Sec. of State Blinken has seen no evidence that Hamas was in the AP building Israel bombed.

[pnwmom]

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinian-conflict-blinken-4aba5c0a3d4aeb07934b1993b62cc3fc

At least 200 Palestinians have been killed in the strikes as of Monday, including 59 children and 35 women, with 1,300 people wounded, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Eight people in Israel have been killed in rocket attacks launched from Gaza, including a 5-year-old boy and a soldier.

Blinken also said he had asked Israel for any evidence for its claim that Hamas was operating in an Gaza office building housing The Associated Press and Al Jazeera news bureaus that was destroyed in an Israeli airstrike over the weekend. But he said that he personally has “not seen any information provided.”

[Thomas Hurt]

1. If Trump was still in office it wouldn't matter cuz the christofascists have to have Israel

to maintain their world view.

It has crossed my mind a couple of times that this is Netanyahu trying to save himself after going down the third time.

That is probably a little too tin foil beanie, but right wingers in the modern world just don't care how far over the line they go.

[roamer65]

2. There won't be any evidence.

Netanyahu HATES the accurate coverage that Al Jazeera is providing on the conflict.

[multigraincracker]

3. No evidence of any rockets fired from that building.

They have the tech to determine where they launch them from.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

4. Huh.

[abqtommy]

5. Gasp! Ya mean the Israelis lied? snark off

[Beastly Boy]

6. Totally off mark. What it means is that Israel provided the information and Blinken has not seen it.

Blinken also said he had asked Israel for any evidence for its claim that Hamas was operating in an Gaza office building housing The Associated Press and Al Jazeera news bureaus that was destroyed in an Israeli airstrike over the weekend. But he said that he personally has “not seen any information provided.”

Unless one prefers to read between the lines. In an unrelated article. On a different subject. From right to left. While holding the article upside down.

Snark off.

[JohnSJ]

8. I agree. It doesn't mean there is or isn't, it is just that he hasn't seen it. He is currently in

overseas I believe

[pnwmom]

10. Why wouldn't he have looked at it? It makes no sense, since he said he asked for evidence,

that he wouldn't have looked at any evidence they provided.

[Beastly Boy]

13. There is a million reasons why he wouldn't have,

and most of them would have nothing to do with the absence of evidence or its presence.

Neither you nor I can answer this question. Only Blinken can, but unless and until he does, it is never a good idea to misrepresent the content of the article you are citing.

[pnwmom]

14. He said he hasn't seen any evidence.

You're guessing that Israel provided some and the Secretary of State, before going on camera, didn't look at it.

I'm not.

[panader0]

17. Agree 100%

The claim is that the Israelis informed the Biden administration and to believe that the SoS
would not know what was communicated is a real stretch.
The Pres. of AP also said yesterday that there was no evidence that Hamas was using the building.
You'd think that they, being reporters, would notice.

[Beastly Boy]

19. Obviously, at least according to the article, the SoS knows of the information being provided.

Last edited Mon May 17, 2021, 06:38 PM - Edit history (1)

He merely stated he has not seen it. You can take his word for it or not, but he knows of the evidence. It was provided, and he does not deny THAT. He confirmed it.

[pnwmom]

27. No, he said "IF" there is evidence he hasn't seen it. He didn't say there was evidence. n/t

[Beastly Boy]

18. He said he hasn't seen the evidence provided.

A clear indication that evidence was provided. It was outside of his eyesight. Again, there is a million reasons for this happening, and very few of them would point to absence of evidence. You are assuming the improbable to be the only possible outcome.

You might as well argue that if he keeps his eyes closed while looking at the evidence, the evidence does not exist. I mean, he doesn't see it, right?

[stopdiggin]

20. and -- there are real tangible reasons

in a diplomatic sense, for sitting on the fence. And this would fit in exactly with where the Biden administration is right at this time. "Can neither confirm nor deny .." is age old stuff. And it does serve a purpose.

The article does NOT say what the OP implies.

