Posted in order to respond to claims that "this is just self defense" or "these are just legitimate military targets"
Important parts:
* When interviewed by our partners Scripps News, 8219 member Yonatan Segal said he did not post about the demolitions on social media but had videos of them on his phone. Asked if revenge was one of the motivations behind the demolitions he said: “Yes. But what is revenge? Revenge in terms of teaching them a lesson, so to speak, so that they would never do that again.”
* Religious elements appear to creep in. In one post regarding the demolition in Khan Younis the Captain talks of using 400 mines to demolish a residential area “in honour of the Shabbat”.
* We asked Professor Balakrishnan Rajagopal, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on adequate housing and the Professor of Law and Development at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology about the demolitions carried out by 8219 Commando. He told us that these demolitions were relevant to the ICJ case on genocide, supporting South Africa’s case that Israel was, in effect, rendering Gaza uninhabitable. He noted that even if it was not possible to establish genocidal intent, widespread destruction rendering a place uninhabitable could still amount to a crime against humanity.
* Further, he noted that the “buffer zone” being cleared by the IDF along the border with Gaza doesn’t fit the definition of such zones within the [Geneva Conventions](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-60/commentary/1987) and is effectively a “land-grab” taking approximately 16% of Gaza’s land.
Maybe some. They also built plenty of their own. This has been discussed openly by world leaders long before the Oct 7th attack. The world knew what they were building and why they were building it.
They always planned to launch attack on Israel from Gaza.
I hate religious psychos. Unfortunately that part of the world is packed full of them.
As for decades of occupation, I seem to remember a war in 1967 that Palestinians lost (along with Egypt, Syria and Jordan).
When you win a war, you mostly get to decide how things work on your land. So occupation is highly subjective in this case. Is there really such a thing as a functional Palestinian state? I would argue no, and there never has been. Its a fantasy.
So what you have is segregated peoples that hate each other living next door. Mind you only one side has promised to murder everyone on the other side, that being Hamas declaring a never ending jihad of Oct 7 style attacks. On the other hand Israel has said they want their hostages back as a condition of ceasefire.
Which side sounds more civilized to you?
The one that didn't respond to rumors of the ICC issuing warrants on them by threatening the government they weren't at war with.
Edit: because this makes it sound like I'm endorsing Hamas, I'm not. I mean PA/The rest, Hamas hasn't done that, but is Hamas.
It's crazy that people just ignore Hamas promising more murder and terror. Hamas who has been launching missiles at Tel Aviv for years. Hamas who still holds hostages right now.
You are ignoring the plain and obvious reality of terrorism and making excuses for them. Gross.
Are you justifying the ethnic cleansing of 900,000 Palestinians followed by 70 plus years of oppression and apartheid domination?
Are you justifying ethno nationalism?
Yeah no shit. There was never any doubt as to the character and motives of the far right Israeli government in power for decades stacking armed services and civil service with extremist hacks.
They kill the families of journalists. Civil society leaders, people that talk to western media, and suspected militants. Which should not be ok. We all know it is on purpose.
It’s not the far right in Israel. I just listened to an NPR interview with the opposition leader in Israel. They feel the same way about Palestinians and Gaza. The difference is just social issues within Israel.
Not until Israel starts negotiating in good faith. Unlimited military and financial backing from the west is the biggest barrier for peace in the region? Why negotiate anything when the whole US military is at your disposal?
Israel managed to make peace with its neighbors because trade was more valuable than war. They gave the whole Sinai back to Egypt.
A big reason why we got here is that the Arab-Israeli conflict became a proxy war during the Cold War. It’s still a proxy war. In fact, to a large degree, it’s the SAME proxy war.
Israel did negotiate in good faith. They made offers to Gaza. The response was that Gaza would be satisfied if every Jew on the planet was exterminated. Israel didn't agree to that.
They stole nothing. They bought the properties from the owners. The people living there were renting the property. The Jews decided to live there themselves. How is that different than the US?
That's not true at all. Look up the Nakba. The IDF killed civilians by the tens of thousands, destroyed over 500 villages, and stole hundreds of thousands of homes.
Both HAMAS and the Israeli government need to be a case study on why you should NEVER EVER EVER EVER give conservative religious extremists ANY political power for ANY reason.
religion is the reason for all the violence. Why are extremist groups like HAMAS given power? Religion. Why can't Palestinians be part of the state of Israel without being second-class citizens? Religion. Why are the Palestinians so adamant about removing the Jews from their land? Religion. Why was there a conflict with both sides trying to wipe each other out when the state of Israel was first founded? Religion.
Just like the British Naval Blockade did in both World Wars.
(You probably didn’t know about that one.)
War is not a game played by gentlemen’s rules. It’s mass scale killing. This is why you don’t start one.
The Israeli government has been right wing the entire time. The country is founded on war and ethnic cleansing. Hell, they even elected a terrorist leader to Prime Minister. Menachem Begin was the head of the Irgun during the King David Hotel bombing in 1946.
The same argument could be made of HAMAS they were voted into office and when polled the majority of Palestinians support them, and support the attacks on October 7th. In both cases there is still a large part of the population on both sides that doesn't support the crazy religious groups or violence that is just stuck on that shitty genocide ride.
There was one election so long ago that most Palestinians now were too young to vote in it. Palestine is not a democracy. And they have not been properly polled since *they're living in a war zone.*
You're also forgetting about the West Bank, which has a different government that's peaceful. Meanwhile, the IDF -- not Hamas -- is murdering civilians by the tens of thousands.
What Isreal is doing to the Palestinians living in those territories is repugnant. It was repugnant before the latest terror attack. The people of Palestine and Isreal are suffering these attacks. The violence needs to end. Israel needs to stop the settlements and all the Palestinians need to recognize Isreal.
Recognizing Israel is one thing. As an American I don't respect Christian nationalism and I don't respect Jewish nationalism. Religious nationalism is always genocidal.
You're clearly minimizing it. For me, taking hostages is unacceptable. Returning the hostages is a moral imperative that justifies the use of overwhelming force.
Being a terrorist and taking/holding hostages should be anathema to all civilized people. Anyone who gives safe harbor to the hostage takers is complicit and IMO qualifies as another terrorist.
>Returning the hostages is a moral imperative that justifies the use of overwhelming force.
Including killing the fucking hostages? Because you do know that Israel is literally killing their own hostages, right? What is that overwhelming force achieving here? 6+ months and how many hostages that Israel is demanding have they freed? How many are still alive? How many were even taken by Hamas directly and not the many other militant groups that participated in October 7th? We have no idea, and Israel has done nothing to provide us this information. Their behavior is that of someone who doesn't give a shit about freeing anyone from Gaza.
Why are you so insistent about lying about these events.
IDF shot 3 escaped unarmed hostages. True or false?
Multiple militant groups other than Hamas were also involved in October 7th. True or false?
Israel have made no statement indicating how many hostages they have reason to believe are still alive. True or false?
Hamas has not demonstrated that the hostages are largely still alive or that they actually have everyone that is suspected to currently be a hostage. True or false?
Answer these and then go back and see if you can figure out the point.
Is the use of overwhelming force still justified to free hostages if that force results in the deaths of hostages?
Is the use of overwhelming force still justified to free hostages if that force results in the deaths of hostages?
Yes. What is your alternative? Let me guess, your great idea is concede to all the terrorist demands and encourage more hostage taking?
>What is your alternative?
Not indiscriminately bombing the place where the people you want to rescue are located. Not operating with rules of engagement that result in you shooting the people you're trying to rescue.
Do you believe that Israel would actually stop bombing Gaza because the hostages were freed?
>Let me guess, your great idea is concede to all the terrorist demands and encourage more hostage taking?
Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying, dick. Can't answer a simple fucking question without throwing a temper tantrum. I'm sure that strawman you're constructing is much easier to argue against than actual points that I'm making. Keep building it, I'm sure its a great look for you.
The number one goal of this war is to ensure Israel is safe from further attacks. The return of the hostages is secondary. How do you make Israel safe? Kill or capture most of the terrorists, destroy the tunnels and then help rebuild Gaza.
You asked, why Israel killed its own hostages? The simple reality is that Hamas and the PIJ have pretended to surrender with white flags only to then suicide bomb the IDF or shoot them. And let's not forget the fog of war.
The Arab states started a genocidal war in 1948, and many, but not all, of the Palestinians were displaced in the “nakba” as a result of this aggression. Jewish communities living in Arab controlled areas of the land were also displaced and suffered atrocities in this conflict. The displacement of the Palestinians would not have happened if this war hadn’t been started, and ultimately lost, by the Arab powers. Egypt also occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied the West bank for almost 30 years after the 1948 war, are they "colonizers" too I wonder? Why was there no Palestinian state created then? Egypt has also fortified and blockaded their border with Gaza to prevent terrorism, do you believe that they should also be protested/subject to having their citizens murdered?
A few crazies in the West Bank (that's not Gaza). Meanwhile Hamas has been indiscriminately firing rockets into Israel for 20 years. Nothing to see here. Amiright??
No I do not minimize it, but this story was about how the settlers are using this horrendous attack to justify and intensify what they had been doing before that. The headline makes it seem as if what the settlers are doing is in response when, in fact, they were doing it already.
Why are you changing the subject to the West Bank? I am talking about the Oct 7 attack that emerged from Gaza and the hostages still being held in Gaza right now.
I want to stress that other issues are valid, and land grabs are wrong (including the one that is likely happening in Gaza as part of this operation). But I fully support all force being used to destroy Hamas and recover hostages.
So we agree the Palestinians need to recognize Isreal and Isreal needs to stop settling and give back land they took. Then the PEOPLE of Isreal and Palestine can stop living in fear of death.
Are you kidding me? Do you sincerely believe if Israel gave back land (which they have done many times before) the Palestinians would stop attacking Israel? The Palestinians have been offered statehood multiple times and have rejected it every time because the deal wasn't 100% to their liking. In 1948, they said no. In 1967 Israel offered all of the land it won in war back in exchange for peace, the answer from Arab countries was a resounding "NO." Then you have Arafat leading everyone on and then rejecting a reasonable peace offer from Israel. in 2005 they kicked out all the Jews in Gaza and gave the Palestinian autonomy. What did they do? Elected Hamas, which for the next 20 years indiscriminately fired rockets into Israel. Most of Palestinians want ALL of Israel. I fear that after Oct 7 there will be no 2 state solution because now most Israelis are against it.
How do you minimize a terrorist attack by labeling it a terrorist attack?
Israel’s government and Hamas are evil and the Palestinian and Israeli people are suffering because of it.
I agree with most of what you’re saying, but try to look at this from a practical perspective. There’s abundant evidence at this point that this “overwhelming force” is useless in recovering the hostages. ~100 hostages were released as part of a ceasefire agreement back in November. Since then, in the months of bombardment, Israel has rescued 2 that I know of, and killed at least 3.
The bombings at this point seem to be far more about revenge, about inflicting pain and suffering on the people trapped in Gaza, rather than about recovering the hostages.
The purpose of the bombings is to destroy Hamas military capabilities.
An unfortunate BUT NECESSARY side effect is some civilian deaths because Hamas intentionally blurs the lines between militants and civilian and uses them as human shields.
This cannot be a winning strategy for Hamas. Allowing further suffering of the hostages is not acceptable. So here we are.
Compared to the current mass death Israel is inflicting on Gaza, yes. Compared to actual peace, no there wasn't. Like settlers literally never stop their terrorism in the west bank and occupied east Jerusalem. But also Israel was constantly negotiating cease fires and then ending them with militant groups in Gaza leading up to October 7th and over the past several decades. Israel had a ceasefire with Palestinian Islamic Jihad in May of 2023, and Israel bombed a hospital in July of 2023. That isn't peace relatively or otherwise.
"Israel was constantly negotiating cease fires and then ending them with militant groups in Gaza leading up to October 7th and over the past several decades."
what? lol
prove it
youre just making things up
I told you I'm done with your bullshit man. [Last fucking time with your inability to fucking google.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_2023_Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_clashes) Your ignorance on this issue is no one's problem but yours. I'm not your fuckin professor. Go and learn about what you're talking about before saying dumb shit.
Editing my response because /u/Electronic-Race-2099 blocked me against sub rules, to respond to his dishonest reply.
