From further down in the article...

The entrance to the tunnel CNN entered lay in the rubble of what the Israeli military said was a residential building. After uncovering the site, the military blew a hole through a section of the tunnel – exposing it on two sides in order to outflank Hamas fighters who were inside.

A dark, humid and seemingly endless labyrinth awaited us once inside. Without a light on, the tunnel was pitch-black and it was impossible to hear the outside world.

According to the IDF, the tunnel had been outfitted with wiring – electricity and telecommunications – installed by Hamas. But there were no lights on when CNN visited.

At the end of one section, CNN found what the Israeli military described as a Hamas battalion commander’s office: two large rooms, a bathroom and a kitchen linked by a hallway held up with steel beams.

There were tiled floors, painted walls, plus electricity and plumbing. Large frames also hung on the walls, which the Israeli military said once displayed maps. A large map that would fit one of the frames was sprawled on a table.

Goldfuss, standing inside the command center, said he was surprised at the scale of the tunnels he said the IDF had found.

"Instead, the IDF provided drone footage that showed two other tunnel entrances – one of which CNN entered – near the cemetery. CNN geolocated the tunnel entrances using footage filmed on the ground, as well as satellite imagery, and found that neither was in the cemetery grounds."

"The Israeli military stood by its claims, insisting in a press release that a tunnel ran directly through the religious site."

"But that press release also undermined Goldfuss’ claim that the underground command center was directly below the cemetery. A map released by the military placed the command center outside the graveyard."

- "CNN geolocated the tunnel entrances using footage filmed on the ground, as well as satellite imagery, and found that neither was in the cemetery grounds.""
Did CNN determine that the tunnel didn't run through the cemetary? - No comment.Did a map released by the military place the tunnel inside the cemetary territory? - No comment.

- CNN: "A map released by the military placed the command center outside the graveyard."" Did CNN find the command center outside the graveyard? - No comment. Did a map released by the military place the tunnel leading to the command center outside the graveyard? - No comment.

It appears that CNN's journalistic integrity in reporting this story raises more questions than it answers.

Israel claims a tunnel ran through this Gaza cemetery it destroyed. A visit to the site raised more questions than answers
Not sure what point you are trying to make.

At the center of their account are superficial details that do not put the IDF report into question.

It is not clear which questions were prompted by the CNN staff visit to the site and how the nitpicking of the minutia of their visit constitutes valid questions, let alone raise more questions than answers.

If you look at the top it does not say opinion piece. It is a report.
There is this stuff which they actually confirmed.

"Instead, the IDF provided drone footage that showed two other tunnel entrances – one of which CNN entered – near the cemetery. CNN geolocated the tunnel entrances using footage filmed on the ground, as well as satellite imagery, and found that neither was in the cemetery grounds."

"The Israeli military stood by its claims, insisting in a press release that a tunnel ran directly through the religious site. But that press release also undermined Goldfuss’ claim that the underground command center was directly below the cemetery. A map released by the military placed the command center outside the graveyard. "

"A spokesman for the Israeli military said they would provide video of the tunnel shaft in the enormous hole, but never did."

And, they did not physically walk through a tunnel under the cemetery.

Still blown away that you wanted them to give their opinion.

CNN doesn't question the existence of the "seemingly endless" tunnel in the immediate vicinity of the cemetery. They don't question running water, electricity, maps, multiple rooms inside the tunnels. They don't question accounts of havy fighting between Hamas and IDF in the immediate vicinity of the cemetery. As far as the CNN report is concerned, all these questions are pretty much settled. That's a hell of a lot of questions answered!

Call me strange, but when I find no reason to question the presence of tunnels, the signature Hamas military asset, in a combat zone immediately adjacent to a cemetery, an IDF general "failing to prove" that the tunnel runs underneath the cemetery during a three-hour tour of the area is the last thing that comes to my mind.

The first question that does?... What the actual fuck, a Hamas tunnel next to a cemetery and a mosque? The second question?... Who the fuck Hamas militants think they are, creating a war zone out of a protected area? The Third question?... No I have no more questions. Certainly none about how many meters away from the cemetery the entrance to the "seemingly endless" tunnel is, or how inconsistent an Israeli map of the tunnel is with momentary recollection of a press tour guide.

Judging by the report, there are only two questions that the visit to the site raised: whether or not the entrances to the tunnels the reporters observed actually lead to the tunnels directly underneath the cemetery, and whether or not the IDF spokesman's recollection of the location of Hamas underground headquarters is consistent with the IDF map. And raising these two questions is more than the answers they got answered... how?

