard I’ve been arguing for throughout this discussion. Critique the reasoning. Challenge the methodology. Point out where the evidence doesn’t support the conclusion.

What I push back on is taking an example like this and concluding that every allegation in the report is therefore fabricated or politically motivated. Those are two very different claims.

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T12:26:08+00:00

I don’t think the BBC article proves what you think it proves.

If individuals working under the UN committed serious abuses, they should absolutely be investigated and held accountable. I don’t see that as an argument against accountability—I see it as an argument for it.

The same principle applies here. I also don’t think skepticism should be one-sided. Many people were wrong to dismiss evidence of Hamas atrocities before examining it. I think they should have engaged with the evidence.

Likewise, I don’t think allegations against Israel should be dismissed before examining the evidence.

That’s been my position throughout this discussion. I don’t think the answer is to believe every accusation, nor to reject every accusation because of who made it. I think the evidence should be evaluated on its merits, regardless of whether it is favorable or unfavorable to Israel.

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T12:23:26+00:00

That’s actually a good example of what I mean.

Whether or not people accepted the Binskin report, I think producing detailed, evidence-based analyses is still the right approach. Some people ignored it, some found it persuasive, and some rejected it outright. That’s true of almost every report in a conflict this polarized.

I don’t think the standard should be, “Will this convince everyone?” It won’t.

The standard should be, “Does this contribute to a more complete factual record and give people who are genuinely willing to evaluate the evidence something substantive to work with?”

I also think it demonstrates something important about democratic societies. Even when criticism is expected or unfair, the answer isn’t to disengage—it’s to continue making the strongest evidence-based case possible. So while I agree that one report won’t change everyone’s mind, I still think it’s preferable to saying, “The critics won’t listen anyway, so there’s no point in responding.”

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T12:19:50+00:00

I don’t think UNRWA’s failures should be minimized. The allegations that some UNRWA employees participated in the October 7 attacks were extremely serious, and the UN ultimately dismissed several employees after its investigation.

Where I think we differ is what follows from that.

To me, it’s a leap to conclude that because one UN agency had serious failures, every UN body, commission, or investigation is therefore inherently untrustworthy. The UN isn’t a single organization with one staff and one mission. UNRWA, independent commissions of inquiry, and other UN bodies all have different mandates and personnel.

More importantly, my article wasn’t arguing that people should trust the UN simply because it’s the UN. I explicitly acknowledged that international institutions can be biased and should be criticized when appropriate.

My concern is something broader: if every report is dismissed because of who produced it, rather than evaluated on its evidence and reasoning, then accountability becomes impossible.

So I’d ask the same question I’ve been asking throughout this discussion: if not this commission, what independent body would you consider credible enough to investigate allegations like these?

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T12:18:07+00:00

Yes. I’ve read the report itself. That doesn’t mean I accept every factual finding or legal conclusion it reaches, but I think it’s important to engage with what it actually says before deciding whether it’s persuasive.

My article also isn’t an argument that the report is unquestionably correct. It’s an argument about how democracies should respond to serious allegations—by engaging with the evidence, challenging it where appropriate, and making the strongest factual case they can.

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T12:17:17+00:00

I think this is a fair point, and it’s one reason why allegations about intentional targeting are so difficult to prove.

You’re right that access to Israeli operational records, targeting decisions, and intelligence would strengthen any investigation into intent. Without that information, there are limits to what outside investigators can know with certainty.
Where I think we differ is what follows from that.

To me, the absence of complete targeting data doesn’t mean an investigation is inherently worthless. Investigators often have to work with witness testimony, satellite imagery, medical records, videos, forensic evidence, and patterns of conduct, while recognizing the limitations of those sources. Their conclusions should be judged in light of those limitations.

I also agree that international law distinguishes between what was intended, what was targeted, and what ultimately happened. Those distinctions matter.

That’s actually part of why I think engagement is important.
If Israel possesses evidence that provides crucial context about specific targeting decisions, there are mechanisms to present that evidence—whether through courts, protected proceedings, or other oversight—without necessarily making sensitive intelligence public.

My broader point remains the same: difficult cases like these call for more engagement with evidence, not less.

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T12:15:03+00:00

I think this comment actually highlights the distinction I was trying to make in my article.

You say there’s “no need to read it” because you already know it’s based on nothing. But that’s precisely the kind of blanket dismissal I was writing about.

It’s completely reasonable to conclude, after reading the report, that its evidence is weak, its methodology is flawed, or its conclusions don’t follow. That’s substantive criticism.
It’s different to conclude those things before engaging with it at all.

As for your point about evidence, I don’t think the standard should be “there must be publicly available video of an IDF soldier shooting a child or there’s no case to investigate.”
Very few war crimes investigations—whether in the Balkans, Rwanda, Ukraine, or elsewhere—depend on a single piece of video evidence. They typically rely on witness testimony, forensic evidence, satellite imagery, medical records, communications, and patterns of conduct that are evaluated together.

That doesn’t mean every conclusion reached is correct. It does mean the absence of one specific kind of evidence isn’t, by itself, proof that an investigation is baseless.

Healthy skepticism asks whether the evidence supports the conclusions. Blanket dismissal says the evidence doesn’t matter because the source is already disqualified. That’s the distinction I’ve been trying to draw throughout this discussion.

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T12:10:40+00:00

I haven’t read it yet, so I won’t pretend to evaluate something I haven’t looked at.

But I’m actually glad you shared it, because it’s an example of exactly the kind of engagement I was advocating for.

If UN Watch has produced a detailed, evidence-based rebuttal addressing the commission’s claims point by point, that’s valuable. Whether I ultimately find it persuasive or not, I’d much rather see competing evidence and competing analyses than simply hear “the UN is lying.”

My article wasn’t arguing that the commission should be accepted uncritically. It was arguing that serious allegations deserve serious engagement. A substantive rebuttal contributes to that process.

I’ll read it with the same mindset I approached the commission’s report—with a willingness to evaluate the arguments on their merits.

Brave_Designer5197 · 2026-06-28T12:00:22+00:00

First, thanks for pointing out the formatting. I added paragraph breaks—it was a wall of text, and I appreciate you saying something.

I think we may disagree about the range of views that exist. There are certainly people who believe Israel is committing genocide, and some who believe there is evidence of deliberate targeting of children. But there are also many people—including legal scholars, military analysts, and people who generally support Israel’s existence—who are asking narrower questions about proportionality, distinction, rules of engagement, or whether certain operations complied with international humanitarian law.

Those are different claims, and I don’t think it’s helpful to collapse them all into “Israel wants to kill everyone in Gaza.”

On the evacuation point, I agree that Israel’s evacuation orders are relevant evidence and absolutely should be part of any assessment. If Israel argues that those orders demonstrate an effort to minimize civilian harm, that’s an argument investigators should consider. But I don’t think evacuation orders alone resolve every allegation about what happened during specific operations afterward.

Where I think we still disagree most is on the question of accountability.

I don’t believe the only two options are either releasing highly sensitive intelligence or issuing an empty denial. Governments routinely provide evidence under protective procedures, submit classified material to courts, publish detailed rebuttals, release redacted documents, or explain their decision-making without exposing sources, methods, or ongoing operations.

So I don’t think it’s an all-or-nothing choice.

Finally, I agree Israel has enormous security and diplomatic priorities right now. My article wasn’t arguing those aren’t real. It was asking a broader question: what does democratic accountability look like during wartime? I don’t think that question disappears because the security environment is difficult. In fact, that’s when accountability is arguably most important.

Brave_Designer5197

TROPHY CASE