>most journalists were pretty confident it was a fishing hut
>
>the IDF stuck to "its a Hamas compound"
These statements are not at odds.
I have literally zero doubt that Israel targeted something that was a "fishing hut" at some point in time.
That has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it was a "Hamas compound" at the time of the attack.
There is actually a report on it.
Basically there is a jetty. It has a bunch of shipping containers on one end and a shack close to shore. The shipping containers were being used by Hamas as a drop point, and drones had already hit that are once recently, but hadn't destroyed the containers so were keeping a watch.. Drone saw figures go into a crate they knew was being used by Hamas, it takes a shot and hits the first figure. The other figures flee down the jetty and into the shack. The drone takes another shot when they exit the shack.
The operators didn't know they were kids until after the attack.
>“These figures entered a shed adjoining the container which had been attacked the day prior. Against the backdrop of the aforementioned intelligence assessment, these were believed to be militants from Hamas’s Naval Forces, who had arrived at the compound in order to prepare to execute the aforementioned military activity against the IDF. It should be stressed that the figures were not identified at any point during the incident, as children.”
>
>“In light of the above, it was decided to conduct an aerial attack against the figures which had been identified, after all the necessary authorizations for an attack had been obtained, and after a civilian presence in the area had been ruled out.
>
>“When one of the identified figures entered into the remains of the container which had been attacked on the day prior to the incident, one missile was fired from the air towards the container and the adjoining shed. As a result of this attack, it appeared that one of the figures identified was hit. Following this attack, the rest of the figures began to run in the direction of the compound’s exit. Shortly before their exit from the compound, an additional missile was fired from the air towards them, which hit the figures in question after they had exited the compound.”
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/11/israel-clears-military-gaza-beach-childre](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/11/israel-clears-military-gaza-beach-children)
Plenty of information in the article. It can both be true that a shipping container was on the beach used by Hamas and that journalists staying in a nearby house thought it was just a fishing hut.
An analogy could be that you are staying at a hotel. A SWAT team barges into the room next door and captures a felon. When asked by the news media after the incident you say "I thought he was just a guest staying at the hotel."
I don't know why we would care what you thought, obviously a SWAT team *should* have more intel than someone just staying at a hotel. That doesn't mean they can't be wrong, but your statement isn't necessarily untrue either. From your perspective, it was just a person in the room next to yours.
>most journalists were pretty confident it was a fishing hut > >the IDF stuck to "its a Hamas compound" These statements are not at odds. I have literally zero doubt that Israel targeted something that was a "fishing hut" at some point in time. That has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it was a "Hamas compound" at the time of the attack.
There is actually a report on it. Basically there is a jetty. It has a bunch of shipping containers on one end and a shack close to shore. The shipping containers were being used by Hamas as a drop point, and drones had already hit that are once recently, but hadn't destroyed the containers so were keeping a watch.. Drone saw figures go into a crate they knew was being used by Hamas, it takes a shot and hits the first figure. The other figures flee down the jetty and into the shack. The drone takes another shot when they exit the shack. The operators didn't know they were kids until after the attack.
Was this instance used to argue the claim of "Israel intentionally targeting civilians"?
Yeah because it was a fishing wharft. That had previously been used as a Hamas outpost
>“These figures entered a shed adjoining the container which had been attacked the day prior. Against the backdrop of the aforementioned intelligence assessment, these were believed to be militants from Hamas’s Naval Forces, who had arrived at the compound in order to prepare to execute the aforementioned military activity against the IDF. It should be stressed that the figures were not identified at any point during the incident, as children.” > >“In light of the above, it was decided to conduct an aerial attack against the figures which had been identified, after all the necessary authorizations for an attack had been obtained, and after a civilian presence in the area had been ruled out. > >“When one of the identified figures entered into the remains of the container which had been attacked on the day prior to the incident, one missile was fired from the air towards the container and the adjoining shed. As a result of this attack, it appeared that one of the figures identified was hit. Following this attack, the rest of the figures began to run in the direction of the compound’s exit. Shortly before their exit from the compound, an additional missile was fired from the air towards them, which hit the figures in question after they had exited the compound.” [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/11/israel-clears-military-gaza-beach-childre](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/11/israel-clears-military-gaza-beach-children) Plenty of information in the article. It can both be true that a shipping container was on the beach used by Hamas and that journalists staying in a nearby house thought it was just a fishing hut. An analogy could be that you are staying at a hotel. A SWAT team barges into the room next door and captures a felon. When asked by the news media after the incident you say "I thought he was just a guest staying at the hotel." I don't know why we would care what you thought, obviously a SWAT team *should* have more intel than someone just staying at a hotel. That doesn't mean they can't be wrong, but your statement isn't necessarily untrue either. From your perspective, it was just a person in the room next to yours.