And it is not up to IDF to provide proof of anything to journalists. It is the journalists' job to find proof. And not whine about a military spokesman failing to do their job for them.

Maybe "did they really dig up a cemetery?" Because that is what this is about. They dug up a cemetery for tunnels that they couldn't prove went under the cemetery. You don't care about that? If my country did that in a war that I 100% supported I would be like really? Maybe instead of digging up the cemetery you could just dig around it and then go in those tunnels to take the enemy out instead of digging a large part of the cemetery out but I guess that's just me.

They didn't just dig up a cemetery. They dug up a legitimate military target which they had every reason to suspect was located underneath the cemetery. And they are pretty open about it.

And apparently, they found their military target. Underneath a cemetery. There is no question that Hamas militants were attacking from the tunnels that the reporter toured, and there is no question that the Hamas military headquarters were located in the tunnel, in close proximity of the cemetery, and there is no question that both the militants and their headquarters were there before IDF dug up the cemetery.

Do you really not care about Hamas turning a cemetery into a military target?

If the IDF target was underneath a gay bar, they would have leveled a gay bar. And if their target were underneath a salami factory... well, you get the picture. But Hamas chose a friggin cemetery. IDF wasn't after any of the above, they went after a legitimate military target. And nobody in their right mind is disputing this.

BTW, IDF owes neither you nor the reporters nor anyone else any proof. If anyone doubts their account, it is on the doubter to prove there was no legitimate military target under the cemetery. Good luck with that.

No, I really don't care about idle speculations being passed as righteous indignation. Especially when it is patently biased and one-sided.

Is not a question?
"They didn't just dig up a cemetery. They dug up a legitimate military target which they had every reason to suspect was located underneath the cemetery. And they are pretty open about it"
But you dont actually know that so why are you stating it as fact?
Your next sentence shows you don't actually know this in the first two words.
" And apparently, they found their military target. "

The rest of that paragraph reinforces it.
"There is no question that Hamas militants were attacking from the tunnels that the reporter toured, and there is no question that the Hamas military headquarters were located in the tunnel, in close proximity of the cemetery, and there is no question that both the militants and their headquarters were there before IDF dug up the cemetery. "
But there is still the question of if the tunnels went into the cemetery isn't there? Odd that you don't mention that one.

"Do you really not care about Hamas turning a cemetery into a military target?"
I'm sure if your neighbor went all MAGA and dug tunnels, hoarded bombs and had a shootout with LE and they razed your house because it was near your neighbor you would be all like, "Yeah, makes sense."

"If the IDF target was underneath a gay bar, they would have leveled a gay bar. And if their target were underneath a salami factory... well, you get the picture. But Hamas chose a friggin cemetery. IDF wasn't after any of the above, they went after a legitimate military target. And nobody in their right mind is disputing this."
Or hospitals, or churches, schools, clinics, pretty much like any building or place and they are now like, fuck it, blow it up, burn it down, dig it up, bomb it, flood it. Tell me like one place, just one place in Gaza that they haven't decided to destroy. Just one place. You cant. Your answer will be its war. And that's fine. You can be that way. I'm not. A lot of us aren't. We aren't the type to think it's ok to obliterate your enemies. The civilians and the fighters. Just admit it. And we still don't have proof they were using that cemetery, just you and them saying they were. If you do indeed think its fine to obliterate your enemies why are you even arguing with me? Does it matter if Hamas was even using the cemetery or if they weren't? Just being near it seems to be enough for you for them to just doze it down.

"BTW, IDF owes neither you nor the reporters nor anyone else any proof. If anyone doubts their account, it is on the doubter to prove there was no legitimate military target under the cemetery. Good luck with that. No, I really don't care about idle speculations being passed as righteous indignation. Especially when it is patently biased and one-sided."
Pretty sure I have money going to the IDF. Naw, the IDF doesn't owe me any proof, but the people that take my money do. Or am I not allowed to care about that at all and must bow down to your idle speculations that are righteous indignation and absolutely biased and one sided? Give me a break. When Ol George Bush invaded Iraq should I have just shut the fuck up then like you obviously think I should now? Should I have just been like, Dang, he said there were WMD's in Iraq so there's your proof? Then I was a traitor for thinking and saying that I didn't believe the party line and needed proof to do absolutely horrible things, now I'm just what? Woke? One last thing, "it is on the doubter to prove", have you ever heard that it is near impossible to prove a negative? Can you prove to me that there werent WMD's in Iraq? Can you?
Eko.

