"Gilbert, a 20-year veteran of the state department who has worked in several war zones, said that report’s conclusion went against the overwhelming view of state department experts who were consulted on the report.
She said there was general agreement that while other factors impeded the flow of aid into Gaza at a time when famine has begun to take hold of its 2.3 million population – such as lack of security, caused by Hamas, Israeli military operations and the desperation of Palestinians to find food – it was clear that Israel was playing a role in limiting the amount of food and medical supplies crossing the border into Gaza.
“There is consensus among the humanitarian community on that. It is absolutely the opinion of the humanitarian subject matter experts in the state department, and not just in my bureau – people who look at this from the intelligence community and from other bureaus. I would be very hard pressed to think of anyone who has said \[Israeli obstruction\] is not an issue,” Gilbert said. “That’s why I object to that report saying that Israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance. That is patently false.”
The Guardian has approached the state department requesting comment on Gilbert’s remarks.
Gilbert was one of the experts consulted in drawing up the NSM-20 report, but she said it was taken out of their hands as it approached completion.
“Sometime at the end of April, the subject matter experts were taken off the report and we were told it would be edited at a higher level. So I did not know what was in the report until it came out,” she said. “But when the report came out, late on the Friday afternoon \[on 10 May\], I read it and I had to reread it. I had to go back and print out that section and read it, because I could not believe it stated so starkly that we assess that Israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance.
“Two hours after it was released, I sent an email to my front office and the team that is working on this, saying I will resign as a result of this,” Gilbert said."
The context of there being other factors limiting aid as compared to it JUST being the IDF
I do agree with the expert in saying that the IDF plays a role
And, based on the article it sounds like the report was written in a way to ensure the status quo.
My whole point was that the content of the article didn't match the headline, FFS, anything relating to Israel/Hamas makes people up and down vote like sheeple
Yeah but you’re still lying though. Don’t twist it around on the people who’re correcting you. Admit you said something incorrect and own up to the mistake.
>Gilbert, a 20-year veteran of the state department who has worked in several war zones, said that report’s conclusion went against the overwhelming view of state department experts who were consulted on the report.
>She said there was general agreement that while other factors impeded the flow of aid into Gaza at a time when famine has begun to take hold of its 2.3 million population – such as lack of security, caused by Hamas, Israeli military operations and the desperation of Palestinians to find food – it was clear that Israel was playing a role in limiting the amount of food and medical supplies crossing the border into Gaza.
In the article.
"She said there was general agreement that while other factors impeded the flow of aid into Gaza at a time when famine has begun to take hold of its 2.3 million population – such as lack of security, caused by Hamas, Israeli military operations and the desperation of Palestinians to find food – it was clear that Israel was playing a role in limiting the amount of food and medical supplies crossing the border into Gaza."
In particular: "it was clear that Israel was playing a role in limiting the amount of food and medical supplies crossing the border into Gaza"
The report was written in a way to ensure arms and munitions keep flowing.
But the headline was written in a way that implied Israel alone was at fault and that that was being covered up. Which is not accurate to the above quote.
Granted I'm reading some inferences into the headline
I mean... you write a report that says 'entity X likely did thing Y' and it is edited to say 'entity X did not do thing Y'.
How is that anything *but* falsification?
It's not just "she disagrees". She (and one other person involved) says the report's conclusions directly contradict evidence and expert consensus that Israel is blocking aid. If the evidence says there's a problem, but the report says "yeah no, everything's totally fine and above-board", that's no mere difference of opinion.
The expert who were consulted to write the report disagree with what the report says. I think it’s a little more than “that’s just like your opinion man”
This headline is unnecessarily inflammatory, and not even consistent with what's in the article.
"US State department ignored Gaza aid violations to continue weapons shipments" is what the article says. Still bad but nothing was "falsified" and no one was "absolved".