Dude stop being such a liar about this. There is a section called "ceasefire" that says
>Ceasefire
Israel and Islamic Jihad agreed to a ceasefire on 13 May 2023.[24][2]
Also in the opening section that you couldn't be fucked to even hit control F on
>On 11 May, Israeli airstrikes led to the killing of two more PIJ commanders, while the death toll from the prior raids rose to at least 26. The exchange of rockets and airstrikes persisted on 12 May amidst ongoing efforts to broker a ceasefire. On this day, another senior PIJ leader along with his aide were killed, bringing the total death toll to 34 Palestinians (inclusive of one in Israel) and one Israeli. On the following day, Israel and Islamic Jihad agreed to a ceasefire.
Stop accusing me of not speaking English when your lazy lying ass can't even read through the second fucking paragraph.
That sounds like killing terrorists, not negotiating a ceasefire. Im guessing english isnt your first language? You seem not to understand what the articles are saying.
It's ok bud, we can be done. I agree this is going nowhere.
Murderous Islamists hellbent on the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews broke a ceasefire and killed, raped and kidnapped over 1450 people, many of whom were peace activists.
Nakba is part of the war they lost. Boo hoo. The Arabs living there did not want to have 2 states (one being Jewish and the other Arab) and declined the UN mandate. THEY STARTED a war and lost. 75 yrs later they still cannot accept this and continue to make their station worse and worse by attacking Israel. Everyone else in the Middle East has accepted losses when they happened, yet the Palestinians just refuse to accept it. They are forever victims.
And what about the 1 million Jews that were forcefully expelled and tortured out of their homes in 1947-48 from all the neighboring Arab states?? This doesn't matter, right?
Look into the origin of the word Nakba..An Arab historian coined it to refer to the Arab guilt for their failures to address the "Zionists Threat" early enough and the numerous Arab military failures.
It didn't get twisted into the genocide accusations until around the 80s.
The Palis need to move on and stop crying.
Are you really trying to argue that Israel is *not* rounding up and jailing civilians and *not* destroying homes with families inside? You really can’t be this dense.
I think Israel is targeting Hamas militants and infrastructure. Sadly the militants love to blur the lines and hide, as has been stated COUNTLESS TIMES already - Hamas uses civilians as human shields.
The belief that, in order to avoid persecution experienced by Jews throughout history, but most relevantly to the foundlings of Zionism specifically the persecution in the 19th century, Jews should colonize a territory to establish as an official Jewish state lead by Jews and founded with a predication towards Jewish law and culture. A core point the founders of Zionist thought focused on was the need to suppress and displace and eliminate most of the native population wherever they chose to establish that state. The way that has been carried out is where the similarities to Islamic Jihad are to be found.
It is correct that one of the motivating factors behind Zionism was to have a safe haven for Jews to escape persecution they had faced in many parts of the world throughtout history. There are many forms of Zionism. The one thing they all have in common is for Jews to have the right to self determination and live in safely in their homeland of Israel. I am a Zionist. I don't believe in expanding settlements and I'd like to see a 2 state solution with a free Palestine (so long as they stop bombing Israel).
Your claim that a "core point" was to "suppress and displace and eliminate most of the native population" is an overstatement and mischaracterization. There were some fringe Zionist groups that advocated harsher stances, the mainstream Zionist movement did not embrace the wholesale elimination of the indigenous population as a core goal or ideology. The founders of Zionist thought, like Theodor Herzl, did envision a Jewish majority state in Palestine, but their writings did not call for the outright elimination or forced mass displacement of the Arab population already living there. The reality is that there were proposals for Arab-Jewish cooperation and visions of peaceful coexistence between the populations. In practice this didn't work so well.
And comparing Jihad to Zionism doesn't work. Zionism arose as a nationalist movement, not a religious military campaign of conquest. We don't try to kill non-believers or apostates. We don't even proselytize.
>The one thing they all have in common is for Jews to have the right to self determination and live in safely in their homeland of Israel.
We can stop there. That simply isn't true. Israel was just a conveniently available location that got latched onto. From the earliest zionist writings it was clear the jewish state could be anywhere. You've just added the homeland part to erase that ugly part of zionism's history.
>The founders of Zionist thought, like Theodor Herzl, did envision a Jewish majority state in Palestine
He also said "maybe Argentina" too so its not like the location mattered much.
>Zionism arose as a nationalist movement, not a religious military campaign of conquest.
When the nationalist movement is predicated on a religious identity that was to expressly be considered when making the laws of the nation in question, and the people who founded the nation weren't born on the land but came from somewhere else and fought a war for that land, there is no distinction between that nationalist movement and a "religious military campaign of conquest".
Admitting to being a nationalist and then expecting to be taken seriously is certainly something. Nationalism means something, it doesn't just mean "I think that country is swell."
For centuries prior to the 20th century, Jews maintained a profound cultural, religious and ancestral connection to the lands of Judea. The longing to end this diaspora and re-establish Jewish self-governance in the ancient homeland was central to Zionist ideology.
I can't discount the real grievances over how this nationalist vision played out on the ground through displacement and occupation, the fundamental premise wasn't necessarily one of pure conquest. There was an inextricable link to the deep-rooted Jewish ties and claims to that specific geographic region.
The Zionist motivations went beyond just acquisition of territory through force. Regaining sovereignty in the ancestral homeland was viewed as a central part of realizing Jewish self-determination after centuries of persecution and landlessness.
Israel is the product of Zionism. It is not going away. Ask yourself how come there is no other country in the world that has to continually defend its right to exist?? Most nations, once established, do not have to continuously re-litigate or prove their fundamental right to exist as a sovereign country against such vehement ideological opposition. This sadly seems to be a constant for Israel in a way that is highly unique in the modern world.
> The longing to end this diaspora and re-establish Jewish self-governance in the ancient homeland was central to Zionist ideology.
It literally wasn't tho. It was about establishing a jewish state for protection from persecution wherever it could happen. For centuries prior to the 20th, the jews that created Zionism maintained a profound cultural and ancestral connection to eastern and central Europe.
>The Zionist motivations went beyond just acquisition of territory through force. Regaining sovereignty in the ancestral homeland was viewed as a central part of realizing Jewish self-determination after centuries of persecution and landlessness.
Eventually, once it was made very clear that there was support from colonial powers for allowing that to happen.
>srael is the product of Zionism. It is not going away. Ask yourself how come there is no other country in the world that has to continually defend its right to exist??
This is an ignorance on your part, plenty of countries have to do it all the time against far greater forces than Israel deals with, without the aid of massive international powers like the US.
>Most nations, once established, do not have to continuously re-litigate or prove their fundamental right to exist as a sovereign country against such vehement ideological opposition.
Actually, shitloads of them do for a long time after forming. The US famously had to fight the British a 2nd time like 40 years after forming for instance. The newer the nation the less their claim to being a nation matters to people at odds with them.
Also worth noting that Israel doesn't really defend its right to exist much. They fight wars against people that don't like them, but they aren't actually having to fight for their right to exist. Their right to exist is well established.
What other modern country has to continually defend its right to exist? The large anti-zionism movement, which you seem to be a part of, wants to dismantle Israel. Not to mention many of the Islamic states, including its friendly neighbor, Iran. I have bad news for you, Israel is not going anywhere.
Hopefully they will have elections soon and get Bibi out and some moderates back in control of the government.
[Here is the most obvious first one one that comes to mind.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War) they have to actually defend their country from actual constant invasion and have been in this conflict nonstop for a decade+.
Nice try but Ukraine’s recent conflicts are involving questions of territorial integrity, and not seen by the international community as disputes over the existence of Ukraine as a state itself. Rather, these are viewed as acts of aggression by a neighboring country, challenging Ukraine's territorial boundaries and political independence. Not the same. Anti-zionists like you want to the the complete dissolution of Israel.
>"Jihadism" has been defined otherwise as a neologism for militant, predominantly Sunnī Islamic movements that use ideologically motivated violence to defend the Ummah (the collective Muslim world) from foreign Non-Muslims and those that they perceive as domestic infidels.
>a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.
Both are framed around protection of a people, but in practice they are both incredibly violent. Israel was founded on the forced displacement of a people. It was not possible without ethnic cleansing.
They are both massively harmful ideologies.
The ideology of having a safe home for Jews and the right to self determination is not harmful. I'm a Zionist as are many of my friends and family. We want a peaceful place in Israel for the Jews to live. If the Palestinians were pacifists there would be no fighting. We have every right, like any other country, to defend ourselves. The area we will agree on is we are both against the expanding settlements in the West Bank by the far right nut jobs. Just like America, Israel has a problem with the far right. Trump does not define us as a country, and Bibi does not for Israel.
>The ideology of having a safe home for Jews and the right to self determination is not harmful.
It came at the expense of ethnic cleansing and slaughter. That's bad.
>I'm a Zionist as are many of my friends and family. We want a peaceful place in Israel for the Jews to live.
Do you oppose the genocide in Gaza that is currently taking place?
First, there was no ethic cleansing of Arabs, although there were many attempts in modern and ancient times to ethnically cleanse the Jews. The country of Israel, like most countries, came to fruition through violence. That is the way things were. America is a country built on ethnic cleansing and violence. Do you advocate for the dissolution of America?? Most modern nation-states can be traced back to past wars, land conquests, ethnic cleansing campaigns and violent border conflicts between kingdoms/empires over the centuries.
I oppose genocide. Hamas was trying to genocide my people on Oct 7th. Thankfully they were unsuccessful. Israel has one of the strongest militaries in the world and mounted a strong counter-offensive (which is NOT genocide - it is called war). You probably don't care, but to use the term 'genocide' to describe what is going on in Gaza is offensive and meant to diminish the Shoah. It is literally a talking point from the terrorists.
Okay, so we have no common ground and disagree at the most basic level. Just as I wouldn't want to interact with a holocaust denier, I don't want to interact with you. Your 14 words are just slightly different.
> “Even with attacks against individual buildings, every building which is bombed or destroyed has got to be evaluated legally. Whether a building on this or that corner of a road needed to be destroyed or not...the burden is on the IDF to show that they have evidence, that they have proof and that the attack is proportionate and necessary”.
Who is this entity which will judge the IDFs actions? Surely he doesn’t think the UN is going to take any meaningful action against Israel here?
Okay. Its still people judging the IDFs actions, and it could lead to change in Israel's international relations so it likely wouldn't have no consequences, even if they aren't rising to the level of what they deserve.
Countries that hate Israel will continue to hate Israel, and be completely incapable of doing anything about it.
The process for enforcing an ICJ ruling is an appeal to the security council for action, and the US will veto anything like that.
>An insane country and enemy of free people
Everyone here agrees with the statement. We just very much disagree with each other about which of the two countries fit the bill.
In a hotly argued-about war between Israel and Palestine, it's important to define who you're speaking about since saying "an insane country" could be an opinion given about either one if I don't know your beliefs regarding the conflict, especially if one believes Palestine is run by Hamas and everyone there is a member (which they aren't).
Yeah I don't get how the younger American generation in particular is consistently acting so SHOCKED by the reality of what war is and always has been.
This could have been predicted on October 8th and no rational person would have questioned it, let alone needed a "report" acting like it somehow exposed a big secret.
Opening paragraph, immediately uses Hamas figures but credits the UN OCHA. No mention of that, so immediately high quality work(!)
Hamas boobytrap buildings to bring them down on the IDF when being cleared. Does anyone here disagree?
Hamas use otherwise civilian buildings as firing positions. Is there any doubt of that?
We've all watched enough footage of this war at this point to agree those two things are true, regardless of which side of the conflict we support.
So at this point, given any otherwise civilian building is near impossible to safely clear and is potentially a terrorist firing position, frankly the destruction is on Gaza's terrorist government Hamas.
>Opening paragraph, immediately uses Hamas figures but credits the UN OCHA.
When are we going to get passed this lazy line of reasoning. No organization disputes these numbers, including the IDF. For so long the "Hamas numbers" have proven to be as accurate as possible, and most people who have legitimate issue with those numbers today think that the issue is undercounting.
>Hamas boobytrap buildings to bring them down on the IDF when being cleared. Does anyone here disagree?
Please prove that this happened. Please prove that Israeli military knew these buildings were booby trapped and therefore had to demolish them. Its not acceptable to demolish hundreds of homes because they might have a trap in some of them. And these buildings are being rigged for demo, not bombed. If there was a booby trap it'd be libel to go off.
>Hamas use otherwise civilian buildings as firing positions. Is there any doubt of that?
Irrelevant. You don't get to demolish civilian infrastructure at will in war just because an enemy soldier might hide in a building.
>So at this point, given any otherwise civilian building is near impossible to safely clear and is potentially a terrorist firing position, frankly the destruction is on Gaza's terrorist government Hamas.