Is not a question?
- No it is not. Unless you insist on asking questions that have already been answered.

"They didn't just dig up a cemetery. They dug up a legitimate military target which they had every reason to suspect was located underneath the cemetery. And they are pretty open about it"
But you dont actually know that so why are you stating it as fact?
- I am not stating it as a fact, I am stating it as something that is not being challenged. I don't actually know that the moon is not made of cheese, but I have no reason to doubt it.

Your next sentence shows you don't actually know this in the first two words.
" And apparently, they found their military target. "
- That was what the man in charge of finding the tunnel reported. Apparently, if you get the meaning of the word.

The rest of that paragraph reinforces it.
"There is no question that Hamas militants were attacking from the tunnels that the reporter toured, and there is no question that the Hamas military headquarters were located in the tunnel, in close proximity of the cemetery, and there is no question that both the militants and their headquarters were there before IDF dug up the cemetery. "
But there is still the question of if the tunnels went into the cemetery isn't there? Odd that you don't mention that one.
- There is also still a question of whether the moon is made of cheese, but there are no facts to suggest it is. Anybody can ask questions, regardless of their basis in fact.

"Do you really not care about Hamas turning a cemetery into a military target?"
I'm sure if your neighbor went all MAGA and dug tunnels, hoarded bombs and had a shootout with LE and they razed your house because it was near your neighbor you would be all like, "Yeah, makes sense."
- Forgetting, for argument's sake, that law enforcement and wars are not comparable, and that I resent being compared to a corpse, not to mention the blatant false equivalency of your entire analogy, I would just say that you are avoiding my question.

"If the IDF target was underneath a gay bar, they would have leveled a gay bar. And if their target were underneath a salami factory... well, you get the picture. But Hamas chose a friggin cemetery. IDF wasn't after any of the above, they went after a legitimate military target. And nobody in their right mind is disputing this."
Or hospitals, or churches, schools, clinics, pretty much like any building or place and they are now like, fuck it, blow it up, burn it down, dig it up, bomb it, flood it. Tell me like one place, just one place in Gaza that they haven't decided to destroy. Just one place. You cant. Your answer will be its war. And that's fine. You can be that way. I'm not. A lot of us aren't. We aren't the type to think it's ok to obliterate your enemies. The civilians and the fighters. Just admit it. And we still don't have proof they were using that cemetery, just you and them saying they were. If you do indeed think its fine to obliterate your enemies why are you even arguing with me? Does it matter if Hamas was even using the cemetery or if they weren't? Just being near it seems to be enough for you for them to just doze it down.
- Ok, I admit it. Anything that otherwise enjoys the protections of international law and Hamas turns into a legitimate military target loses its protective status, as per international law. It then becomes subject to the treatment afforded to military targets, according to international law. No one but Hamas detrmines what protections they want to void by violating international law. And international law is not concerned with what type you are (and you seem to me the type that thinks it is not ok to obliterate your enemies by some but not others). Am I being too redundant in referring to international law? Does it interfere too much with your narrative that states it is me who makes all these judgements?

"BTW, IDF owes neither you nor the reporters nor anyone else any proof. If anyone doubts their account, it is on the doubter to prove there was no legitimate military target under the cemetery. Good luck with that. No, I really don't care about idle speculations being passed as righteous indignation. Especially when it is patently biased and one-sided."
Pretty sure I have money going to the IDF. Naw, the IDF doesn't owe me any proof, but the people that take my money do. Or am I not allowed to care about that at all and must bow down to your idle speculations that are righteous indignation and absolutely biased and one sided? Give me a break. When Ol George Bush invaded Iraq should I have just shut the fuck up then like you obviously think I should now? Should I have just been like, Dang, he said there were WMD's in Iraq so there's your proof? Then I was a traitor for thinking and saying that I didn't believe the party line and needed proof to do absolutely horrible things, now I'm just what? Woke? One last thing, "it is on the doubter to prove", have you ever heard that it is near impossible to prove a negative? Can you prove to me that there werent WMD's in Iraq? Can you?
- I swear, none of the money I get from you goes to IDF. While you are welcome to bow down to me if this is your choice, nothing I say should create in you a sense of obligation. Nor do your posts create in me a sense of obligation to owe you any proof for every righteous indignation you advance. Of course I don't expect you to shut the fuck up, nor do I expect you to speak up. Just a word of caution, though: parroting what is in my posts doesn't necessarily make you sound more persuasive, even as I appreciate the flattery.*

*The italics are all mine, so, to avoid the appearance of you having nothing of your own to contribute, try to avoid claiming authorship of any content italicized above.

