RONNIE KASRILS, the man who lead 28 people to their deaths, in what is known as the Bisho Massacre appears to be an impassioned if misguided supporter of Islamist terror group Hamas. Not known as a great military tactician, he was later responsible for the botched SANDF invasion of Lesotho, in which several soldiers died unnecessarily, propping up the Basotholand National Party.
In a video clip circulating on X Kasrils can be seen enthusing about October 7, calling the massacre of 1200 including over 260 civilians at an outdoor music festival, “brilliant, spectacular…”
The former South African minister of intelligence says the event “will go down in the annals of guerrilla warfare and resistance”, which is sad considering the resulting retaliation.
Supporting the mutilations, rapes and beheadings documented during the Livestreamed event, Kasrils appears to be offering his services and has gone so far as writing a propaganda piece, published by Amandla comparing the event to the Warsaw uprising.
An early version of the piece carried accusations that Israel was lying about the extent of the atrocities, claiming ‘nobody was beheaded’, but these paragraphs appear to have been subsequently removed.
“Targeting of civilians can never be condoned or regarded in history as heroic…” responded Maggs Naidu, who like Kasrils is a critic of Israel.
“Kasrils is wrong if that is what he said…” tweeted Naidu.
“Are they recruiting for Hamas in South Africa or planning the same attacks in London?” asked Ahmjad Taha on twitter.com
“These radical scholars of death in South Africa celebrated #Hamas terrorists’ attacks on #Israel. They expressed joy at seeing what Hamas did on the 7th of October – raping women, killing children, and kidnapping elders,” he wrote.
Taha is a Bahrain-based regional director of the British Middle East Center for Studies and Research. He is extremely concerned about the impact of such support on various communities.
“Some of these scholars are giving lectures in mosques in London, Washington, and Paris. Hearing this, I believe that Jewish people in South Africa are in danger.”
The video by Middle East monitor site MEMRI carries several addresses by local Imams and Islamist scholars.
Moulana Abdul Khaliq ( MJC), Shaykh Ebrahim Gabriels (Director al Quds Foundation), Arshad Samodien ( Youth for Al- Aksa), and Shaykh Rieyaad Walls, can be seen delivering addresses at Masjidul Quds in Gatesville, Cape Town, shortly after 7/10, in which Hamas is praised and the actions which resulted in the current war, lauded.
In particular the ‘mujahideen’ of the organization listed as a terror group in Europe are referred to by these men as ‘brave soldiers’ for having committed the atrocities which included rape, mutilation, abduction and beheadings.
Walls who is Imam of the Aljamiah Mosque, Claremont is ‘a third generation South African. His great grandfather came to South Africa during the Boer War as an officer in the British army.’ He goes so far as claiming the group have been ‘planning for this moment for years.’
“Today, I have a question. A pressing question. For some Western feminists. How can you remain silent, when women and girls are raped, tortured, their bodies carried around naked and spat on by bearded men shouting Allah Akbar?” Assito Kanko Belgian MP, European Union MPL
ARMISTICE Day, later known as Remembrance Day in the Commonwealth and Veterans Day in the United States, is commemorated every year on 11 November to mark the armistice signed between the Allies of World War I and Germany at Compiègne, France, and thus the cessation of hostilities, which took effect at 11:00 am — the “eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month” of 1918.
The event is particularly poignant considering the resulting Treaty of Versailles the very next year on 28 June, 1919 led to the breakup of the respective empires of the Central powers which included the Ottoman Empire.
During the war Britain made a lot of promises aimed at undermining its enemy. Two years before the 1917 Balfour Declaration supporting the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” (in what was then merely a collection of three states, Jerusalem, Gaza and Nablus, all linked to the Damascus Province under Constantinople), Sir Henry McMahon, then ‘High Commissioner in Egypt’, had promised the Sharif of Mecca, Husayn ibn Ali, to “recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within the territories proposed by him.” These territories included the Arabian peninsula, Syria (including Lebanon, Palestine, and Transjordan), and Iraq as “purely Arab” areas, and part of a future Arab state or states in the region.
Invention of the Palestinian people
Palestinians did not exist at the time. The persons who later became known as ‘Palestinians’ (who included Golda Meir, the third PM of Israel who had a Palestinian passport issued by the British), “had no particular legal status under Ottoman rule. As such, a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ did not exist” writes Mutaz Qafisheh in ‘The International Law Foundations of Palestinian Nationality‘ (2009), and would only emerge much later, under the machinations of the British Mandate for Palestine & Transjordan.