[Beastly Boy]

26. I am not guessing. I am reading the content that's in the article.

"Information provided" This is a direct quote. From the AP article you linked to. Not me. Not a guess. You have read it yourself without ever knowing what I may or may not be guessing.

You, on the other hand, insist that what is in the article is not in the article. An original approach, but I doubt it will get you anywhere.

[WHITT]

7. Why I'm Shocked, SHOCKED!

[Beastly Boy]

9. A more accurate header would be:"Blinken has not seen evidence provided by Israel that Hamas was in

the building Israel bombed". That's what the article states.

Semantics, but it changes the meaning in a significant way.

[pnwmom]

11. He doesn't indicate that Israel provided any evidence. If they had, the Secretary of State

of course would have looked at it.

[Beastly Boy]

15. How would you interpret "But he said that he personally has "not seen any information provided."?

That the provided information was not provided?

AP clearly reports on "information provided". What is so ambiguous about it?

[pnwmom]

36. That sentence is not as clear as you seem to think.

"not seen any information provided" doesn't necessarily mean "not seen any of the information that Israel has provided."

It could also mean "he has not seen them provide any information."

[Beastly Boy]

37. I do think it's very clear.

But perhaps I can add context to what he said by quoting from a different report:

“Shortly after the strike we did request additional details regarding the justification for it,” Blinken said Monday.

He declined to discuss specific intelligence, saying he “will leave it to others to characterize if any information has been shared and our assessment that information.”

But he said, “I have not seen any information provided.”

https://www.timesofisrael.com/blinken-hasnt-seen-evidence-on-strike-on-gaza-building-housing-ap-al-jazeera/

There is no question here that Blinken's mention of "any information that has been shared" refers to his request and the information provided. No room for interpretation.

Not that any interpretation other than the obvious one was not a stretch to begin with.

[pnwmom]

38. You're missing that tiny but significant word.

IF.

He declined to discuss specific intelligence, saying he “will leave it to others to characterize if any information has been shared and our assessment that information.”

[Beastly Boy]

40. There is another very insignificant word.

AND

He declined to discuss specific intelligence, saying he “will leave it to others to characterize if any information has been shared and our assessment that information.”

He will not characterize IF any information has been shared, AND his assessment of that information. Obviously, the assessment of THAT information is ongoing, but he will not characterize it. Whether or not he will characterize if the information has been received, he cannot begin an assessment "if" he has not received it, can he?

[pnwmom]

42. The "and" is part of the clause that BEGINS with "if." "If" modifies the whole clause, including

Last edited Tue May 18, 2021, 12:46 AM - Edit history (1)

the part that begins with "and."

And no, he cannot assess information he hasn't received. And I see no acknowledgment that he has -- or that anyone on his team has.

But I'll ask you again: if Israel gave them good information that served to justify Israel's attack on a building that the AP insists did not harbor any Hamas people, why wouldn't Biden or Blinken say so?

[former9thward]

35. You don't know that.

He said he had not"personally" see it. He has thousands of people who work for him. He doesn't look at every sheet of paper that hits the SOS office.

[Mysterian]

12. What's the evidence that Israel provided any evidence?

The U.S. Secretary of State would have seen it if there was any.

[Beastly Boy]

16. You just read an AP report that states information was provided.

And you are asking what is the evidence the information was provided?

Maybe you should challenge the accuracy and professionalism of the AP staff.

Oh, just for kicks: what is your evidence that the Secretary of State would have seen the evidence if there was any? Is your statement in any way proof positive there is no evidence, or is it pure conjecture?

[Mysterian]

21. No, I didn't

Blinken also said he had asked Israel for any evidence for its claim that Hamas was operating in an Gaza office building housing The Associated Press and Al Jazeera news bureaus that was destroyed in an Israeli airstrike over the weekend. But he said that he personally had “not seen any information provided.”

Maybe you can show me where in the artice it states evidence was provided. Also, if you could explain why the Sec. of State asked Israel for evidence if it had already been provided, it would be great.

[Beastly Boy]

28. "Information provided" doesn't mean information was provided?

That's a direct quote from the article. Are you asking me where it says "evidence provided"? It doesn't. But why are you challenging me on something you are saying and I, or AP, is not?

