Some Israeli soldiers refuse to keep fighting in Gaza
Posted by cap123abc@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 231 comments
Posted by cap123abc@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 231 comments
FacelessMint@reddit
From the story of one of the soldiers that he cannot forget:
What do people in this Sub think should happen in an active warzone when a possible combatant continues to approach your position after being told to stop and after having warning shots fired near them?
FtDetrickVirus@reddit
Well since Israel started the war, they're supposed to withdraw.
FacelessMint@reddit
I thought everyone was pretty clear with the understanding that the actions of Hamas, PIJ, and other Gazan militants on Oct 7th 2023 was what kicked off this war. Do you not agree that this war was precipitated by the events of Oct 7th?
i_make_orange_rhyme@reddit
No, i believe the war started because the newly elected president promised to annex large swaths of Palestinian territory.
If you recall what early 2023 looked like. It looked like this
FacelessMint@reddit
I'm not sure I'm following you. You think that Israel, not in response to the events of Oct 7th, but because of their settlement of the West Bank bombed and invaded Gaza?
i_make_orange_rhyme@reddit
Yes.
Firstly i think its a red herring to discuss west bank and gaza as if they were two seperate unrelated countries.
Palestinians in Gaza are not indifferent to the integrity of the west bank and visa versa.
Netyenyahu made a promise to attack the sovereignty of Palestine
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/9/11/netanyahu-announces-post-election-plan-to-annex-jordan-valley
“Today, I announce my intention, after the establishment of a new government, to apply Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and the northern Dead Sea"
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/article-760189
He has spoken MANY times about his vision of Israel. He didnt use this map by accident.
Eventually you have to just take him at his word.
Israel wants to annex all of palestine and displace all the citizens who reside there.
They are tempered only by international diplomacy and public opinion, not millitary abilty.
They cant take all the land and displace all the palestinians at once. The outrage would be too high.
So what they do is chip away....slowly but steadily.
And then when Palestinians react....Use this as an excuse to chip away a larger chunk.
Rinse and repeat.
FacelessMint@reddit
Even by your own account then it was Oct 7th that caused the invasion into Gaza...?
i_make_orange_rhyme@reddit
What are you trying to get at?
"Israel doesnt want to annex land, they are only doing it reluctantly becauase..."
Is thats your belief?
FacelessMint@reddit
I was trying to get at what the soldiers in the scenario described in the OP article were supposed to do when a possible enemy combatant refused to comply with their verbal warnings and with the warning shots they attempted to deter them with.
I think the current Israeli government wants the West Bank. I don't think they want Gaza.
i_make_orange_rhyme@reddit
The soliders in this scenario should turn around and march back to the border.
Israel has no right to set up a buffer zone within gaza nor give any direction to any palestinians.
If foreign troops were marching though a US city giving directions the only discussion point within America would be "how can we quickly kill these invaders"
FacelessMint@reddit
Your response to a specific example of IDF behaviour in Gaza is to say you disagree with Israel's much larger conduct of their war in response to Oct 7th. Not exactly helpful or relevant to the discussion.
It's like if you asked me the same question and I said: Hamas in this scenario should have turned around and marched back into Gaza before committing their atrocities.
i_make_orange_rhyme@reddit
World - Dont do it, dont do it, dont do it, please dont do it.
Israel - Does it anyway.
Shit happens
Israel - Well, what should we have done? We had no choice
FtDetrickVirus@reddit
Everyone is an event when you conquer their land, that's why the entire world outlawed doing that right after the Holocaust, they call that the Nuremberg principles.
FacelessMint@reddit
I'm not sure how you think this applies to the scenario being described.
FtDetrickVirus@reddit
Because Israel is engaging in conquest and the UN has said that Palestinians are allowed to use violence.
FtDetrickVirus@reddit
They never needed an excuse before, don't go changing now
FtDetrickVirus@reddit
Israel has bombed and invaded Gaza for decades, where tf have you been?
FacelessMint@reddit
There have been bombings and invasions in Gaza in the past, yes.
Do you think Operation Cast Lead in 2008 for example is the same as the current war?
FtDetrickVirus@reddit
Did Israel sign a peace treaty?
FacelessMint@reddit
I don't believe they did. I don't think there was a peace treaty in 1949 either. Is Israel still fighting the 1948 war? Was the Six Day war much longer than six days since it ended with a cease fire agreement and not a peace treaty?
Would you prefer if we used the term conflict instead of war to avoid this odd semantic argument?
FtDetrickVirus@reddit
You can call it anytime you want, except peace, which Israel has chosen.
FtDetrickVirus@reddit
lol you think the Israel Palestine war only started last year? That's quite frankly insane. The war has been going on ever since Israel started conquering Palestine for lebensraum, you don't get to pretend there's no war when it's convenient.