The project to forge a unique Palestinian-Arab identity, though nascent, arose much later under Nazi supporter Amin al-Husseini, a Jerusalemite, during the 1930s, and gaining momentum with Yasser Arafat, an Egyptian, during the 1960s. A process of identification and mythmaking common to all nationalistic struggles.
It is relatively simple to demonstrate that while many people including Jews, were considered indigenous to the states of Jerusalem, Gaza and Nablus and thus formed part of the Ottoman census data, their numbers were greatly bolstered by the arrival of migrants following the construction and expansion of a railroad in the 1920s by the Ottoman Railroad Company which greatly contributed to travel within the Empire.
Initially 8km of rail linking Haifa with Damascus it grew to an incredible 5759km.
In this respect the waves of Jewish refugees from Czarist Russia were no different from those Moroccans, Tunisians, Algerians and other Arabs who moved in the direction of freedom and economic opportunity.
One of the best sources of detail on British support of the Arab cause is none other than TE Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) who in 1916, travelled to Mesopotamia and Arabia becoming involved with the Arab Revolt as a ‘liaison to the Arab forces’. Lawrence would later attend the Paris Peace conference as part of King Faisal’s delegation, two weeks after the signing of the Faisal-Weizmann agreement, in which it was clear Palestine was to be the Jewish State alongside a much larger Arab state.
The well-known banners of Jordan and Palestine are the result of the contribution of British vexillologists, with the original Flag of Hejaz designed by the British diplomat Sir Mark Sykes, “in an effort to create a feeling of “Arab-ness” to fuel the revolt.
It is thus more than ironic to witness London (and Cape Town) being over-run by a flag whose origin is found in Armistice Day and the British occupation.
It was William Bernstein writing in ‘The Delusions of the Crowds: Why people go mad in groups (2021) who observed: “People do not deploy the powerful human intellect to dispassionately analyze the world, but rather to rationalize how the facts conform to their emotionally derived preconceptions. Over the past several decades, psychologists have accumulated experimental data that dissect the human preference of rationalization over rationality.”
“When presented with facts and data that contradict our deeply held beliefs, we generally do not reconsider and alter those beliefs appropriately. [Instead] we avoid contrary facts and data, and when we cannot avoid them, our erroneous assessments will occasionally even harden and, yet more amazingly, make us more likely to proselytize them.”
“In short, human ‘rationality’ constitutes a fragile lid perilously balanced on the bubbling cauldron of artifice and self-delusion.”
Footnote: The Re-Invention of the October Massacre
Ahmed Munzoor Shaik-Emam of the Anti-Immigrant, New Freedom Party (NFP) is very vocal about refugee rights when it comes to the tragedy of Palestine and Gaza but absolutely silent on the plight of other refugees in the region.
He claims (in an SABC interview on Armistice Day conducted at the Cape Town march) the massacre of 260 persons at an outdoor peace festival by Hamas ‘never happened’, instead these persons were ‘killed by Israelis’, and in any event ‘were not civilians’.
There were no deaths, no beheadings, no atrocities rather it is all Israel’s fault, ‘they are killers since Zionists want the Gas in Gaza’, he claims.
Not only is the MP contradicting pathology and forensics reports released by Zaka, as well as victim accounts, his blatant lies serve no purpose other than to create a false narrative, one that does not assist the Palestinian people in any way.
Peace can only arrive by speaking truth to power, dealing with objective facts, refusing to ignore the reality of the situation, and stepping back from those who would invent lies.
THE ahistorical attempt to paint the anti-apartheid struggle as a ‘battle by theologians against secular identity’, ramped up this week.
Following a rowdy debate on the Israel-Gaza conflict inside parliament with far-left parties aligning themselves to the objectives of far-right Islamists, Minister in the Presidency Khumbudzo Ntshavheni warned that ‘any South African taking part in the Israeli military in the conflict in the Middle East will face the law.’
Ntshavheni said the Foreign Military Assistance Act prohibits any South African from participating in military operations in other parts of the world, and specifically mentioned those joining the IDF while ignoring the problem of jihadists seeking to assist Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIS and Al-Qaeda, all considered terrorist organisations by the West.