[Mysterian]

31. "had 'not seen any information provided.'"

Please read the whole sentence for complete context.

[Beastly Boy]

32. Ok, you tell me what the whole sentence means.

Does it mean that the information was not provided, or that information was provided and Blinken had not seen it? If you think it's the former, explain what the word "provided" is doing in that sentence.

[pnwmom]

39. The word "if" is conditional and changes everything. nt

[pnwmom]

24. It doesn't say that. The lack of seen evidence isn't proof that evidence exists.

If there was SIGNIFICANT evidence provided to his department, then they would have apprised him of it. If they didn't they should lose their jobs.

[Beastly Boy]

29. Ok, I think I see what you mean.

You are saying that "information provided" may not contain any evidence, and since the SoS hasn't seen the information, it means he hasn't seen any evidence.

Then, if this is what you are saying, and if you take the SoS at his word, the absence or the presence of evidence is an unknown to him.

Still, if you consider the source you quoted reputable, you must concede that the information (presumably the information he requested) was provided.

[pnwmom]

33. Closer, but not quite.

"You are saying that "information provided" may not contain any evidence."
-- I'm saying that it might be worthless information that doesn't prove anything, we don't know.

But think about it this way. If Israel provided strong evidence of the presence of Hamas, why didn't the US say so? We are Israel's closest ally. Why aren't we saying they made the right decision, based on the evidence they provided us with? We wouldn't have to divulge that evidence. But instead, we're acting cagey about whether there was evidence or if we saw it.

[Beastly Boy]

34. You seem to agree in one respect

What is unknown can only lead to idle speculation. We certainly need to know more about the issue than we do now. Sadly (but perhaps prudently), Blinken has taken himself out of commenting on the subject.
https://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2744912 (this is a different report on the same event described in your OP)

To answer the question in the second part of your post, if the US knew, it is not obligated to spill the beans. Maybe they are waiting for a strategically opportune time to spill the beans. Or, maybe, there are no beans to spill. Or, as I said before, there may be another mnillion of rfeasons, none of them subject to public record, for them to withhold what they know. The fact the US remains silent does not preclude any of these maybes in favor of a single reason you are eluding to. Like the content of the information Blinken requested, it is an unknown. Idle speculations and all.

[stopdiggin]

22. latest in Yahoo News

The latest: "The Secretary was referring only to what he personally had seen. As he made clear, any such information would be provided to others in the administration, not directly to the secretary of State," a senior State Department official told Axios.

Why it matters: Israel has said the presence of a Hamas military intelligence office justified an airstrike that destroyed the 12-story building on Saturday. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told CBS News' "Face the Nation" Sunday that Israeli intelligence had shared proof with the U.S.

“Shortly after the strike we did request additional details regarding the justification for it,” Blinken said at a press conference in Denmark Monday, later adding he has "not seen any information provided.”

Blinken said he "will leave it to others to characterize if any information has been shared and our assessment of that information."

Little bit of do-si-do and some fancy footwork ....
There's some deliberate smoke being blown ....

[roamer65]

23. Meanwhile, Al Jazeera is still on air Netanyahu.

HA! HA! Fucker.

[tritsofme]

30. Why wouldn't they be on the air?

[Xolodno]

41. In my view...

...why was it still necessary to bring down the building?

Hamas had to know they would be targeted and moved most of the apparatus before the rockets even started firing. If we assume they at one point were actually using the place, reality is, they were long gone and in full retention of their operation, which means, nothing was accomplished with this strike. But it's one hell of a propaganda victory for them. Abbas has to be sitting there saying "damn it! and we were finally getting to a point of possibly giving them the boot".

Someone in the IDF screwed up, badly. Or did they? This could also be right wing elements within that wanted to eliminate the bad press and didn't think it would backfire.

And lets not forget, this all started with evictions because of other evictions that go back over a century. Bibi is doing this because he see's this as his chance to stay in power. Just like we worried Trump would start a way for his political survival, Bibi actually went through with it.

[Duppers]

43. K & R