FacelessMint@reddit
lol. Do you think we're still in the war of 1948? Who started that one?
FtDetrickVirus@reddit
Did you sign a peace treaty to end it? Israel started that war, the land wasn't going to ethically cleanse itself.
FacelessMint@reddit
No accurate telling of history says that Israel started that war. It began as the civil war in late 1947 when the UN announced the partition plan which the Palestinian people rejected.
FtDetrickVirus@reddit
The partition plan called for consent of all parties, so what did Palestinians who already possessed the land need to fight for, unless they were being slaughtered and driven out?
soyyoo@reddit
Hamas is a 35 year old organization retaliating 70+ years of r/israelcrimes
FacelessMint@reddit
What is this comment supposed to mean in this conversation? That this current war started 35 years ago? 70? More?
Did this war actually start in \~70 CE when the Romans expelled the Jewish people from their land? Earlier with the Babylonian expulsion?
porktorque44@reddit
No you didn't.
FacelessMint@reddit
??
I did. It seems fairly evident.
porktorque44@reddit
Evident that everyone thinks that? You engage in a ton of arguments about this conflict but you think everyone agrees with you?
FacelessMint@reddit
Obviously not.
It seems fairly evident that the actions of Oct 7th are what caused what's happening in Gaza right now to occur. I can't even tell if you disagree with this or are just representing what other people believe.
porktorque44@reddit
Which things are you talking about? The fighting? The Israeli settlements? The blockade? Israel helping Hamas get funding? All that stuff was definitely happening before 10/7.
FacelessMint@reddit
If you think Gaza today is in a similar state to Gaza on 6 Oct 23 you are delusional.
Proper_Razzmatazz_36@reddit
Pro palestians think that Israel started it, not sure why but hey they think that a terroist attack is OK when it's against the people you don't like
FacelessMint@reddit
I don't understand this line of thinking. How far back do people want to go when they say this person or that person started it?
Proper_Razzmatazz_36@reddit
Only as far back as to say the other side started it, any farther it too far
AntaBatata@reddit
Israel did not start this war.
FtDetrickVirus@reddit
Did they sign a peace treaty to end the one before?
AntaBatata@reddit
No, because Hamas refuses the concept of any kind of peace with Israel. Its charter openly calls for the destruction of Israel and genocide of all of its civilians. On the other hand, Israel has offered Hamas and the Palestinians many peace treaties, which were all rejected with no counteroffer.
FtDetrickVirus@reddit
Israel refuses the concept of Palestine. If Israel doesn't want the war continuing and suffering future attacks they could have offered to define the borders with Palestine, but they never have.
AntaBatata@reddit
What the heck are you talking about. Israel offered countless deals and agreed a Palestinian states many times more.
cap123abc@reddit (OP)
Well, the soldier literally said he believes they acted too quickly. You realize that the soldiers are an occupation force that have set up this buffer zone?
FacelessMint@reddit
So what do you think should have happened?
cap123abc@reddit (OP)
I think the occupying force should not be in Gaza in the first place. Simple fix.
FacelessMint@reddit
I think there should be an end to conflict the world over. Easy peasy!
cap123abc@reddit (OP)
Hm. Mine was a fundamental disagreement with Israeli action in Gaza and yours is a fantasy. Not exactly equal.
FacelessMint@reddit
Mine is a fundamental disagreement with people in conflict the world over. Simply wishing Israel out of Gaza is the definition of a fantasy.
Onuus@reddit
Go be a Zio fan boy elsewhere.
Why do most people in here from Canada support Israel? What have they done for yall?
FacelessMint@reddit
Onuus: "Wahhhh, get out of this community, I don't agree with you and actually want to be in an echo chamber and you're ruining that!"
AntaBatata@reddit
So you think deflecting is a valid answer?
cap123abc@reddit (OP)
Don’t take my word for it. Per this article even some of the soldiers are getting weary of this war in Gaza. It shouldn’t have happened.
AntaBatata@reddit
How is it related to the situation bro showed you? It's a general deflection. Bro referred to the situation where a potential hostile person gets closed fo a military station and the soldiers need fo deter him. In response to how you'd handle it better, you mumbled about Israel not needing to be there at all. That's not an answer to this scenario.
And of course the war shouldn't have happened. Do you remember who started it on October 7th, 2023? What forced Israel to re-enter a location it left in 2006?
cap123abc@reddit (OP)
You seem to forgot one of the soldiers in the scenario gave his opinion. That they acted too quickly. I understand the question was “what should have happened”. But the person on the ground has decided not only should that child not have been shot so quickly but that the war shouldn’t be happening. I am in agreement with them. That was my answer.