Foreign minister Naledi Pandor has called for the arrest of top Israeli officials by the ICC, demanding the body issue warrants for ‘violating international law’. This from the same government which refused to arrest Omar al-Bashir for the Darfur Genocide and which last year opposed the ICC when it came to Putin’s involvement in the Bucha massacre.
Read Palestinian John Aziz piece All My Life I’ve Watched Violence Fail the Palestinian Cause
Statements by the ANC Johannesburg over the past weeks have even gone so far as reinventing history by claiming ‘Nelson Mandela expressed his position regarding the PLO in his 21 June 1990 input at the Town Hall USA where he said “Yasser Arafat, Colonel Gadaffi & Fidel Castro support our struggle to the hilt”. ‘
Mandela had instead been critical stating: “I also explained to Mr Sigmund and company that in our organisation we have Jews. In fact Mr Gaddafi did not allow us to open our offices in Libya precisely because we had the courage to say to him, we work with Jews in our organisation. And he didn’t allow us to open an office until February (1990) this year when he had to accept us as we are. We are not prepared to be swayed by anybody, we have an independent policy which we set no matter with whom we discuss.”
At the same Townhall meeting the bipartisan, Secular Mandela had made his views on the conflict very clear and was very aware of the limitations and dangers of unbridled support for any one cause external to his own party’s national objectives.
“I explained to Mr Sigmund, that we identify with the PLO because just like ourselves, they are fighting for the right of self-determination. I went further however to say, that the support for Yasser Arafat and his struggle does not mean that the ANC has ever doubted the right of Israel to exist as a state, legally. We have stood quite openly and firmly for the right of that state to exist within secure borders, but of course, as I said to Mr Sigmund in Geneva in August, that we carefully define what we mean by secure borders, we do not mean that Israel has the right to retain the territories they conquered from the Arab world, like the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and the West Bank. We don’t agree with that, those territories should be returned to the Arab People.”
The same week an equally revisionist statement emanated from the Dept of Education. It seems Pretoria Mullahs have adopted a Fatwa. The statement said the historical term “Mandatory Palestine” was used in Question 5.2 of the Mathematical Literacy Paper 1, written on November 3″ and was found to be offensive by the Palestine Solidarity Alliance since it “infers that Israel is a legitimate democratic state and occupier.”
If this seems like a prelude to removing references to South Africa’s own colonial history, for example the period under the British occupation (1806-1961), yes that is the ‘woke’ trend.
Apparently the Dept. expects its students to openly lie about world history in order to accommodate sensitivities around Palestine, a state which never existed, for all intents and purposes, prior to the UN Mandate for Palestine & Transjordan under the British. Palestine has had only observer status at the UN, since 2012.
Texts which provide credence and support for the notion that Israel exists, whether as an historical or a UN recognized entity, have long been the target of Hamas morality police within Gaza. If this means your neighbors Bible may be next, yes that may well be the case, need one add that the Quran recognizes Israel as the land of the Jews?
Al Baqara 2.47 ; Al Maida 5.21; AlAaraf 7.137; Yunus 10.93; Al Israa 17.2-104;Ta Ha 20.80; Al Mumim 40.53; AlDukhan 44.32; Al Jathiya 45.16, all refer to Israel and lead credence to the idea that the Quran itself borrowed heavily from the Old Testament.
IN a Mail & Guardian ‘Thought Leader’ piece ‘Beware the one-eyed Middle East critic’ (a rather unfortunate title given the casualties on either side, status of critic Salman Rushdie) Richard Calland myopically opines about what he ‘observed’ during his year 2000 sojourn in Israel.
If all that was required were a sunny disposition expressed in outward liberalism, as Calland has it, in proceeding to outline what he views as a ‘progressive political stance’ on the subject, we could all simply ‘make a cup of tea’ and the problem would be solved.
It is difficult and near impossible to square Calland’s narrow-casting of contextualisation, alongside pronouns and micro-aggressions, that sit together with a somewhat effete claim that ‘international law matters’ in the absence of any sign that either Hamas or the Israelis actually support international law — whether resolution 181 (which created the State of Israel) or resolution 242 (which demands a return to the borders of June 14, 1967). Such is the enormity of the tragedy of the past month — the reality of a situation whose genesis includes two major world wars, and at least seven regional wars since the establishment of Israel.