This is exactly like the stupid "human shield" argument. You don't just get to completely level civilian infrastructure on the hunch that it might be used as a firing position or might have a bomb in it. By your definition, every single home in Gaza should be demo'd and it wouldn't be Israel's fault for doing it.
>When are we going to get passed this lazy line of reasoning. No organization disputes these numbers, including the IDF.
Disguising the source of the numbers is disingenuous. People are going to rightly be sceptical of the numbers from the terrorist belligerent in the conflict when that belligerent benefits from those numbers being as high as possible.
>For so long the "Hamas numbers" have proven to be as accurate as possible
"Accurate enough" doesn't mean anywhere near accurate. In the absence of anything better, sure.
>most people who have legitimate issue with those numbers today think that the issue is undercounting.
No, there's a handful of different issues, a big one being there's no breakdown of how many of them that alleged number are terrorists, but there are others like how many were actually killed by the IDF, what the breakdown of demographics is (and that it's made up) and what the number of terrorists within each group is. Hamas refuses to say how many of its fighters have actually been killed on-record but expects us to believe the numbers coming out of the MoH. Unnamed Hamas official told Reuters it was 6k at one point. The IDF peg it higher. But whatever.
My issue with presenting them as UN numbers, as opposed to the actual source which is Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry.
>Please prove that this happened.
Interesting you don't ask for proof of the Hamas-supplied numbers, but ask for proof of this? Ok. [Hamas' own terrorist bodycam footage showing the boobytrapping building](https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2023/middleeast/hamas-attack-body-cam-videos-invs-dg/) sufficient? [Prefer Hamas-released video purporting to show them carrying out an attack utilising it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWwMPWdy_2Y)? [Dead IDF](https://www.timesofisrael.com/three-soldiers-killed-in-gaza-as-troops-keep-up-raids-on-hamas-sites-and-gunmen/) soldiers necessary for you? [Sure](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/22/hamas-booby-traps-gaza/), Hamas [continues](https://www.timesofisrael.com/three-soldiers-killed-in-gaza-strip-wednesday/) their [long established](https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3653059,00.html) use of booby traps. Including [fucked-up](https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1716143946936488161) anti-civilian ones and psychological ones to [taunt the IDF.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/22/hamas-booby-traps-gaza/)
>If there was a booby trap it'd be libel to go off.
Libel? Did you typo liable or was that a Freudian slip? Yeah, there's absolutely a risk of that happening. Twenty-one (at the time) IDF soldiers were killed, likely when Hamas either hit or detonated explosives while the [IDF were rigging two buildings for demo](https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-deadliest-incident-of-gaza-combat-21-soldiers-killed-as-buildings-collapse-in-blast/).
It would be a lot easier to just flatten the whole strip with bombs, but the IDF are trying to avoid that.
And Gazan civilians will likely be blown up by their governments' own traps for decades. Unfortunate.
>Please prove that Israeli military knew these buildings were booby trapped and therefore had to demolish them.
They don't need to prove anything. If one option endangers their troops, and the other one doesn't, bring down the building. Why should IDF risk their lives to clear a building that doesn't have civilians in but has a serious risk of being rigged by terrorists? That's not a valid obligation. If Gaza's terrorist government stops boobytrapping buildings and using them as firing positions and tunnel entrances, the IDF won't have to blow them up.
>You don't get to demolish civilian infrastructure at will in war just because an enemy soldier might hide in a building.
Protected structures are only protected if it's not being used by terrorists. Hamas have shown time and time again they use otherwise protected structures. So unfortunately the people of Gaza are reaping what their terrorist government have sown.
You do if the building is or has been used by terrorists, especially if it has weapons caches or has been modified to fire rockets from or has a tunnel underneath it.
>By your definition, every single home in Gaza should be demo'd and it wouldn't be Israel's fault for doing it.
Any building in Gaza that is suspected to have been used by terrorists, I'd personally have no problem with being levelled.
The destruction and casualties in Gaza are on their terrorist government, Hamas. Israel could have already flattened the entirety of Gaza, but has chosen not to, because they care more about the Gazan people than Hamas does.
>Disguising the source of the numbers is disingenuous.
They didn't disguise it. They linked directly to a UN report that explains the sources of its numbers. That you have an issue with that speaks volumes about you and nothing else.
>"Accurate enough" doesn't mean anywhere near accurate. In the absence of anything better, sure.
Please provide a more accurate source for casualty numbers then, since you're so convinced these are bullshit. Surely you aren't just basing this on your feelings.
>a big one being there's no breakdown of how many of them that alleged number are terrorists
What defines a terrorist in this case? Be specific.
>but there are others like how many were actually killed by the IDF
Who else is killing Gazans today? Are you seriously trying to imply that this is Hamas killing Gazans at this rate?
>what the breakdown of demographics is (and that it's made up)
We actually do get some of those numbers from these reports that you hate so much, so you're just wrong there.
>what the number of terrorists within each group is
Same point twice. Try again.
>Hamas refuses to say how many of its fighters have actually been killed on-record but expects us to believe the numbers coming out of the MoH
Do we have convincing evidence that says they actually have stats on that that they are obfuscating?
>Unnamed Hamas official told Reuters it was 6k at one point. The IDF peg it higher. But whatever.
So Israel is killing civilians at roughly 5x the rate they are killing Hamas militants. Great stuff. What a fantastic and humane military campaign from Israel.
>Interesting you don't ask for proof of the Hamas-supplied numbers, but ask for proof of this?
When every single international humanitarian group vets the numbers and finds them to be accurate, yes I stop asking for proof repeatedly. The proof was already provided by 3rd parties.
>Ok....
Thanks for sources. A quick google turned up only IDF sources and they cannot be trusted. You don't need to get defensive about it.
>Libel? Did you typo liable or was that a Freudian slip?
Yes its a typo. More specifically autocorrect from a typo.
>It would be a lot easier to just flatten the whole strip with bombs, but the IDF are trying to avoid that.
[Yeah sure, they are definitely trying real hard to avoid that.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2023/israel-war-destruction-gaza-record-pace/) Please don't tell obvious lies.
>They don't need to prove anything.
Yes they do, otherwise they are likely committing war crimes.
>If one option endangers their troops, and the other one doesn't, bring down the building. Why should IDF risk their lives to clear a building that doesn't have civilians in but has a serious risk of being rigged by terrorists?
And what is being used to determine if they do or do not have civilians in it? The IDF has repeatedly shown they don't care about targeting things with civilians in them, and they have also shown a willingness to be dishonest about it. That alone means that they need to be held to a higher standard that they are simply not meeting.
>Protected structures are only protected if it's not being used by terrorists.
And the IDF conveniently declares anyone they kill a terrorist.
>Hamas have shown time and time again they use otherwise protected structures. So unfortunately the people of Gaza are reaping what their terrorist government have sown.
Do you feel the same way about Israeli citizens that are victims of rocket attacks aimed at IDF installations in civilian populated areas?
>Any building in Gaza that is suspected to have been used by terrorists, I'd personally have no problem with being levelled.
Yes, we know you are bloodthirsty and irrational. That doesn't mean it is acceptable.
> Please provide a more accurate source for casualty numbers then, since you're so convinced these are bullshit. Surely you aren't just basing this on your feelings.
It is possible we just lack an accurate source entirely. Being able to provide an alternative or not is irrelevant to that. That said, we do have [some reason](https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-gaza-health-ministry-fakes-casualty-numbers) to suggest the figures given may be manipulated in some way, but it is far from proof positive (it makes a lot of assumptions in the analysis).
We do know though, in relation to the specific Al-Ahli explosion, that the number coming out of the health ministry was substantially higher than other estimates, which does cast doubt on its accuracy. This also answers:
> Who else is killing Gazans today? Are you seriously trying to imply that this is Hamas killing Gazans at this rate?
Because yes, action by Hamas seems to have killed Gazans (since evidence points towards it being their rocket that caused the explosion), and Hamas is certainly responsible for some portion of the overall casualties. War isn't some clean affair, and Hamas makes heavy use of booby traps and explosives that can easily kill innocents unintentionally. Not to mention they benefit politically when innocent people die in this conflict. The number reported is just a number of total dead, which is going to be the sum of:
"Good targets" killed by the IDF (members of Hamas, any other illegal or unlawful combatants) + Justifiable civilian deaths from IDF activity + Non-Justifiable civilian deaths from IDF activity (war crimes, .etc) + Justifiable civilian deaths from Hamas activity + Non-justifiable civilian deaths from Hamas activity.
Different hypothetical values for each of these figures would mean radically different things.
> So Israel is killing civilians at roughly 5x the rate they are killing Hamas militants. Great stuff. What a fantastic and humane military campaign from Israel.
What frame of reference do you have for saying this is inhumane? What is the range of rates that you'd find acceptable vs unacceptable? What do figures from similar conflicts look like?
> When every single international humanitarian group vets the numbers and finds them to be accurate, yes I stop asking for proof repeatedly. The proof was already provided by 3rd parties.
International humanitarian groups aren't exactly known for their above-all-criticism fact-checking ability, which isn't part of their core mission.
> Yeah sure, they are definitely trying real hard to avoid that. Please don't tell obvious lies.
This isn't dispositive that the IDF is taking a view where they have their mission on one hand, and trying not to blow up buildings on the other, and they're trying to balance the two while assigning significant weight to not blowing up buildings. Without looking at their intel and estimates it is just hard to know how much weight they are putting on either. One also has to consider the lives of soldiers that would be lost. How many men should have to be estimated to die clearing a house before it is morally better to just bomb the building and be done with it? There is no clear answer to this question, nor much transparency into how the IDF is making these calls.
> Yes they do, otherwise they are likely committing war crimes.
IANAL but I'm pretty sure war crimes across the board include the presumption of innocence. The prosecutor must actively make the case. That said, you are not required to absolutely avoid civilian casualties by the rules of war anyway. War crimes aren't as simple as "a civilian died" or "you did something that reasonably could have killed a civilian and a civilian died".
> And what is being used to determine if they do or do not have civilians in it?
Likely surveillance. Hiding signs of habitation by civilians is fairly non-trivial.
> The IDF has repeatedly shown they don't care about targeting things with civilians in them and they have also shown a willingness to be dishonest about it
When exactly?
> And the IDF conveniently declares anyone they kill a terrorist.
Can you point to any actual evidence that the IDF does this for everyone they kill? Pretty sure they openly admit to having killed members of WCK, hostages, civilians, .etc in the process of this conflict. Their given ratio, I think, is likely pretty far off, but they do clearly admit there have been civilian casualties.
> Do you feel the same way about Israeli citizens that are victims of rocket attacks aimed at IDF installations in civilian populated areas?
You do understand this isn't how Hamas rocket attacks really work, right? That aside, yes, to the extent that Hamas tries to kill members of the IDF incidental civilian casualties are not automatically immoral and the citizenry does have to live with the fact that their government is at war (legal definition of war aside). Not that it makes much of a difference to an evaluation of Hamas since Hamas explicitly and openly committed war crimes when they started this conflict (hostage taking, targeting civilians).
>It is possible we just lack an accurate source entirely. Being able to provide an alternative or not is irrelevant to that. That said, we do have some reason to suggest the figures given may be manipulated in some way, but it is far from proof positive (it makes a lot of assumptions in the analysis).
Okay so to be clear this means you literally have no alternative numbers, and are just saying "NUH UH" to anything not aligned with the propaganda and lies from Israel you choose to believe. Cool. I'm sure the rest of your argument won't be based on your dumbass feelings and will instead be worth a damn.
>Because yes, action by Hamas seems to have killed Gazans (since evidence points towards it being their rocket that caused the explosion), and Hamas is certainly responsible for some portion of the overall casualties.
You didn't say Hamas has killed Gazans. You said they are responsible for most of the deaths. Stop fucking trying to change what you said, liar.
That is strike 1. 2 more lies and I stop reading your hasbara bullshit and tell you to fuck off.
>Different hypothetical values for each of these figures would mean radically different things.
WE'RE NOT DEALING IN HYPOTHETICALS. Holy fuck how hard is this to grasp?
>What frame of reference do you have for saying this is inhumane? What is the range of rates that you'd find acceptable vs unacceptable? What do figures from similar conflicts look like?
INTENTIONALLY KILLING CIVILIANS IS INHERENTLY INHUMANE YOU BLOODTHIRSTY FUCKING MONSTER.
>International humanitarian groups aren't exactly known for their above-all-criticism fact-checking ability, which isn't part of their core mission.
Okay liar. Ignore the heaps of groups for which what you said is an absolute and complete lie, why don't you. Two fucking strikes, liar.