AntaBatata@reddit
Then again, how would you handle it?
soyyoo@reddit
Hamas is a 35 year old organization retaliating 70+ years of r/israelcrimes
FacelessMint@reddit
What are you trying to communicate here? Or is this just some sort of spam comment?
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
It's very interesting phrasing. Israelis shouted at him to stop from a long distance in a language he didn't understand. Was he approaching them or trying to get away? Did they shoot him in the back?
Many Palestinians have been shot without warning for crossing an invisible line in Gaza. What do you say about them? Do you think that is justified?
FacelessMint@reddit
From the article, or mine?
Why are we assuming that there isn't a single soldier who speaks Arabic or that Israeli soldiers can't be told how to shout "stop" in Arabic?
Would you agree that the language of warning shots at your feet is fairly universal?
You'd think the soldier who described the story would include such a pertinent point if they shot the Palestinian teenager in the back while he was trying to get away?
What do you think the soldiers should have done in the scenario?
Of course if a person is shot without warning and the person that shot them cannot positively identify them as a combatant it is wrong. They should have either positive identification that the person they are firing on is a combatant (can see weapons for instance) or they should give them warnings prior to firing. The scenario you bring up doesn't appear to be what's described by this soldier and his personal experience.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
Both.
You can’t always hear what some nutter with a gun far away is yelling at you when you are outdoors… If they even bother to learn Arabic phrases.
You don’t always know where the shots came from. Assuming that he didn’t break into a run and away from the IDF and get shot anyway, like this woman with a white flag was.
He might have omitted it, thinking that the reporter knew the incident. Or the reporter may have repressed it, thinking that it’s obvious or too damning of Israel.
There have been dozens of videos of Palestinians killed by the IDF - some shot in the back - usually without warning. Your justification for the IDF’s murder spree doesn’t actually make sense in this context because we know the teenager wasn’t guilty of anything other than being Palestinian.
The fact that you can’t imagine not killing a Palestinian when the opportunity presents itself is rather a telling giveaway. Even this IDF soldier thought the killing was unjustified. You are fine with it.
So you are ok with murdering innocent civilians as long as you warn them you are going to first? No. Just no. Don’t murder innocent civilians. Even if they are Palestinians. If they are sufficiently far away that you can’t tell whether they are armed or unarmed (and yes, binoculars have been around since the 1860s but the US only gave Israel $30 billion over the last 13 months so they can’t afford a few pairs) then you definitely shouldn’t murder them.
FacelessMint@reddit
Be serious... When people are shouting at you and intentionally firing warning shots at you do you think they are hiding their position? They are trying to make it clear in order to deter the person they are warning.
The article that revolves around telling the stories of soldiers who claim that what the IDF is doing is immoral censors the bad actions of the IDF? This makes no sense. Why write the article to then hide some of the most crucial content?
But in this case he explicitly said that they warned the person both verbally and with warning shots.
How do you know that? I haven't made any claims one way or the other because we can't say he is or isn't guilty of anything.
Comical Strawman you've put up here.
Another nice strawman. Not really worth engaging with. Part of the problem is you do not know if it's an innocent civilian, but they don't appear to be conducting themselves as an innocent civilian by ignoring verbal warnings and warning shots.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
So you believe that people always know where the bullets are coming from? The article expressly says that the victim was far enough away that no one could tell if they were unarmed - yet you “know” they could clearly hear what the IDF were saying?
It happens all the time. The worst atrocities are always erased promoted the delicate sensibilities of Israel’s frothing defenders.
Your argument is flawed - you are saying they wouldn’t have shot him if he had gone the right way, yet there is lots of evidence that the IDF do in fact shoot people unprovoked.
And the victim was a teenager (child?) and was in fact not a terrorist and posed no threat to the IDF who murdered him.
You don’t prove innocence, you prove guilt. Here you have a murdered teenager and you demand that his innocence be proven because you don’t have any proof he was guilty of anything. Can all Palestinians be summarily executed if they can’t instantly prove they aren’t guilty of anything? That will make the IDF’s justifications for mass murder much easier.
No, it follows on from your question regarding your incomprehension for any options other than killing someone, plus your admission that you feel Palestinians are guilty until proven innocent.
We do know he was an innocent civilian. It is one fact we absolutely do know. He had no weapons and wasn’t a member of any militant group, otherwise the IDF would be blaring this out to everyone.
FacelessMint@reddit
Strawman after strawman. You are an unserious person.
Evidence existing that Israelis have shot someone unprovoked doesn't generalize to all events. By the description in the article, that is not what happened in this case.
In fact not a terrorist and posed no threat? That's an unfalsifiable claim with no backing.
Okay, you're kind of finally reaching the point of my original comment. I would by no means call this a summary execution. I believe that in this case the IDF acted within the bounds of international law/the laws of armed conflict.