Initial jubilation by the Pro-Palestine brigade over the October 7 massacre of over 1400+ persons including women and children, nothing less than a ‘victory for Palestinian Resistance’ has turned into dismay and outrage at the long-term humanitarian consequences for Gaza, with little or no prospects for peace for the rest of the world.
The mass gatherings in support of an Hamas theocratic “End the Occupation”, with annihilationist calls for Jihad and Global Intifada, and chanting of ‘From the River to the Sea’, have been referred to as ‘hate marches’ by UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman, since according to her, this is a demand for the ‘elimination of Israel and its replacement by an Islamic State’.
Nevertheless, Calland persists in his intellectual parlour game, which from a post-October perspective, is really an anachronistic attempt to fit the Middle East into a South African playbook. We all know how apartheid turned out, it must follow that if we assign the right labels, impose politically correct contexts and virtue signal within our individual matricies of morality, (sprinkling Rainbow-coloured fairy dust on the situation), then peace will break out and we can all go home for, yes, another cup of tea?
“Substitute “Arabs” for “blacks” and you can hear a South African cop of a certain demographic say exactly the same, can’t you? And with the same level of outrageous presumption — that because of one’s own race, the level of prejudice will be the same” he writes. Callend is quick to call out “the bantustanisation of Palestine; apartheid Israel.”
The trouble with this analogy — it is only vaguely useful when discussing the dynamics of the West Bank & Gaza, which has other comparators — the San Diego-Tijuana border for instance, thousands of labour migrants cross it each day, so too the partition demographics already in place between North & South Sudan, India & Pakistan and Greek & Turkish Cyprus.
When stating our experience under apartheid is somehow an exemplar, a template for analysis (you can read my piece debunking this here) , one can only conclude the wholesale redeployment of this narrative is wholly inaccurate when it comes to historical claims, mutual land rights , security and demographics within the MENA region at large. Let us not forget some 800 000 – 1 Million Mizrahi Jews (who include Arab Jews from Morocco, Egypt, Yemen Lebanon, Syria, Iran & Iraq) who were forcibly dispossessed prior to and immediately following the creation of Israel.
The dropped narrative of the Farhud massacre and dispossession of Bagdad Jews in 1941 which immediately preceded the Shoah, both events where Palestinian leader Amin al-Husseini was one of many Arab supporters of the Final Solution — represent an extremely long list of similar massacres and forced removals of Jews at the hands of Islamists.
Massacres like that which occurred on 7/10 last month, stretch all the way back to the 1066 Granada Massacre, in which ‘Jewish vizier Joseph ibn Naghrela was slaughtered alongside most of the local Jewish population’ and the earlier 1033 Fez Massacre in which some 6000 Jews were similarly dispatched following the ‘conquest of the Moroccan city from the Maghrawa tribe by, the forces of Abu’l Kamal Tamim, chief of the Banu Ifran’.
That today’s Pro-Palestinian activists openly call for Jihad, whilst readily reciting a religious text referring to the Khayber Pass battle in 628 CE between early Muslims, led by Muhammad, and the Arabian Jews living in Khayber, fuels ethno-religious lunacy in which ‘Bibi the Butcher of Gaza’ has been equally reciting similar passages from the old Testament referring to the ‘Tribe of Amalek’.
As many South African’s reach back into anti-apartheid theology, the eschatological distraction may appear to be of necessity rather than simple virtue. It is most certainly inappropriate and futile when it comes to apportioning blame, pressurising the belligerents, and arriving at mutual agreement and cessation of hostilities.
Nevertheless one must strive, hope and pray that a Secular Freedom Charter and TRC emerges in the Middle East?
For all the Fanonian rhetoric of ‘oppressor and oppressed’, the easy resort to the apartheid libel, (which echoes the earlier blood libel of the Middle Ages, where Jews were accused of murdering Christ and worse), what has occurred over the past month, and even past decade, has been an increase in polarisation.
Painting the conflict within Manichean terms of good and evil, black and white, has merely acted to provide those who advocate terror a blank cheque to ‘do what thy will’, whilst emboldening the far right with similar ambitions within Israel.