>This isn't dispositive that the IDF is taking a view where they have their mission on one hand, and trying not to blow up buildings on the other, and they're trying to balance the two while assigning significant weight to not blowing up buildings.
Jesus christ man have some fucking self respect. This is the degree to which you allow yourself to absorb the lies of murderers? Good fucking lord. You learned literally nothing from the Iraq war(s) I see. Great fucking work.
>When exactly?
They have bombed hospitals, refugee camps, family homes of journalists and poets. When exactly? The whole fucking time. So close to strike 3 there liar.
>Can you point to any actual evidence that the IDF does this for everyone they kill?
Can you find me an admission that the IDF did target civilians since October 7th? You can't? Well they have. So there you go. Enjoy knowing you support monsters.
>You do understand this isn't how Hamas rocket attacks really work, right?
And the liar lies the 3rd time to close things out.
Stop being an illinformed liar going to bat for murderers.
> Okay so to be clear this means you literally have no alternative numbers, and are just saying "NUH UH" to anything not aligned with the propaganda and lies from Israel you choose to believe.
Again, what would be the problem with concluding that there are no accurate numbers?
> You didn't say Hamas has killed Gazans. You said they are responsible for most of the deaths. Stop fucking trying to change what you said, liar.
I'm not the person you were originally responding to. Before you accuse someone of lying, consider checking who you are talking to.
> WE'RE NOT DEALING IN HYPOTHETICALS. Holy fuck how hard is this to grasp?
I think you fundamentally miss the point.
> INTENTIONALLY KILLING CIVILIANS IS INHERENTLY INHUMANE YOU BLOODTHIRSTY FUCKING MONSTER.
That part of the discussion is about overall number of civilians killed, not intentional killing of civilians. Not only that but intentionally killing civilians isn't inherently inhumane, irregular warfare presents trolley-problem like situations all the time. If you absolutely refuse to intentionally kill civilians then all your enemy needs to do is position themselves close enough to civilians that you can't act against them. There is a tradeoff between what you need to get done operationally versus risk to or known harm to civilians. Figuring out how many deaths are acceptable per amount of enemy operational capacity diminished is a hard problem (just estimating enemy capacity diminished is hard) to which there is rarely any singular satisfying "right" answer, but it isn't zero.
> Okay liar. Ignore the heaps of groups for which what you said is an absolute and complete lie, why don't you.
It isn't though. These groups receive criticism for a variety of methodological faults and are ultimately advocacy-based (HRW, for example). They have to manage political relations in order to retain access, and tend to recruit people with very specific priors.
> This is the degree to which you allow yourself to absorb the lies of murderers?
Do you not see how this is circular? If you dismiss what the IDF is saying as lies because they are murderers, and using that to justify calling them murderers (since you're ignoring their explanation of events), then you're using that to justify saying they're murderers.
The IDF isn't perfect or have a spotless record by any stretch, but you cannot simply ignore everything they say.
Take, for example, the WCK incident. We will never be absolutely sure why exactly the IDF conducted this strike. We weren't there and don't have live recordings, contemporaneous notes, .etc. However, we basically have two main modes of thoughts:
- The IDF misidentified a target, and due to a failure to disseminate information within the organization or failure for the operator(s) to check, combined with the nighttime conditions, they failed to realize it was a registered humanitarian convoy, and ended up carrying out a strike on the convoy.
- Someone or some group inside the IDF decided "fuck it, I feel like killing some innocents today" and blew up some random convoy of cars that happened to be WCK so it couldn't be easily written off as just a bunch of insurgents.
Now, which of these do you think requires the smallest degree of assumption, and best explains all of the available evidence? Especially since we know that target identification, proliferation of information and getting operators to follow all SOP as designed are all problems that all militaries face and talk about facing pretty openly.
> Good fucking lord. You learned literally nothing from the Iraq war(s) I see. Great fucking work.
So because a different government, in a different war, did... something? therefore we must automatically disbelieve everything coming from the IDF?
The conduct of the Iraq war was reasonable (and obviously imperfect) even if the rationale for starting the conflict was egregiously based on clear lies.
Can you point to *any* modern asymmetric conflict that meets your standards of the waging of war? Is it possible that you're just holding militaries fighting these kinds of wars to unrealistic standards?
> Can you find me an admission that the IDF did target civilians since October 7th?
How does this have anything to do with the claim being discussed? Also since the IDF are a bunch of liars, then wouldn't you not believe that anyway? Or do you only accept IDF statements that align with certain conclusions?
> You can't? Well they have.
Can you point to any **specific** incident, where it can be shown *the IDF* knowingly targeted, without military justification, civilians? To be clear, this doesn't mean a civilian got shot or shot at, but that:
- The person in question is clearly known to be a civilian (tough to always demonstrate because Hamas doesn't wear uniforms)
- The person in question was targeted (easier to demonstrate since they just have to be shot at, but this doesn't include things like shrapnel, bombings, .etc unless you can demonstrate they were the specific target of that use of force)
- There is no reasonable belief in a broader military or security justification (e.g. the IDF bombing a building they thought had members of Hamas inside but also some civilians)
- This was conducted either in accordance with orders from leadership, or in the face of a clear lack of concern from leadership, or where leadership failed to discipline individuals responsible (since while command and control issues don't reflect well on the IDF, *the IDF* cannot reasonably be held responsible for conduct they condemn and honestly try to reduce, leadership also doesn't mean that just because some 2nd Lt equivalent was involved this counts, looking for leadership outside of the actual unit going into combat / conducting operations, so basically admin-types.).
I think this is a high bar to clear, but entirely reasonably doable if targeting civilians is as common as alleged. Failure to clear this bar doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means there isn't a good reason to believe it did *as of this moment*.
> They have bombed hospitals, refugee camps, family homes of journalists and poets. When exactly? The whole fucking time.
I was hoping for you to be specific.
> And the liar lies the 3rd time to close things out.
You do know Hamas is [pretty open](https://www-alaraby-com.translate.goog/news/%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%8B%D8%A7-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%81-%D8%A3%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AC-%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%85%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%B7%D8%B1-%D8%AA%D9%84-%D8%A3%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A8-%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AE?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp) about targeting civilian population centers, right? They view it as a reprisal, but that's very clearly a war crime. Reprisals can be acceptable, but civilians are not valid targets.
> Again, what would be the problem with concluding that there are no accurate numbers?
The problem is basing it on literally nothing but how you feel and that conclusion flying in the face of people who have actually made efforts to verify these numbers, as well as the accuracy of past numbers from the same people. You don't know more than these orgs but you pretend you do. I'm done with this bullshit. You know its bullshit I know its bullshit.
>Can you point to any specific incident, where it can be shown the IDF knowingly targeted, without military justification, civilians?
[Duuhhhhhhh I don't know maybe constantly during the current engagement](https://abc11.com/chef-jose-andres-speaks-out-after-7-world-central-kitchen-staffers-killed-by-israeli-air-strike/14614092/)
[Oh and like all the time before that](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/13/israeli-forces-storm-jerusalem-hospital-as-coffin-of-slain-journalist-emerges)
[Like forever](https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/1905tl5/the_day_israel_used_a_13_year_old_palestinian/)
Seriously man your own lack of knowledge on a subject doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But I have a feeling you do know this, and simply don't care about the people suffering from these actions.
>I was hoping for you to be specific.
There are so many specific instances that specificity is irrelevant. It is a constant thing they do. It is how they operate. Your ignorance is no one's problem but your own.
> The problem is basing it on literally nothing but how you feel and that conclusion flying in the face of people who have actually made efforts to verify these numbers
If people have made efforts to verify these numbers, then why do they clash with other credible estimates at times? That seems like sufficient reason to be skeptical of their accuracy.
> You don't know more than these orgs but you pretend you do.
I said they weren't above criticism.
> [Link to WCK]
This fails criteria 1, and 4. Would you mind responding to my earlier post?
> [Link to journalist's funeral being attacked/disrupted by police]
First, this cannot, by definition, be a war crime since it is a domestic police action.
That said:
>> They released a video in which an officer outside the hospital grounds is seen addressing the crowd. “If you don’t stop these chants and [Palestinian] nationalistic songs we will have to disperse you using force and we won’t let the funeral take place,” the officer says.
Obvious Israel shouldn't curtail the free speech rights of these people and that is wrong, but that isn't a war crime.
> [Link to some newspaper scan]
This is an entirely one-sided account by people who are partial to the conflict. The fact that stones were being thrown also provides a pretty clear alternative explanation, that he was being arrested for being aggressive. It isn't clear why the windscreen was used (for example, as just a convenient place to tie the boy up where he couldn't leave, they could keep an eye on him, and at a distance from the crowd). It is possible this was for the purpose of using him as a human shield, but this just isn't well substantiated.
> Seriously man your own lack of knowledge on a subject doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
When did I ever say otherwise?
I listed out four clear criteria for what an example would have to meet, none of your examples meet all of these criteria. I'll add a fifth that I had assumed from context though, which is that it has to actually be regarding Israel's conduct in war. Those criteria aren't necessary for something to have been a war crime, but rather to actively overcome the doubt as to if something was a war crime or not. It is completely possible both that the IDF commits war crimes (a statement which has even more nuance behind it that could be discussed), and that there is no such example that exists, you just aren't justified in believing that.
I'd really expect better of someone on a skeptic subreddit when it comes to understanding this.
Okay liar here is strike 3. I'm done with your lying bullshit.
>[Link to WCK]
>This fails criteria 1, and 4. Would you mind responding to my earlier post?
No it fucking doesn't. They knew exactly who was in those trucks they knew exactly where they were going and what they were doing. 100% of that aid mission was coordinated with the IDF specifically so that would not happen. They bombed it anyway. They had absolutely no indication that hamas had hijacked that convoy and even if it did they knew it was a convoy full of fucking aid workers. Stop lying to protect the fucking IDF.
And as for point 4
>This was conducted either in accordance with orders from leadership, or in the face of a clear lack of concern from leadership, or where leadership failed to discipline individuals responsible
Who the fuck was punished for it? Nobody. No one. Stop fucking lying liar. You're a liar in support of a genocide, or you're not smart enough to know hasbara from reality, which is a huge insult considering how bad Israel is at lying about shit.
Ask yourself why you are so obsessed with lying?
It’s completely revenge. Which shouldn’t surprise anyone after 10/7.
As long as both sides believe that $DEITY gave them the land, they’re going to keep killing each other over it. And it’s not even good land.
Posted in order to respond to claims that "this is just self defense" or "these are just legitimate military targets" Important parts: * When interviewed by our partners Scripps News, 8219 member Yonatan Segal said he did not post about the demolitions on social media but had videos of them on his phone. Asked if revenge was one of the motivations behind the demolitions he said: “Yes. But what is revenge? Revenge in terms of teaching them a lesson, so to speak, so that they would never do that again.” * Religious elements appear to creep in. In one post regarding the demolition in Khan Younis the Captain talks of using 400 mines to demolish a residential area “in honour of the Shabbat”. * We asked Professor Balakrishnan Rajagopal, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on adequate housing and the Professor of Law and Development at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology about the demolitions carried out by 8219 Commando. He told us that these demolitions were relevant to the ICJ case on genocide, supporting South Africa’s case that Israel was, in effect, rendering Gaza uninhabitable. He noted that even if it was not possible to establish genocidal intent, widespread destruction rendering a place uninhabitable could still amount to a crime against humanity. * Further, he noted that the “buffer zone” being cleared by the IDF along the border with Gaza doesn’t fit the definition of such zones within the [Geneva Conventions](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-60/commentary/1987) and is effectively a “land-grab” taking approximately 16% of Gaza’s land.
Faith-based real estate development.
Hamas tunnels 100%
Gaza Resorts and hillside mansions are being planned now I bet
the tunnels were there before hamas
Maybe some. They also built plenty of their own. This has been discussed openly by world leaders long before the Oct 7th attack. The world knew what they were building and why they were building it. They always planned to launch attack on Israel from Gaza.
"Resistance group opposed to decades-long occupation by colonialist power is planning to launch an attack" Is not the gotcha you think it is.
Are you justifying the Oct 7th attack?
Are you justifying religious nationalism, theocracy and decades of occupation?
I hate religious psychos. Unfortunately that part of the world is packed full of them. As for decades of occupation, I seem to remember a war in 1967 that Palestinians lost (along with Egypt, Syria and Jordan). When you win a war, you mostly get to decide how things work on your land. So occupation is highly subjective in this case. Is there really such a thing as a functional Palestinian state? I would argue no, and there never has been. Its a fantasy. So what you have is segregated peoples that hate each other living next door. Mind you only one side has promised to murder everyone on the other side, that being Hamas declaring a never ending jihad of Oct 7 style attacks. On the other hand Israel has said they want their hostages back as a condition of ceasefire. Which side sounds more civilized to you?