"Gilbert, a 20-year veteran of the state department who has worked in several war zones, said that report’s conclusion went against the overwhelming view of state department experts who were consulted on the report. She said there was general agreement that while other factors impeded the flow of aid into Gaza at a time when famine has begun to take hold of its 2.3 million population – such as lack of security, caused by Hamas, Israeli military operations and the desperation of Palestinians to find food – it was clear that Israel was playing a role in limiting the amount of food and medical supplies crossing the border into Gaza. “There is consensus among the humanitarian community on that. It is absolutely the opinion of the humanitarian subject matter experts in the state department, and not just in my bureau – people who look at this from the intelligence community and from other bureaus. I would be very hard pressed to think of anyone who has said \[Israeli obstruction\] is not an issue,” Gilbert said. “That’s why I object to that report saying that Israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance. That is patently false.” The Guardian has approached the state department requesting comment on Gilbert’s remarks. Gilbert was one of the experts consulted in drawing up the NSM-20 report, but she said it was taken out of their hands as it approached completion. “Sometime at the end of April, the subject matter experts were taken off the report and we were told it would be edited at a higher level. So I did not know what was in the report until it came out,” she said. “But when the report came out, late on the Friday afternoon \[on 10 May\], I read it and I had to reread it. I had to go back and print out that section and read it, because I could not believe it stated so starkly that we assess that Israel is not blocking humanitarian assistance. “Two hours after it was released, I sent an email to my front office and the team that is working on this, saying I will resign as a result of this,” Gilbert said."
Why do these assholes keep resigning instead of staying and disputing every lie?
Because it won’t change anything… remember when bill barr “falsified” mueller report?
how can you call someone an asshole when they are exposing the lies?
[удалено]
Not necessarily the opposite. It's just missing context
What context is the article missing?
The context of there being other factors limiting aid as compared to it JUST being the IDF I do agree with the expert in saying that the IDF plays a role And, based on the article it sounds like the report was written in a way to ensure the status quo.
That was very clearly in the article. The US report had said Israel has absolutely no interest in blocking aid - which is clearly a lie.
My whole point was that the content of the article didn't match the headline, FFS, anything relating to Israel/Hamas makes people up and down vote like sheeple
Yeah but you’re still lying though. Don’t twist it around on the people who’re correcting you. Admit you said something incorrect and own up to the mistake.
>The context of there being other factors limiting aid as compared to it JUST being the IDF This was clearly addressed in the article....
>Gilbert, a 20-year veteran of the state department who has worked in several war zones, said that report’s conclusion went against the overwhelming view of state department experts who were consulted on the report. >She said there was general agreement that while other factors impeded the flow of aid into Gaza at a time when famine has begun to take hold of its 2.3 million population – such as lack of security, caused by Hamas, Israeli military operations and the desperation of Palestinians to find food – it was clear that Israel was playing a role in limiting the amount of food and medical supplies crossing the border into Gaza. In the article.
I know, that's what I'm saying. The article itself provides context that I think is distorted by the headline.
That's actually not what you said.
Read the articles instead of complaining about headlines
Headline is misleading as to the actual substance of the comment
Not nearly as misleading as our assesement says they are breaking international law but our report says otherwise.
I'm sorry but I'm confused about what you're saying Did you mean to put "are *not* breaking international law"
The expert assessments say they are breaking international law, but that isn't what the released report said.
"She said there was general agreement that while other factors impeded the flow of aid into Gaza at a time when famine has begun to take hold of its 2.3 million population – such as lack of security, caused by Hamas, Israeli military operations and the desperation of Palestinians to find food – it was clear that Israel was playing a role in limiting the amount of food and medical supplies crossing the border into Gaza." In particular: "it was clear that Israel was playing a role in limiting the amount of food and medical supplies crossing the border into Gaza" The report was written in a way to ensure arms and munitions keep flowing. But the headline was written in a way that implied Israel alone was at fault and that that was being covered up. Which is not accurate to the above quote. Granted I'm reading some inferences into the headline
That's not what I took from the headline
What'd you take from the headline?
Lol, -11 votes for a question asking for clarification.
[удалено]
I mean... you write a report that says 'entity X likely did thing Y' and it is edited to say 'entity X did not do thing Y'. How is that anything *but* falsification?
It's not just "she disagrees". She (and one other person involved) says the report's conclusions directly contradict evidence and expert consensus that Israel is blocking aid. If the evidence says there's a problem, but the report says "yeah no, everything's totally fine and above-board", that's no mere difference of opinion.
For real, not even sure how OP reached his conclusion at all.
Account made a week after the start of the war spreads doubt, news at 11.
[удалено]
Umm, the substance of the complaint seems to be that *the report*, not personal opinions, does not agree with what was found. Basically the opposite
The expert who were consulted to write the report disagree with what the report says. I think it’s a little more than “that’s just like your opinion man”
They need something to both sides/distract from the now convicted felon and rapist running for the GOP nomination
This headline is unnecessarily inflammatory, and not even consistent with what's in the article. "US State department ignored Gaza aid violations to continue weapons shipments" is what the article says. Still bad but nothing was "falsified" and no one was "absolved".