Is not a question?
- No it is not. Unless you insist on asking questions that have already been answered.
Its nice to know that since you feel like you answered it then it becomes not a question. Unfortunately that is not how it works. By definition it is still a question.

"They didn't just dig up a cemetery. They dug up a legitimate military target which they had every reason to suspect was located underneath the cemetery. And they are pretty open about it"
But you dont actually know that so why are you stating it as fact?
- I am not stating it as a fact, I am stating it as something that is not being challenged. I don't actually know that the moon is not made of cheese, but I have no reason to doubt it.
I challenged it, was that not good enough for you? Once again your supposition that you are the arbiter of things seems to be a theme with you.
Your next sentence shows you don't actually know this in the first two words.
" And apparently, they found their military target. "
- That was what the man in charge of finding the tunnel reported. Apparently, if you get the meaning of the word.
Oh yeah, Just like the man in charge of finding WMD's in Iraq found them. Apparently.

The rest of that paragraph reinforces it.
"There is no question that Hamas militants were attacking from the tunnels that the reporter toured, and there is no question that the Hamas military headquarters were located in the tunnel, in close proximity of the cemetery, and there is no question that both the militants and their headquarters were there before IDF dug up the cemetery. "
But there is still the question of if the tunnels went into the cemetery isn't there? Odd that you don't mention that one.
- There is also still a question of whether the moon is made of cheese, but there are no facts to suggest it is. Anybody can ask questions, regardless of their basis in fact.
No, that question has been answered by fact finding and evidence, not someone saying so either way.
"Do you really not care about Hamas turning a cemetery into a military target?"
I'm sure if your neighbor went all MAGA and dug tunnels, hoarded bombs and had a shootout with LE and they razed your house because it was near your neighbor you would be all like, "Yeah, makes sense."
- Forgetting, for argument's sake, that law enforcement and wars are not comparable, and that I resent being compared to a corpse, not to mention the blatant false equivalency of your entire analogy, I would just say that you are avoiding my question.
They are very comparable. That is why our LE uses tactics from our military. Shoot, a lot of times they use the same material. Armored cars, sniper rifles, Quick response teams, automatic rifles, even tanks.

"If the IDF target was underneath a gay bar, they would have leveled a gay bar. And if their target were underneath a salami factory... well, you get the picture. But Hamas chose a friggin cemetery. IDF wasn't after any of the above, they went after a legitimate military target. And nobody in their right mind is disputing this."
Or hospitals, or churches, schools, clinics, pretty much like any building or place and they are now like, fuck it, blow it up, burn it down, dig it up, bomb it, flood it. Tell me like one place, just one place in Gaza that they haven't decided to destroy. Just one place. You cant. Your answer will be its war. And that's fine. You can be that way. I'm not. A lot of us aren't. We aren't the type to think it's ok to obliterate your enemies. The civilians and the fighters. Just admit it. And we still don't have proof they were using that cemetery, just you and them saying they were. If you do indeed think its fine to obliterate your enemies why are you even arguing with me? Does it matter if Hamas was even using the cemetery or if they weren't? Just being near it seems to be enough for you for them to just doze it down.
- Ok, I admit it. Anything that otherwise enjoys the protections of international law and Hamas turns into a legitimate military target loses its protective status, as per international law. It then becomes subject to the treatment afforded to military targets, according to international law. No one but Hamas detrmines what protections they want to void by violating international law. And international law is not concerned with what type you are (and you seem to me the type that thinks it is not ok to obliterate your enemies by some but not others). Am I being too redundant in referring to international law? Does it interfere too much with your narrative that states it is me who makes all these judgements?
International law doesn't protect Hospitals? Churches, Schools, Clinics? Graveyards? It does doesn't it? Of course if the enemy uses one of them like a graveyard to attack then it becomes a military target,,, but they haven't shown proof it was used so then until proof is shown its a violation of international law right? Right?
"BTW, IDF owes neither you nor the reporters nor anyone else any proof. If anyone doubts their account, it is on the doubter to prove there was no legitimate military target under the cemetery. Good luck with that. No, I really don't care about idle speculations being passed as righteous indignation. Especially when it is patently biased and one-sided."
Pretty sure I have money going to the IDF. Naw, the IDF doesn't owe me any proof, but the people that take my money do. Or am I not allowed to care about that at all and must bow down to your idle speculations that are righteous indignation and absolutely biased and one sided? Give me a break. When Ol George Bush invaded Iraq should I have just shut the fuck up then like you obviously think I should now? Should I have just been like, Dang, he said there were WMD's in Iraq so there's your proof? Then I was a traitor for thinking and saying that I didn't believe the party line and needed proof to do absolutely horrible things, now I'm just what? Woke? One last thing, "it is on the doubter to prove", have you ever heard that it is near impossible to prove a negative? Can you prove to me that there werent WMD's in Iraq? Can you?
- I swear, none of the money I get from you goes to IDF. While you are welcome to bow down to me if this is your choice, nothing I say should create in you a sense of obligation. Nor do your posts create in me a sense of obligation to owe you any proof for every righteous indignation you advance. Of course I don't expect you to shut the fuck up, nor do I expect you to speak up. Just a word of caution, though: parroting what is in my posts doesn't necessarily make you sound more persuasive, even as I appreciate the flattery.*
Are you part of the IDF? Do my taxes only go to you? I didnt parrot your posts, I added the quotation marks for a reason or did you not understand that?