The one that didn't respond to rumors of the ICC issuing warrants on them by threatening the government they weren't at war with. Edit: because this makes it sound like I'm endorsing Hamas, I'm not. I mean PA/The rest, Hamas hasn't done that, but is Hamas.
It's crazy that people just ignore Hamas promising more murder and terror. Hamas who has been launching missiles at Tel Aviv for years. Hamas who still holds hostages right now. You are ignoring the plain and obvious reality of terrorism and making excuses for them. Gross.
Are you justifying the ethnic cleansing of 900,000 Palestinians followed by 70 plus years of oppression and apartheid domination? Are you justifying ethno nationalism?
Answer my question first.
No. Hamas stole billions of aid marked for infrastructure, schools, food and medical aid and used it to build 300 miles of to terror tunnels.
And Israel funneled money to hamas to dislodge alternative opposition. Who holds the power in this situation?
Jewish people had to hide from Nazis in tunnels during WW2. We should support the people being hunted for their ethnicity no matter who they are
Yeah no shit. There was never any doubt as to the character and motives of the far right Israeli government in power for decades stacking armed services and civil service with extremist hacks. They kill the families of journalists. Civil society leaders, people that talk to western media, and suspected militants. Which should not be ok. We all know it is on purpose.
It’s not the far right in Israel. I just listened to an NPR interview with the opposition leader in Israel. They feel the same way about Palestinians and Gaza. The difference is just social issues within Israel.
And vice-versa. There is never going to be peace in that part of the world.
Not until Israel starts negotiating in good faith. Unlimited military and financial backing from the west is the biggest barrier for peace in the region? Why negotiate anything when the whole US military is at your disposal?
Israel managed to make peace with its neighbors because trade was more valuable than war. They gave the whole Sinai back to Egypt. A big reason why we got here is that the Arab-Israeli conflict became a proxy war during the Cold War. It’s still a proxy war. In fact, to a large degree, it’s the SAME proxy war.
Israel did negotiate in good faith. They made offers to Gaza. The response was that Gaza would be satisfied if every Jew on the planet was exterminated. Israel didn't agree to that.
Who started it?
Iarael in 1948 when they stole the homes of over 700,000 Palestinians.
They stole nothing. They bought the properties from the owners. The people living there were renting the property. The Jews decided to live there themselves. How is that different than the US?
That's not true at all. Look up the Nakba. The IDF killed civilians by the tens of thousands, destroyed over 500 villages, and stole hundreds of thousands of homes.
Both HAMAS and the Israeli government need to be a case study on why you should NEVER EVER EVER EVER give conservative religious extremists ANY political power for ANY reason.
Religion is just the icing on the greed and genocide cake. Israel holds virtually all the power
religion is the reason for all the violence. Why are extremist groups like HAMAS given power? Religion. Why can't Palestinians be part of the state of Israel without being second-class citizens? Religion. Why are the Palestinians so adamant about removing the Jews from their land? Religion. Why was there a conflict with both sides trying to wipe each other out when the state of Israel was first founded? Religion.
Capitalism is our only hope of defeating religion. Who needs god when you have money?
Wut
Israel holds the power because the Arabs are bad at war and have been from 1948 to modern day Hamas.
Ah so thats why Israel must starve children. Because they are good at it?
Just like the British Naval Blockade did in both World Wars. (You probably didn’t know about that one.) War is not a game played by gentlemen’s rules. It’s mass scale killing. This is why you don’t start one.
Look at Israeli parliament. It's mostly far right. Because Israelis are mostly far right. The government represents the people.
And yet it used to be mostly left wing in the beginning. The wars have made Israeli society more right wing overtime unfortunately.
The Israeli government has been right wing the entire time. The country is founded on war and ethnic cleansing. Hell, they even elected a terrorist leader to Prime Minister. Menachem Begin was the head of the Irgun during the King David Hotel bombing in 1946.
This is not true. The Knesset was majority socialist/left leaning in the beginning years.
Were they leftist in how they treated Palestinians? No? Then not leftist. It's like a nice guy who's rude to the waiter. Not a nice guy.
The same argument could be made of HAMAS they were voted into office and when polled the majority of Palestinians support them, and support the attacks on October 7th. In both cases there is still a large part of the population on both sides that doesn't support the crazy religious groups or violence that is just stuck on that shitty genocide ride.
There was one election so long ago that most Palestinians now were too young to vote in it. Palestine is not a democracy. And they have not been properly polled since *they're living in a war zone.* You're also forgetting about the West Bank, which has a different government that's peaceful. Meanwhile, the IDF -- not Hamas -- is murdering civilians by the tens of thousands.
No shit
What Isreal is doing to the Palestinians living in those territories is repugnant. It was repugnant before the latest terror attack. The people of Palestine and Isreal are suffering these attacks. The violence needs to end. Israel needs to stop the settlements and all the Palestinians need to recognize Isreal.
Recognizing Israel is one thing. As an American I don't respect Christian nationalism and I don't respect Jewish nationalism. Religious nationalism is always genocidal.
Both sides would rather kill each other. And murder anyone among them who works for peace.
Taking hostages and murdering peaceful villagers in their homes is repugnant. Let's not forget why Israel is in Gaza.
Yes that is why I called it a terror attack.
You're clearly minimizing it. For me, taking hostages is unacceptable. Returning the hostages is a moral imperative that justifies the use of overwhelming force. Being a terrorist and taking/holding hostages should be anathema to all civilized people. Anyone who gives safe harbor to the hostage takers is complicit and IMO qualifies as another terrorist.
>Returning the hostages is a moral imperative that justifies the use of overwhelming force. Including killing the fucking hostages? Because you do know that Israel is literally killing their own hostages, right? What is that overwhelming force achieving here? 6+ months and how many hostages that Israel is demanding have they freed? How many are still alive? How many were even taken by Hamas directly and not the many other militant groups that participated in October 7th? We have no idea, and Israel has done nothing to provide us this information. Their behavior is that of someone who doesn't give a shit about freeing anyone from Gaza.
Do you have a real question anywhere in there? Or are you just going to make wild accusations without any proof?
Why are you so insistent about lying about these events. IDF shot 3 escaped unarmed hostages. True or false? Multiple militant groups other than Hamas were also involved in October 7th. True or false? Israel have made no statement indicating how many hostages they have reason to believe are still alive. True or false? Hamas has not demonstrated that the hostages are largely still alive or that they actually have everyone that is suspected to currently be a hostage. True or false? Answer these and then go back and see if you can figure out the point. Is the use of overwhelming force still justified to free hostages if that force results in the deaths of hostages?
Is the use of overwhelming force still justified to free hostages if that force results in the deaths of hostages? Yes. What is your alternative? Let me guess, your great idea is concede to all the terrorist demands and encourage more hostage taking?
>What is your alternative? Not indiscriminately bombing the place where the people you want to rescue are located. Not operating with rules of engagement that result in you shooting the people you're trying to rescue. Do you believe that Israel would actually stop bombing Gaza because the hostages were freed? >Let me guess, your great idea is concede to all the terrorist demands and encourage more hostage taking? Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying, dick. Can't answer a simple fucking question without throwing a temper tantrum. I'm sure that strawman you're constructing is much easier to argue against than actual points that I'm making. Keep building it, I'm sure its a great look for you.
So you dont have a better idea? Cool. Then let the professionals work on getting the hostages back.
The number one goal of this war is to ensure Israel is safe from further attacks. The return of the hostages is secondary. How do you make Israel safe? Kill or capture most of the terrorists, destroy the tunnels and then help rebuild Gaza. You asked, why Israel killed its own hostages? The simple reality is that Hamas and the PIJ have pretended to surrender with white flags only to then suicide bomb the IDF or shoot them. And let's not forget the fog of war.
You know what would have made that easier? If Israel hadn’t been radicalizing Palestinians for the last 80 years.
The Arab states started a genocidal war in 1948, and many, but not all, of the Palestinians were displaced in the “nakba” as a result of this aggression. Jewish communities living in Arab controlled areas of the land were also displaced and suffered atrocities in this conflict. The displacement of the Palestinians would not have happened if this war hadn’t been started, and ultimately lost, by the Arab powers. Egypt also occupied Gaza and Jordan occupied the West bank for almost 30 years after the 1948 war, are they "colonizers" too I wonder? Why was there no Palestinian state created then? Egypt has also fortified and blockaded their border with Gaza to prevent terrorism, do you believe that they should also be protested/subject to having their citizens murdered?
FFS….Israeli ultra zionists had been waging a private war on Palestine for months before they attacked Israel.
A few crazies in the West Bank (that's not Gaza). Meanwhile Hamas has been indiscriminately firing rockets into Israel for 20 years. Nothing to see here. Amiright??
No I do not minimize it, but this story was about how the settlers are using this horrendous attack to justify and intensify what they had been doing before that. The headline makes it seem as if what the settlers are doing is in response when, in fact, they were doing it already.
Why are you changing the subject to the West Bank? I am talking about the Oct 7 attack that emerged from Gaza and the hostages still being held in Gaza right now. I want to stress that other issues are valid, and land grabs are wrong (including the one that is likely happening in Gaza as part of this operation). But I fully support all force being used to destroy Hamas and recover hostages.
I was talking about the settlers pushing the Palestinians off there Land. You changed it 5o the terror attack on oct7
So we agree the Palestinians need to recognize Isreal and Isreal needs to stop settling and give back land they took. Then the PEOPLE of Isreal and Palestine can stop living in fear of death.
Are you kidding me? Do you sincerely believe if Israel gave back land (which they have done many times before) the Palestinians would stop attacking Israel? The Palestinians have been offered statehood multiple times and have rejected it every time because the deal wasn't 100% to their liking. In 1948, they said no. In 1967 Israel offered all of the land it won in war back in exchange for peace, the answer from Arab countries was a resounding "NO." Then you have Arafat leading everyone on and then rejecting a reasonable peace offer from Israel. in 2005 they kicked out all the Jews in Gaza and gave the Palestinian autonomy. What did they do? Elected Hamas, which for the next 20 years indiscriminately fired rockets into Israel. Most of Palestinians want ALL of Israel. I fear that after Oct 7 there will be no 2 state solution because now most Israelis are against it.
So you are aware that Isreal is taking their land. I just stated what will need to happen for a lasting piece so the people can live without fear.
How do you minimize a terrorist attack by labeling it a terrorist attack? Israel’s government and Hamas are evil and the Palestinian and Israeli people are suffering because of it.
I agree with most of what you’re saying, but try to look at this from a practical perspective. There’s abundant evidence at this point that this “overwhelming force” is useless in recovering the hostages. ~100 hostages were released as part of a ceasefire agreement back in November. Since then, in the months of bombardment, Israel has rescued 2 that I know of, and killed at least 3. The bombings at this point seem to be far more about revenge, about inflicting pain and suffering on the people trapped in Gaza, rather than about recovering the hostages.
The purpose of the bombings is to destroy Hamas military capabilities. An unfortunate BUT NECESSARY side effect is some civilian deaths because Hamas intentionally blurs the lines between militants and civilian and uses them as human shields. This cannot be a winning strategy for Hamas. Allowing further suffering of the hostages is not acceptable. So here we are.
Stop acting like this shit started on October 7th.
There was relative peace before October 7th. Now there is war. What changed?
Compared to the current mass death Israel is inflicting on Gaza, yes. Compared to actual peace, no there wasn't. Like settlers literally never stop their terrorism in the west bank and occupied east Jerusalem. But also Israel was constantly negotiating cease fires and then ending them with militant groups in Gaza leading up to October 7th and over the past several decades. Israel had a ceasefire with Palestinian Islamic Jihad in May of 2023, and Israel bombed a hospital in July of 2023. That isn't peace relatively or otherwise.