Nations are not races. Strip away the misaligned academic hypothesis, the unproven intellectualism posited by career bureaucrats who never bother to peer review nor debate their findings, and what you have are mutually incompatible systems of justice. Religious disagreements on which law and which state should govern, over which territory — and a proxy war being fought over the Final Status of Jerusalem. It should not be possible to reduce this conflict to a moral proposition of which is the lesser of the three evils — a Jerusalem controlled by Israel, a Jerusalem partitioned by Fatah, or a Jerusualem erased by Hamas and renamed Quds?
Yet the blathering ‘progressives’ of the myopic middle, those who merely echo the lunatic left, continue to issue their ‘dime-a-dozen’, pronouncements. Statements such as: “analysis and understanding must always be contextual, because non-progressive politics is so often characterised by acontextual and ahistorical claims. Seeking to identify the underlying structural and other causes of a “wicked” problem, rather than baying at the symptoms, is what sets progressives apart“, appear callous and hollow if what occurs is precisely that — the dropping of contexts and assertion of ahistorical claims?
If Calland were actually seeking a diagnosis with a prognosis, he would immediately call-out the dropped contexts and missing narratives of the Nakba-grifters, those who forget historical Palestine was once a British Colony alongside Transjordan, accuse all and sundry of wholesale land theft, then dispute the outcome of both World Wars, before proceeding to inflate & conflate their own oppression, whilst denying the historical oppression of others in the region?
Intersectionality is neither the sole preserve of queers nor feminists but of necessity also includes Palestinians, Jews, Arabs and Israelis. Only by addressing objective historical facts, can there be hope of a justificable solution, one that is capable of being resolved under International Law. And by that I mean embracing the ‘progressiveness of realists’ instead of over-identification with any one cause.
Dear Minister Pandor,
Judaism is a religion. It is also an ethnic and historical community. Our views as Jews are certainly not monolithic. There are many Jews who do not support war, or who find the politics of the Netanyahu administration reprehensible.
There are those who disagree with the status quo, and who nevertheless support the two state solution, those who support Israel and who also support Palestine, those who do not support either Israel or Palestine, and even those who may over-identify with the cause, and who are willing to support whatever occurs on account of their own claims against ‘Imperialism’ on behalf of the oppressed and so on. The saying goes, take two Jews and you will get three opinions.
It does not assist the situation to declare what South Africans must believe, whom we should support, and which organisation is representative of our views in this conflict.
And it certainly does not assist the cause of peace to platform the perspective of those who claim Jews are Infidels or Kufrs when they’re in the Middle East, and Haraam or forbidden when your department disagrees with their views?
Hard as this may seem, one cannot simply remove Zionists from the picture in the Middle East, and as a statement by your department released yesterday suggests.
Turning such persons as Zev Krengel of the Zionist Federation into Heretics, results in sanctions and censorship on the basis of ethno-religious identity, sanctions that are dangerously and scandalously progressing towards that of a modern religious inquisition — a persecution of belief, outlawed by our own secular constitution.
Let me be the first one to tell you that I find your department’s open threats of prosecution against those who support Israel’s ‘right to self-defense’ — a viewpoint held by the majority of leaders of the free world — in the absence of consensus on your own legal position — completely illogical given the circumstances of 7 October, and especially given the rights of free speech guaranteed by our constitution.
If persons such as Krengel have something to say, they should be allowed to say it in public. If their views are disagreeable, they should be debated and their views proven wrong, rather than closed down by government fiat or departmental proclamation.
Such an easy resort to a fatwa and threat of punishment are the hallmarks of totalitarian regimes, as they were the currency of the apartheid state and demonstrate quite amply why South Africans should be concerned about your recent trip to Iran and callous phone calls to various Iranian proxies in the Middle East.
Not only has your spokesperson made the astonishing claim of ‘repeated discredited information related to the beheading of children in Israel’ without bothering to attend the recent press briefing in which the first forensic reports were released to the public,(following Hamas live-streaming of its bloody mayhem), but you further confuse ’cause and effect’ by claiming: “This disinformation is part of the arsenal of dehumanisation tactics used to justify a ‘by any means necessary’ approach.”
Such a statement is immediately contradicted by the reality of Palestinian open support of ‘just war ‘ and ‘by any means necessary’ — policies long since advocated by Hamas, as a recent SABC programme aptly demonstrates.
The events disputed by your department are extremely troubling — the least of which is the lamentable loss of life experienced on both sides and especially the loss of life of innocent children, those who deserve our support.