*The italics are all mine, so, to avoid the appearance of you having nothing of your own to contribute, try to avoid claiming authorship of any content italicized above.
I added them back so you can feel safe.
Eko.

No? You admit they didn't. Then by your logic they should be investigated for violating international law right?

Is this supposed to make any sense?

That Hamas Was Using The Cemetery As A Military Position?
Did that help you?

•Rule 113 (of the Geneva convention) states that “Each party to the conflict must take all possible measures to prevent the dead from being despoiled. Mutilation of dead bodies is prohibited.” This rule is applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
That is the international law that you love to talk about. At this point do you have proof that the IDF was correct in saying that Hamas was using that cemetery for operations? You have already admitted you don't. With that being said, being right or wrong in doing so shouldn't the IDF be investigated for violations of Rule 113?

Sadly, if not pathetically so, your newfound interest doesn't extend beyond entering a few keywords into a google machine.

You didn't even look up the definitions, legal or otherwise, of "despoiled" or "mutilation", let alone check your source's references in international law that accompany its commentary. Thus, the first thing in the ICRC's introduction to the Customary International Rules you referred to states:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1134&pid=139870

Were you to look up the definition of "despoiled", which is synonymous with grave robbing, you wouldn't have even included it in your rant. Nobody ever claimed any grave robbery on the part of IDF. The elements of "Mutilation", if you were to follow references given by your source, are defined by ICC within a broader category in this way:

https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Elements-of-Crimes.pdf

Like it or not, blowing up corpses into an unrecognizable mess in the course of conducting military operations, and exhuming bodies from graves are customary practices in warfare, and, being customary, are therefore not considered humiliating, degrading, or outrageous in legal terms. Like it or not, this is the extent of international law that you suddenly decided to take interest in.

Anybody can get up on one's soap box and demand an investigation into anything. But it helps if one knows WTF one is talking about before making a fool of oneself.

I have wasted enough of my time. You don't have an obligation to inform yourself about what you decide to post, and I, in turn, don't have an obligation to respond to nonsense.

I suggest we both use our time more productively.

There it is right there in Article 8 (2) (b) (xvi)
As far as Despoiled.
Cambridge Dictionary.
to make a place less attractive especially by taking things away from it by force:
Many of the tombs had been despoiled.
Merriam Webster
: to strip of belongings, possessions, or value
Britannica
: to severely damage or ruin (a place)
The landscape has been despoiled by industrial development.
2 : to forcefully take what is valuable from (a place)
The invaders despoiled [=plundered] the village.
Collins
To despoil a place means to make it less attractive, valuable, or important by taking things away from it or by destroying it.
Synonyms
Thesaurus.com
Strongest matches
denude
depopulate

Strong matches
deprive desecrate desolate devastate devour dispossess divest loot maraud pillage plunder raid rifle rob sack
spoil strip vandalize waste wreck

Weak matches
depredate
spoliate
wreak havoc


And you said I didn't look up the definitions? Despoiled does not mean grave robbing. Grave robbery can be a type of it but it also means quite a bit more as I have shown
Sadly, if not pathetically so, your newfound interest doesn't extend to actually looking up things before you say what you think they are. Or are you going to show me where "despoiled" is synonymous with grave robbing somewhere?
Once again,
Rule 113 (of the Geneva convention) states that “Each party to the conflict must take all possible measures to prevent the dead from being despoiled. Mutilation of dead bodies is prohibited.” This rule is applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
Personally, I'm having a blast with these conversations with you and look forward to them every night.
Eko.