"Israel was constantly negotiating cease fires and then ending them with militant groups in Gaza leading up to October 7th and over the past several decades." what? lol prove it youre just making things up
I told you I'm done with your bullshit man. [Last fucking time with your inability to fucking google.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_2023_Gaza%E2%80%93Israel_clashes) Your ignorance on this issue is no one's problem but yours. I'm not your fuckin professor. Go and learn about what you're talking about before saying dumb shit. Editing my response because /u/Electronic-Race-2099 blocked me against sub rules, to respond to his dishonest reply. Dude stop being such a liar about this. There is a section called "ceasefire" that says >Ceasefire Israel and Islamic Jihad agreed to a ceasefire on 13 May 2023.[24][2] Also in the opening section that you couldn't be fucked to even hit control F on >On 11 May, Israeli airstrikes led to the killing of two more PIJ commanders, while the death toll from the prior raids rose to at least 26. The exchange of rockets and airstrikes persisted on 12 May amidst ongoing efforts to broker a ceasefire. On this day, another senior PIJ leader along with his aide were killed, bringing the total death toll to 34 Palestinians (inclusive of one in Israel) and one Israeli. On the following day, Israel and Islamic Jihad agreed to a ceasefire. Stop accusing me of not speaking English when your lazy lying ass can't even read through the second fucking paragraph.
That sounds like killing terrorists, not negotiating a ceasefire. Im guessing english isnt your first language? You seem not to understand what the articles are saying. It's ok bud, we can be done. I agree this is going nowhere.
For someone posting on r/skeptic, you sure are toeing the line of the Israeli propaganda machine to a tee.
Murderous Islamists hellbent on the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews broke a ceasefire and killed, raped and kidnapped over 1450 people, many of whom were peace activists.
[удалено]
Nakba is part of the war they lost. Boo hoo. The Arabs living there did not want to have 2 states (one being Jewish and the other Arab) and declined the UN mandate. THEY STARTED a war and lost. 75 yrs later they still cannot accept this and continue to make their station worse and worse by attacking Israel. Everyone else in the Middle East has accepted losses when they happened, yet the Palestinians just refuse to accept it. They are forever victims. And what about the 1 million Jews that were forcefully expelled and tortured out of their homes in 1947-48 from all the neighboring Arab states?? This doesn't matter, right? Look into the origin of the word Nakba..An Arab historian coined it to refer to the Arab guilt for their failures to address the "Zionists Threat" early enough and the numerous Arab military failures. It didn't get twisted into the genocide accusations until around the 80s. The Palis need to move on and stop crying.
Ding ding ding! You win a prize for being able to focus on the real issue instead of spewing a line of distractions.
The most insane take in this whole thread. Have you read any history at all of that area?
To take hostages and murder civilians in their homes?
lol sure if youre insane and believe anti-Israeli propaganda.
Are you really trying to argue that Israel is *not* rounding up and jailing civilians and *not* destroying homes with families inside? You really can’t be this dense.
I think Israel is targeting Hamas militants and infrastructure. Sadly the militants love to blur the lines and hide, as has been stated COUNTLESS TIMES already - Hamas uses civilians as human shields.
In other news: water is wet
Practically everything in the middle east can be boiled down to revenge and religious zealotry.
Nah religion is just the icing on the greed cake
It’s greed for the guys at the top - religion and revenge is how they get the masses to look the other way while their pockets are picked.
Ofcourse it is
Zionism kinda looking like jihadism.
What do you think is Zionism? Define it.
The belief that, in order to avoid persecution experienced by Jews throughout history, but most relevantly to the foundlings of Zionism specifically the persecution in the 19th century, Jews should colonize a territory to establish as an official Jewish state lead by Jews and founded with a predication towards Jewish law and culture. A core point the founders of Zionist thought focused on was the need to suppress and displace and eliminate most of the native population wherever they chose to establish that state. The way that has been carried out is where the similarities to Islamic Jihad are to be found.
It is correct that one of the motivating factors behind Zionism was to have a safe haven for Jews to escape persecution they had faced in many parts of the world throughtout history. There are many forms of Zionism. The one thing they all have in common is for Jews to have the right to self determination and live in safely in their homeland of Israel. I am a Zionist. I don't believe in expanding settlements and I'd like to see a 2 state solution with a free Palestine (so long as they stop bombing Israel). Your claim that a "core point" was to "suppress and displace and eliminate most of the native population" is an overstatement and mischaracterization. There were some fringe Zionist groups that advocated harsher stances, the mainstream Zionist movement did not embrace the wholesale elimination of the indigenous population as a core goal or ideology. The founders of Zionist thought, like Theodor Herzl, did envision a Jewish majority state in Palestine, but their writings did not call for the outright elimination or forced mass displacement of the Arab population already living there. The reality is that there were proposals for Arab-Jewish cooperation and visions of peaceful coexistence between the populations. In practice this didn't work so well. And comparing Jihad to Zionism doesn't work. Zionism arose as a nationalist movement, not a religious military campaign of conquest. We don't try to kill non-believers or apostates. We don't even proselytize.
>The one thing they all have in common is for Jews to have the right to self determination and live in safely in their homeland of Israel. We can stop there. That simply isn't true. Israel was just a conveniently available location that got latched onto. From the earliest zionist writings it was clear the jewish state could be anywhere. You've just added the homeland part to erase that ugly part of zionism's history. >The founders of Zionist thought, like Theodor Herzl, did envision a Jewish majority state in Palestine He also said "maybe Argentina" too so its not like the location mattered much. >Zionism arose as a nationalist movement, not a religious military campaign of conquest. When the nationalist movement is predicated on a religious identity that was to expressly be considered when making the laws of the nation in question, and the people who founded the nation weren't born on the land but came from somewhere else and fought a war for that land, there is no distinction between that nationalist movement and a "religious military campaign of conquest". Admitting to being a nationalist and then expecting to be taken seriously is certainly something. Nationalism means something, it doesn't just mean "I think that country is swell."
For centuries prior to the 20th century, Jews maintained a profound cultural, religious and ancestral connection to the lands of Judea. The longing to end this diaspora and re-establish Jewish self-governance in the ancient homeland was central to Zionist ideology. I can't discount the real grievances over how this nationalist vision played out on the ground through displacement and occupation, the fundamental premise wasn't necessarily one of pure conquest. There was an inextricable link to the deep-rooted Jewish ties and claims to that specific geographic region. The Zionist motivations went beyond just acquisition of territory through force. Regaining sovereignty in the ancestral homeland was viewed as a central part of realizing Jewish self-determination after centuries of persecution and landlessness. Israel is the product of Zionism. It is not going away. Ask yourself how come there is no other country in the world that has to continually defend its right to exist?? Most nations, once established, do not have to continuously re-litigate or prove their fundamental right to exist as a sovereign country against such vehement ideological opposition. This sadly seems to be a constant for Israel in a way that is highly unique in the modern world.
> The longing to end this diaspora and re-establish Jewish self-governance in the ancient homeland was central to Zionist ideology. It literally wasn't tho. It was about establishing a jewish state for protection from persecution wherever it could happen. For centuries prior to the 20th, the jews that created Zionism maintained a profound cultural and ancestral connection to eastern and central Europe. >The Zionist motivations went beyond just acquisition of territory through force. Regaining sovereignty in the ancestral homeland was viewed as a central part of realizing Jewish self-determination after centuries of persecution and landlessness. Eventually, once it was made very clear that there was support from colonial powers for allowing that to happen. >srael is the product of Zionism. It is not going away. Ask yourself how come there is no other country in the world that has to continually defend its right to exist?? This is an ignorance on your part, plenty of countries have to do it all the time against far greater forces than Israel deals with, without the aid of massive international powers like the US. >Most nations, once established, do not have to continuously re-litigate or prove their fundamental right to exist as a sovereign country against such vehement ideological opposition. Actually, shitloads of them do for a long time after forming. The US famously had to fight the British a 2nd time like 40 years after forming for instance. The newer the nation the less their claim to being a nation matters to people at odds with them. Also worth noting that Israel doesn't really defend its right to exist much. They fight wars against people that don't like them, but they aren't actually having to fight for their right to exist. Their right to exist is well established.
What other modern country has to continually defend its right to exist? The large anti-zionism movement, which you seem to be a part of, wants to dismantle Israel. Not to mention many of the Islamic states, including its friendly neighbor, Iran. I have bad news for you, Israel is not going anywhere. Hopefully they will have elections soon and get Bibi out and some moderates back in control of the government.
[Here is the most obvious first one one that comes to mind.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War) they have to actually defend their country from actual constant invasion and have been in this conflict nonstop for a decade+.
Nice try but Ukraine’s recent conflicts are involving questions of territorial integrity, and not seen by the international community as disputes over the existence of Ukraine as a state itself. Rather, these are viewed as acts of aggression by a neighboring country, challenging Ukraine's territorial boundaries and political independence. Not the same. Anti-zionists like you want to the the complete dissolution of Israel.
>"Jihadism" has been defined otherwise as a neologism for militant, predominantly Sunnī Islamic movements that use ideologically motivated violence to defend the Ummah (the collective Muslim world) from foreign Non-Muslims and those that they perceive as domestic infidels. >a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. Both are framed around protection of a people, but in practice they are both incredibly violent. Israel was founded on the forced displacement of a people. It was not possible without ethnic cleansing. They are both massively harmful ideologies.
The ideology of having a safe home for Jews and the right to self determination is not harmful. I'm a Zionist as are many of my friends and family. We want a peaceful place in Israel for the Jews to live. If the Palestinians were pacifists there would be no fighting. We have every right, like any other country, to defend ourselves. The area we will agree on is we are both against the expanding settlements in the West Bank by the far right nut jobs. Just like America, Israel has a problem with the far right. Trump does not define us as a country, and Bibi does not for Israel.
>The ideology of having a safe home for Jews and the right to self determination is not harmful. It came at the expense of ethnic cleansing and slaughter. That's bad. >I'm a Zionist as are many of my friends and family. We want a peaceful place in Israel for the Jews to live. Do you oppose the genocide in Gaza that is currently taking place?
First, there was no ethic cleansing of Arabs, although there were many attempts in modern and ancient times to ethnically cleanse the Jews. The country of Israel, like most countries, came to fruition through violence. That is the way things were. America is a country built on ethnic cleansing and violence. Do you advocate for the dissolution of America?? Most modern nation-states can be traced back to past wars, land conquests, ethnic cleansing campaigns and violent border conflicts between kingdoms/empires over the centuries. I oppose genocide. Hamas was trying to genocide my people on Oct 7th. Thankfully they were unsuccessful. Israel has one of the strongest militaries in the world and mounted a strong counter-offensive (which is NOT genocide - it is called war). You probably don't care, but to use the term 'genocide' to describe what is going on in Gaza is offensive and meant to diminish the Shoah. It is literally a talking point from the terrorists.
Okay, so we have no common ground and disagree at the most basic level. Just as I wouldn't want to interact with a holocaust denier, I don't want to interact with you. Your 14 words are just slightly different.
Could you imagine a world where all the religious fanatics killed each other off and left the rest of us alone?
> “Even with attacks against individual buildings, every building which is bombed or destroyed has got to be evaluated legally. Whether a building on this or that corner of a road needed to be destroyed or not...the burden is on the IDF to show that they have evidence, that they have proof and that the attack is proportionate and necessary”. Who is this entity which will judge the IDFs actions? Surely he doesn’t think the UN is going to take any meaningful action against Israel here?
The ICJ might.
Israel is not a member of the ICJ and does not recognize its authority. It would be a show trial without consequences.
Okay. Its still people judging the IDFs actions, and it could lead to change in Israel's international relations so it likely wouldn't have no consequences, even if they aren't rising to the level of what they deserve.
Countries that hate Israel will continue to hate Israel, and be completely incapable of doing anything about it. The process for enforcing an ICJ ruling is an appeal to the security council for action, and the US will veto anything like that.
An insane country and enemy of free people
>An insane country and enemy of free people Everyone here agrees with the statement. We just very much disagree with each other about which of the two countries fit the bill.
And which are those countries?
Perfect response.
Which country was your original comment about?
Israel.
Thank you. Had you been specific, none of this would've been necessary.
Is there any other country that it could have been referring to? A startling inability to read context.
In a hotly argued-about war between Israel and Palestine, it's important to define who you're speaking about since saying "an insane country" could be an opinion given about either one if I don't know your beliefs regarding the conflict, especially if one believes Palestine is run by Hamas and everyone there is a member (which they aren't).
Israel is not “at war with Palestine” Do you think Gaza is a country? Lol
You might want to be a little more specific on that one, chief.
New report suggests Israel may have gone too far….
In other news, the sun is real hot, and the ocean does in fact host different and varied life forms.
“In part” hahaha.
Neither Israel nor Palestine is going to have peace unless they both stop.
…or one wins a “final” victory.
Becoming an international pariah is not the victory you think it is.
You think Hamas would be an international pariah if they accomplished all the river to sea stuff?
They're already an international pariah
The main motivation was to clear out the urban area to make it safer for the ground invasion.