Instead of compassion your spokesperson chose to weaponise the plight of Palestinian civilians — innocent persons who should not be political footballs nor sacrificial lambs. It is Hamas’ Ismail Haniyeh who has openly demanded the blood of these children for his revolutionary cause in pursuit of his “Final Battle”, while holding hostages, and continuing rocket attacks against civilians — action that risks drawing all nations into another World War.
We are a nation at peace, and no South African wishes war to become the order of the day. The cause of the Palestinian people and the rest of the world, is not served by your department authoring cant and issuing propaganda over what has occurred.
David Robert Lewis
SOUTH AFRICA has a long history of resistance to war. From objectors to the Anglo-Boer war during the 1900s to resistance to the SADF border war, the history of local pacifism and opposition to war is a rich and illustrious one.
The first ‘Stop the War’ committee was an anti-war organization that opposed the Second Boer War. It was formed by William Thomas Stead in 1889. It’s President was John Clifford and prominent members included Lloyd George.
Against the backdrop of a campaign surrounding the so-called Khaki election of 1900, ‘Stop the War’ distributed millions of posters, cartoons, and leaflets in London.
Moral and religious objection to war within South Africa and support for pacifism and opposition to militarism carried immense risks. “In this emotionally charged environment, the minority who publicly opposed the war, were labeled pro-Boers”, says Nigel Robson, an historian.
“Dissenters risked vilification or even violence if their views were made public, and during the seige of Mafikeng … people gathered menacingly outside the premises of a tradesman suspected of harbouring ‘pro-Boer’ views.”
During apartheid, white conscripts who refused the callup risked jail sentences with many serving time in prison. Notable conscientious objectors included Ivan Toms, Harold Winkler and Richard Steele.
A statement signed by Israeli author Yuvel Harari and 90 other signatories claims: “there is no contradiction between staunchly opposing the Israeli subjugation and occupation of Palestinians and unequivocally condemning brutal acts of violence against innocent civilians. In fact, every consistent leftist must hold both positions simultaneously.”
THE first casualty in war is the truth, and saying this doesn’t help the fact that not only has our daily press failed to distance itself from the conflict, many journos actively transgress the boundaries of objectivity and reason.
Immediately following the 7 October ‘Simchat Torah’ massacre, involving the greatest loss of Jewish life since WW2, IOL published an article warning the public of ‘fake news’ circulating about the Hamas-Israel war.
Not only was the article a rewrite of an earlier Associated Press article, but it engaged the public with a purported fiction concerning the beheading of 40 babies, when practically nobody was making such a claim.
As Piers Morgan would later point out 40 babies had been killed, ‘some were beheaded’.
Coming in the immediate aftermath of the event, whose details were still under forensic investigation, IOL appeared to be rather callous stenographers for Hamas, whose spokespersons denied any civilian casualties, despite their livestreaming of the event.
The atrocities and the resulting atrocity denial are both traumatic for victims as well as victims families — the hostage situation remains yet unresolved as Israel bombards Gaza in retaliation, and the world faces a major humanitarian crisis. Will we ever see a ceasefire?
IOL proceeds to quote as fact, an apparent communique by the Hamas terror organisation as if the facts are well established:
“Fact: Not only has Hamas issued a statement rejecting allegations that it committed crimes against women and children, but the White House has retracted President Joe Biden’s claim that he saw pictures of beheaded children following Hamas’s deadly attack on Israel. A White House spokesperson clarified that US officials and the president have not seen pictures or confirmed such reports independently. In terms of sexual assault of hostages, this claim could not be verified, and Hamas said the claim was “lies”.”
IOl have even run with the story, with Yasmin Jacobs trolling several Piers Morgan interviews with the same partisan tone, this as the outlet publishes verbatim claims made by Qatar-based news channel Al Jazeera — unproven assertions the channel has ‘exposed Israeli counter- claims regarding an alleged bombing of the al-Ahli Arab hospital in Gaza.’
Drone video shows the hospital still intact, it appears a misfired rocket hit a parking lot outside the hospital. The death toll is grossly overstated by DIRCO. Here is Associated Press confirmation and apology, retraction by New York Times, link to video
Social media was alive today with allegations of a similar incident involving a medieval Church. AP press were quick to respond: A medieval church in Gaza was not razed by Israeli bombing, contrary to online posts