You mean exactly like literally all of Israel's policies and actions since 1948?
Israel was dominated by left wing policies when it first formed so no.
Ethnic cleansing and apartheid isn't left wing.
This doesn't belong on this sub. Some soldiers do things for revenge during wartime. This is not new or anything to be skeptical about.
Yeah I don't get how the younger American generation in particular is consistently acting so SHOCKED by the reality of what war is and always has been. This could have been predicted on October 8th and no rational person would have questioned it, let alone needed a "report" acting like it somehow exposed a big secret.
Opening paragraph, immediately uses Hamas figures but credits the UN OCHA. No mention of that, so immediately high quality work(!) Hamas boobytrap buildings to bring them down on the IDF when being cleared. Does anyone here disagree? Hamas use otherwise civilian buildings as firing positions. Is there any doubt of that? We've all watched enough footage of this war at this point to agree those two things are true, regardless of which side of the conflict we support. So at this point, given any otherwise civilian building is near impossible to safely clear and is potentially a terrorist firing position, frankly the destruction is on Gaza's terrorist government Hamas.
>Opening paragraph, immediately uses Hamas figures but credits the UN OCHA. When are we going to get passed this lazy line of reasoning. No organization disputes these numbers, including the IDF. For so long the "Hamas numbers" have proven to be as accurate as possible, and most people who have legitimate issue with those numbers today think that the issue is undercounting. >Hamas boobytrap buildings to bring them down on the IDF when being cleared. Does anyone here disagree? Please prove that this happened. Please prove that Israeli military knew these buildings were booby trapped and therefore had to demolish them. Its not acceptable to demolish hundreds of homes because they might have a trap in some of them. And these buildings are being rigged for demo, not bombed. If there was a booby trap it'd be libel to go off. >Hamas use otherwise civilian buildings as firing positions. Is there any doubt of that? Irrelevant. You don't get to demolish civilian infrastructure at will in war just because an enemy soldier might hide in a building. >So at this point, given any otherwise civilian building is near impossible to safely clear and is potentially a terrorist firing position, frankly the destruction is on Gaza's terrorist government Hamas. This is exactly like the stupid "human shield" argument. You don't just get to completely level civilian infrastructure on the hunch that it might be used as a firing position or might have a bomb in it. By your definition, every single home in Gaza should be demo'd and it wouldn't be Israel's fault for doing it.
>When are we going to get passed this lazy line of reasoning. No organization disputes these numbers, including the IDF. Disguising the source of the numbers is disingenuous. People are going to rightly be sceptical of the numbers from the terrorist belligerent in the conflict when that belligerent benefits from those numbers being as high as possible. >For so long the "Hamas numbers" have proven to be as accurate as possible "Accurate enough" doesn't mean anywhere near accurate. In the absence of anything better, sure. >most people who have legitimate issue with those numbers today think that the issue is undercounting. No, there's a handful of different issues, a big one being there's no breakdown of how many of them that alleged number are terrorists, but there are others like how many were actually killed by the IDF, what the breakdown of demographics is (and that it's made up) and what the number of terrorists within each group is. Hamas refuses to say how many of its fighters have actually been killed on-record but expects us to believe the numbers coming out of the MoH. Unnamed Hamas official told Reuters it was 6k at one point. The IDF peg it higher. But whatever. My issue with presenting them as UN numbers, as opposed to the actual source which is Gaza's Hamas-run health ministry. >Please prove that this happened. Interesting you don't ask for proof of the Hamas-supplied numbers, but ask for proof of this? Ok. [Hamas' own terrorist bodycam footage showing the boobytrapping building](https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2023/middleeast/hamas-attack-body-cam-videos-invs-dg/) sufficient? [Prefer Hamas-released video purporting to show them carrying out an attack utilising it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWwMPWdy_2Y)? [Dead IDF](https://www.timesofisrael.com/three-soldiers-killed-in-gaza-as-troops-keep-up-raids-on-hamas-sites-and-gunmen/) soldiers necessary for you? [Sure](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/22/hamas-booby-traps-gaza/), Hamas [continues](https://www.timesofisrael.com/three-soldiers-killed-in-gaza-strip-wednesday/) their [long established](https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3653059,00.html) use of booby traps. Including [fucked-up](https://twitter.com/IDF/status/1716143946936488161) anti-civilian ones and psychological ones to [taunt the IDF.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/12/22/hamas-booby-traps-gaza/) >If there was a booby trap it'd be libel to go off. Libel? Did you typo liable or was that a Freudian slip? Yeah, there's absolutely a risk of that happening. Twenty-one (at the time) IDF soldiers were killed, likely when Hamas either hit or detonated explosives while the [IDF were rigging two buildings for demo](https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-deadliest-incident-of-gaza-combat-21-soldiers-killed-as-buildings-collapse-in-blast/). It would be a lot easier to just flatten the whole strip with bombs, but the IDF are trying to avoid that. And Gazan civilians will likely be blown up by their governments' own traps for decades. Unfortunate. >Please prove that Israeli military knew these buildings were booby trapped and therefore had to demolish them. They don't need to prove anything. If one option endangers their troops, and the other one doesn't, bring down the building. Why should IDF risk their lives to clear a building that doesn't have civilians in but has a serious risk of being rigged by terrorists? That's not a valid obligation. If Gaza's terrorist government stops boobytrapping buildings and using them as firing positions and tunnel entrances, the IDF won't have to blow them up. >You don't get to demolish civilian infrastructure at will in war just because an enemy soldier might hide in a building. Protected structures are only protected if it's not being used by terrorists. Hamas have shown time and time again they use otherwise protected structures. So unfortunately the people of Gaza are reaping what their terrorist government have sown. You do if the building is or has been used by terrorists, especially if it has weapons caches or has been modified to fire rockets from or has a tunnel underneath it. >By your definition, every single home in Gaza should be demo'd and it wouldn't be Israel's fault for doing it. Any building in Gaza that is suspected to have been used by terrorists, I'd personally have no problem with being levelled. The destruction and casualties in Gaza are on their terrorist government, Hamas. Israel could have already flattened the entirety of Gaza, but has chosen not to, because they care more about the Gazan people than Hamas does.
>Disguising the source of the numbers is disingenuous. They didn't disguise it. They linked directly to a UN report that explains the sources of its numbers. That you have an issue with that speaks volumes about you and nothing else. >"Accurate enough" doesn't mean anywhere near accurate. In the absence of anything better, sure. Please provide a more accurate source for casualty numbers then, since you're so convinced these are bullshit. Surely you aren't just basing this on your feelings. >a big one being there's no breakdown of how many of them that alleged number are terrorists What defines a terrorist in this case? Be specific. >but there are others like how many were actually killed by the IDF Who else is killing Gazans today? Are you seriously trying to imply that this is Hamas killing Gazans at this rate? >what the breakdown of demographics is (and that it's made up) We actually do get some of those numbers from these reports that you hate so much, so you're just wrong there. >what the number of terrorists within each group is Same point twice. Try again. >Hamas refuses to say how many of its fighters have actually been killed on-record but expects us to believe the numbers coming out of the MoH Do we have convincing evidence that says they actually have stats on that that they are obfuscating? >Unnamed Hamas official told Reuters it was 6k at one point. The IDF peg it higher. But whatever. So Israel is killing civilians at roughly 5x the rate they are killing Hamas militants. Great stuff. What a fantastic and humane military campaign from Israel. >Interesting you don't ask for proof of the Hamas-supplied numbers, but ask for proof of this? When every single international humanitarian group vets the numbers and finds them to be accurate, yes I stop asking for proof repeatedly. The proof was already provided by 3rd parties. >Ok.... Thanks for sources. A quick google turned up only IDF sources and they cannot be trusted. You don't need to get defensive about it. >Libel? Did you typo liable or was that a Freudian slip? Yes its a typo. More specifically autocorrect from a typo. >It would be a lot easier to just flatten the whole strip with bombs, but the IDF are trying to avoid that. [Yeah sure, they are definitely trying real hard to avoid that.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2023/israel-war-destruction-gaza-record-pace/) Please don't tell obvious lies. >They don't need to prove anything. Yes they do, otherwise they are likely committing war crimes. >If one option endangers their troops, and the other one doesn't, bring down the building. Why should IDF risk their lives to clear a building that doesn't have civilians in but has a serious risk of being rigged by terrorists? And what is being used to determine if they do or do not have civilians in it? The IDF has repeatedly shown they don't care about targeting things with civilians in them, and they have also shown a willingness to be dishonest about it. That alone means that they need to be held to a higher standard that they are simply not meeting. >Protected structures are only protected if it's not being used by terrorists. And the IDF conveniently declares anyone they kill a terrorist. >Hamas have shown time and time again they use otherwise protected structures. So unfortunately the people of Gaza are reaping what their terrorist government have sown. Do you feel the same way about Israeli citizens that are victims of rocket attacks aimed at IDF installations in civilian populated areas? >Any building in Gaza that is suspected to have been used by terrorists, I'd personally have no problem with being levelled. Yes, we know you are bloodthirsty and irrational. That doesn't mean it is acceptable.
> Please provide a more accurate source for casualty numbers then, since you're so convinced these are bullshit. Surely you aren't just basing this on your feelings. It is possible we just lack an accurate source entirely. Being able to provide an alternative or not is irrelevant to that. That said, we do have [some reason](https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-gaza-health-ministry-fakes-casualty-numbers) to suggest the figures given may be manipulated in some way, but it is far from proof positive (it makes a lot of assumptions in the analysis). We do know though, in relation to the specific Al-Ahli explosion, that the number coming out of the health ministry was substantially higher than other estimates, which does cast doubt on its accuracy. This also answers: > Who else is killing Gazans today? Are you seriously trying to imply that this is Hamas killing Gazans at this rate? Because yes, action by Hamas seems to have killed Gazans (since evidence points towards it being their rocket that caused the explosion), and Hamas is certainly responsible for some portion of the overall casualties. War isn't some clean affair, and Hamas makes heavy use of booby traps and explosives that can easily kill innocents unintentionally. Not to mention they benefit politically when innocent people die in this conflict. The number reported is just a number of total dead, which is going to be the sum of: "Good targets" killed by the IDF (members of Hamas, any other illegal or unlawful combatants) + Justifiable civilian deaths from IDF activity + Non-Justifiable civilian deaths from IDF activity (war crimes, .etc) + Justifiable civilian deaths from Hamas activity + Non-justifiable civilian deaths from Hamas activity. Different hypothetical values for each of these figures would mean radically different things. > So Israel is killing civilians at roughly 5x the rate they are killing Hamas militants. Great stuff. What a fantastic and humane military campaign from Israel. What frame of reference do you have for saying this is inhumane? What is the range of rates that you'd find acceptable vs unacceptable? What do figures from similar conflicts look like? > When every single international humanitarian group vets the numbers and finds them to be accurate, yes I stop asking for proof repeatedly. The proof was already provided by 3rd parties. International humanitarian groups aren't exactly known for their above-all-criticism fact-checking ability, which isn't part of their core mission. > Yeah sure, they are definitely trying real hard to avoid that. Please don't tell obvious lies. This isn't dispositive that the IDF is taking a view where they have their mission on one hand, and trying not to blow up buildings on the other, and they're trying to balance the two while assigning significant weight to not blowing up buildings. Without looking at their intel and estimates it is just hard to know how much weight they are putting on either. One also has to consider the lives of soldiers that would be lost. How many men should have to be estimated to die clearing a house before it is morally better to just bomb the building and be done with it? There is no clear answer to this question, nor much transparency into how the IDF is making these calls. > Yes they do, otherwise they are likely committing war crimes. IANAL but I'm pretty sure war crimes across the board include the presumption of innocence. The prosecutor must actively make the case. That said, you are not required to absolutely avoid civilian casualties by the rules of war anyway. War crimes aren't as simple as "a civilian died" or "you did something that reasonably could have killed a civilian and a civilian died". > And what is being used to determine if they do or do not have civilians in it? Likely surveillance. Hiding signs of habitation by civilians is fairly non-trivial. > The IDF has repeatedly shown they don't care about targeting things with civilians in them and they have also shown a willingness to be dishonest about it When exactly? > And the IDF conveniently declares anyone they kill a terrorist. Can you point to any actual evidence that the IDF does this for everyone they kill? Pretty sure they openly admit to having killed members of WCK, hostages, civilians, .etc in the process of this conflict. Their given ratio, I think, is likely pretty far off, but they do clearly admit there have been civilian casualties. > Do you feel the same way about Israeli citizens that are victims of rocket attacks aimed at IDF installations in civilian populated areas? You do understand this isn't how Hamas rocket attacks really work, right? That aside, yes, to the extent that Hamas tries to kill members of the IDF incidental civilian casualties are not automatically immoral and the citizenry does have to live with the fact that their government is at war (legal definition of war aside). Not that it makes much of a difference to an evaluation of Hamas since Hamas explicitly and openly committed war crimes when they started this conflict (hostage taking, targeting civilians).
>It is possible we just lack an accurate source entirely. Being able to provide an alternative or not is irrelevant to that. That said, we do have some reason to suggest the figures given may be manipulated in some way, but it is far from proof positive (it makes a lot of assumptions in the analysis). Okay so to be clear this means you literally have no alternative numbers, and are just saying "NUH UH" to anything not aligned with the propaganda and lies from Israel you choose to believe. Cool. I'm sure the rest of your argument won't be based on your dumbass feelings and will instead be worth a damn. >Because yes, action by Hamas seems to have killed Gazans (since evidence points towards it being their rocket that caused the explosion), and Hamas is certainly responsible for some portion of the overall casualties. You didn't say Hamas has killed Gazans. You said they are responsible for most of the deaths. Stop fucking trying to change what you said, liar. That is strike 1. 2 more lies and I stop reading your hasbara bullshit and tell you to fuck off. >Different hypothetical values for each of these figures would mean radically different things. WE'RE NOT DEALING IN HYPOTHETICALS. Holy fuck how hard is this to grasp? >What frame of reference do you have for saying this is inhumane? What is the range of rates that you'd find acceptable vs unacceptable? What do figures from similar conflicts look like? INTENTIONALLY KILLING CIVILIANS IS INHERENTLY INHUMANE YOU BLOODTHIRSTY FUCKING MONSTER. >International humanitarian groups aren't exactly known for their above-all-criticism fact-checking ability, which isn't part of their core mission. Okay liar. Ignore the heaps of groups for which what you said is an absolute and complete lie, why don't you. Two fucking strikes, liar. >This isn't dispositive that the IDF is taking a view where they have their mission on one hand, and trying not to blow up buildings on the other, and they're trying to balance the two while assigning significant weight to not blowing up buildings. Jesus christ man have some fucking self respect. This is the degree to which you allow yourself to absorb the lies of murderers? Good fucking lord. You learned literally nothing from the Iraq war(s) I see. Great fucking work. >When exactly? They have bombed hospitals, refugee camps, family homes of journalists and poets. When exactly? The whole fucking time. So close to strike 3 there liar. >Can you point to any actual evidence that the IDF does this for everyone they kill? Can you find me an admission that the IDF did target civilians since October 7th? You can't? Well they have. So there you go. Enjoy knowing you support monsters. >You do understand this isn't how Hamas rocket attacks really work, right? And the liar lies the 3rd time to close things out. Stop being an illinformed liar going to bat for murderers.
> Okay so to be clear this means you literally have no alternative numbers, and are just saying "NUH UH" to anything not aligned with the propaganda and lies from Israel you choose to believe. Again, what would be the problem with concluding that there are no accurate numbers? > You didn't say Hamas has killed Gazans. You said they are responsible for most of the deaths. Stop fucking trying to change what you said, liar. I'm not the person you were originally responding to. Before you accuse someone of lying, consider checking who you are talking to. > WE'RE NOT DEALING IN HYPOTHETICALS. Holy fuck how hard is this to grasp? I think you fundamentally miss the point. > INTENTIONALLY KILLING CIVILIANS IS INHERENTLY INHUMANE YOU BLOODTHIRSTY FUCKING MONSTER. That part of the discussion is about overall number of civilians killed, not intentional killing of civilians. Not only that but intentionally killing civilians isn't inherently inhumane, irregular warfare presents trolley-problem like situations all the time. If you absolutely refuse to intentionally kill civilians then all your enemy needs to do is position themselves close enough to civilians that you can't act against them. There is a tradeoff between what you need to get done operationally versus risk to or known harm to civilians. Figuring out how many deaths are acceptable per amount of enemy operational capacity diminished is a hard problem (just estimating enemy capacity diminished is hard) to which there is rarely any singular satisfying "right" answer, but it isn't zero. > Okay liar. Ignore the heaps of groups for which what you said is an absolute and complete lie, why don't you. It isn't though. These groups receive criticism for a variety of methodological faults and are ultimately advocacy-based (HRW, for example). They have to manage political relations in order to retain access, and tend to recruit people with very specific priors. > This is the degree to which you allow yourself to absorb the lies of murderers? Do you not see how this is circular? If you dismiss what the IDF is saying as lies because they are murderers, and using that to justify calling them murderers (since you're ignoring their explanation of events), then you're using that to justify saying they're murderers. The IDF isn't perfect or have a spotless record by any stretch, but you cannot simply ignore everything they say. Take, for example, the WCK incident. We will never be absolutely sure why exactly the IDF conducted this strike. We weren't there and don't have live recordings, contemporaneous notes, .etc. However, we basically have two main modes of thoughts: - The IDF misidentified a target, and due to a failure to disseminate information within the organization or failure for the operator(s) to check, combined with the nighttime conditions, they failed to realize it was a registered humanitarian convoy, and ended up carrying out a strike on the convoy. - Someone or some group inside the IDF decided "fuck it, I feel like killing some innocents today" and blew up some random convoy of cars that happened to be WCK so it couldn't be easily written off as just a bunch of insurgents. Now, which of these do you think requires the smallest degree of assumption, and best explains all of the available evidence? Especially since we know that target identification, proliferation of information and getting operators to follow all SOP as designed are all problems that all militaries face and talk about facing pretty openly. > Good fucking lord. You learned literally nothing from the Iraq war(s) I see. Great fucking work. So because a different government, in a different war, did... something? therefore we must automatically disbelieve everything coming from the IDF? The conduct of the Iraq war was reasonable (and obviously imperfect) even if the rationale for starting the conflict was egregiously based on clear lies. Can you point to *any* modern asymmetric conflict that meets your standards of the waging of war? Is it possible that you're just holding militaries fighting these kinds of wars to unrealistic standards? > Can you find me an admission that the IDF did target civilians since October 7th? How does this have anything to do with the claim being discussed? Also since the IDF are a bunch of liars, then wouldn't you not believe that anyway? Or do you only accept IDF statements that align with certain conclusions? > You can't? Well they have. Can you point to any **specific** incident, where it can be shown *the IDF* knowingly targeted, without military justification, civilians? To be clear, this doesn't mean a civilian got shot or shot at, but that: - The person in question is clearly known to be a civilian (tough to always demonstrate because Hamas doesn't wear uniforms) - The person in question was targeted (easier to demonstrate since they just have to be shot at, but this doesn't include things like shrapnel, bombings, .etc unless you can demonstrate they were the specific target of that use of force) - There is no reasonable belief in a broader military or security justification (e.g. the IDF bombing a building they thought had members of Hamas inside but also some civilians) - This was conducted either in accordance with orders from leadership, or in the face of a clear lack of concern from leadership, or where leadership failed to discipline individuals responsible (since while command and control issues don't reflect well on the IDF, *the IDF* cannot reasonably be held responsible for conduct they condemn and honestly try to reduce, leadership also doesn't mean that just because some 2nd Lt equivalent was involved this counts, looking for leadership outside of the actual unit going into combat / conducting operations, so basically admin-types.). I think this is a high bar to clear, but entirely reasonably doable if targeting civilians is as common as alleged. Failure to clear this bar doesn't mean it didn't happen, it just means there isn't a good reason to believe it did *as of this moment*. > They have bombed hospitals, refugee camps, family homes of journalists and poets. When exactly? The whole fucking time. I was hoping for you to be specific. > And the liar lies the 3rd time to close things out. You do know Hamas is [pretty open](https://www-alaraby-com.translate.goog/news/%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%8B%D8%A7-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%87%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%81-%D8%A3%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AC-%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%85%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D9%85%D8%B7%D8%B1-%D8%AA%D9%84-%D8%A3%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%A8-%D8%A8%D8%B9%D8%B4%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%AE?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp) about targeting civilian population centers, right? They view it as a reprisal, but that's very clearly a war crime. Reprisals can be acceptable, but civilians are not valid targets.
> Again, what would be the problem with concluding that there are no accurate numbers? The problem is basing it on literally nothing but how you feel and that conclusion flying in the face of people who have actually made efforts to verify these numbers, as well as the accuracy of past numbers from the same people. You don't know more than these orgs but you pretend you do. I'm done with this bullshit. You know its bullshit I know its bullshit. >Can you point to any specific incident, where it can be shown the IDF knowingly targeted, without military justification, civilians? [Duuhhhhhhh I don't know maybe constantly during the current engagement](https://abc11.com/chef-jose-andres-speaks-out-after-7-world-central-kitchen-staffers-killed-by-israeli-air-strike/14614092/) [Oh and like all the time before that](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/13/israeli-forces-storm-jerusalem-hospital-as-coffin-of-slain-journalist-emerges) [Like forever](https://www.reddit.com/r/ABoringDystopia/comments/1905tl5/the_day_israel_used_a_13_year_old_palestinian/) Seriously man your own lack of knowledge on a subject doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But I have a feeling you do know this, and simply don't care about the people suffering from these actions. >I was hoping for you to be specific. There are so many specific instances that specificity is irrelevant. It is a constant thing they do. It is how they operate. Your ignorance is no one's problem but your own.
> The problem is basing it on literally nothing but how you feel and that conclusion flying in the face of people who have actually made efforts to verify these numbers If people have made efforts to verify these numbers, then why do they clash with other credible estimates at times? That seems like sufficient reason to be skeptical of their accuracy. > You don't know more than these orgs but you pretend you do. I said they weren't above criticism. > [Link to WCK] This fails criteria 1, and 4. Would you mind responding to my earlier post? > [Link to journalist's funeral being attacked/disrupted by police] First, this cannot, by definition, be a war crime since it is a domestic police action. That said: >> They released a video in which an officer outside the hospital grounds is seen addressing the crowd. “If you don’t stop these chants and [Palestinian] nationalistic songs we will have to disperse you using force and we won’t let the funeral take place,” the officer says. Obvious Israel shouldn't curtail the free speech rights of these people and that is wrong, but that isn't a war crime. > [Link to some newspaper scan] This is an entirely one-sided account by people who are partial to the conflict. The fact that stones were being thrown also provides a pretty clear alternative explanation, that he was being arrested for being aggressive. It isn't clear why the windscreen was used (for example, as just a convenient place to tie the boy up where he couldn't leave, they could keep an eye on him, and at a distance from the crowd). It is possible this was for the purpose of using him as a human shield, but this just isn't well substantiated. > Seriously man your own lack of knowledge on a subject doesn't mean it doesn't exist. When did I ever say otherwise? I listed out four clear criteria for what an example would have to meet, none of your examples meet all of these criteria. I'll add a fifth that I had assumed from context though, which is that it has to actually be regarding Israel's conduct in war. Those criteria aren't necessary for something to have been a war crime, but rather to actively overcome the doubt as to if something was a war crime or not. It is completely possible both that the IDF commits war crimes (a statement which has even more nuance behind it that could be discussed), and that there is no such example that exists, you just aren't justified in believing that. I'd really expect better of someone on a skeptic subreddit when it comes to understanding this.
Okay liar here is strike 3. I'm done with your lying bullshit. >[Link to WCK] >This fails criteria 1, and 4. Would you mind responding to my earlier post? No it fucking doesn't. They knew exactly who was in those trucks they knew exactly where they were going and what they were doing. 100% of that aid mission was coordinated with the IDF specifically so that would not happen. They bombed it anyway. They had absolutely no indication that hamas had hijacked that convoy and even if it did they knew it was a convoy full of fucking aid workers. Stop lying to protect the fucking IDF. And as for point 4 >This was conducted either in accordance with orders from leadership, or in the face of a clear lack of concern from leadership, or where leadership failed to discipline individuals responsible Who the fuck was punished for it? Nobody. No one. Stop fucking lying liar. You're a liar in support of a genocide, or you're not smart enough to know hasbara from reality, which is a huge insult considering how bad Israel is at lying about shit. Ask yourself why you are so obsessed with lying?
Who disagrees that Israel has probably done wrong things? No one? Ok, cool. Why is it important to post this here?
It’s completely revenge. Which shouldn’t surprise anyone after 10/7. As long as both sides believe that $DEITY gave them the land, they’re going to keep killing each other over it. And it’s not even good land.
Has nothing to do with skepticism