Clearly not something we absolutely know. Although I believe it's possible he was a civilian to be honest, we certainly cannot say it with confidence. You saying that this person was 100% an innocent civilian is silly. If he was a civilian but was being paid by Hamas to test the reaction of the IDF (as has happened per the article) how would that affect your calculus here? Does working for Hamas' military goals change their civilian status to participating in hostilities?
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
You initially said this:
Keep in mind they are far enough away that they can't see that he was unarmed.
Or is this you thinking you shouting "strawman!" is a get out of jail free card for faulty logic and a predisposition to support the IDF?
That is exactly what happened in this case. Contrary to what many think, the IDF isn't allowed to murder anyone they feel like murdering. They murdered a teenager, possibly a child, and you are making excuses for them.
You have no evidence he was a terrorist and we know from the IDF that not only was he unarmed, he didn't appear on any terrorist lists - or else that would have been in the article. The IDF do check, they just don't care to tell us when they murder innocents, just when they kill Hamas members.
Oh, and you are claiming he may have been a terrorist or may have been been paid by Hamas, and you then accuse me of making an unfalsifiable claim? Where is your evidence? Your whole argument is absurd.
An unarmed teenager was murdered by the IDF. Of course you think that this is justified. No doubt you will say the same of all their victims.
Your waffle doesn't add up. You have no evidence that the victim was anything other than an innocent child. Suggesting, without any proof, that it "may" have been justified "if" some situation that you have no proof of existed is simply you scraping the bottom of the barrel.
At the end of the day the IDF have murdered multiple innocents, as highlighted in this article. You are attempting to say that this is justified in this case based on things that you have no evidence of. It's not even a house of cards, it's just hot air.
FacelessMint@reddit
When you read this do you think it says "people always know where the bullets are coming from?" because it's clearly suggesting that when a force is shouting at you and firing warning shots it is very likely that you know where they are since they are trying to communicate something to you and not hide themselves.
Yes you are making a strawman.
If you think this case is the IDF firing unprovoked at someone you do not have a strong grasp of what happens or what is lawful in war.
Yes, that's exactly what I said. It's unfalsifiable to say he was or was not a terrorist. I did not claim he was a terrorist. It's you claiming he was 100% an innocent person based on what you would call faulty logic and a predisposition to condemn the IDF.
How can you not see the difference...? I am not asserting this with 100% confidence like you are.
If you don't care about the Law of Armed Conflict/IHL and condemn countries/soldiers when they act within the bounds of the law then you are supporting a world where no one follows any rules of war. Pretty shortsighted and certainly promoting more death and suffering in our world.
Not really. I think the case were discussing was justified by the Laws of Armed Conflict.
BDB-ISR-@reddit
The phrase "stop or I'll shoot" in Arabic is part of the suspect detention protocol. Every single soldier, even non-combatants know it.
Wakef walla ana batuchak
#5 https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/my-limited-arabic-vocabulary/
PhoenixKingMalekith@reddit
I must admit, I laughed
Naurgul@reddit
In other articles about this buffer zone, it is explained that there is nothing to show people where exactly it starts and very often soldiers shoot obviously innocent people.
FacelessMint@reddit
Okay, that's not what was described in this instance by this soldier recounting what he saw in Gaza.
People should either be positively identified as combatants or given warnings such as in the story quoted in OPs article. What do you think the soldiers in this scenario should have done?
gravygrowinggreen@reddit
What's your tactic here. A soldier feels bad about an action he was involved in. You seem to be attempting to second guess his bad feelings. When presented with evidence that there are many cases of innocent people being shot due to these invisible buffer zones, you just go back to nitpicking the soldier's negative feelings.
Are you doing that reddit contrarian thing where you ignore the substantive point being made by hyperfocusing on one example you think might not make sense?
Oh, what am I saying, I know you're doing that. Anything to avoid confronting the brutality of the situation right?
FacelessMint@reddit
I am not nitpicking this soldier's feelings. There is no question that soldiers have to deal with difficulties and moral injuries from the violence they may take part in or witness.
I'm discussing the main example of OPs article where the AP framed it as a wanton killing of a Palestinian teen that was unjust, borderline a war crime, and at minimum an act of dehumanization of the Palestinian people. I have asked this subreddit to share what they thought the Israeli soldiers should have done in the scenario where they've warned a possible combatant to stop, fired warning shots in the vicinity to get them to stop, but the possible enemy combatant does not stop. It is also the only concrete example of a Palestinian being killed in the entire article.
Why is it hard for everyone that's responded to my comment to discuss this?
gravygrowinggreen@reddit
Why is it so hard for you to confront that Israel may be acting immorally here?
What you are doing is trying to nitpick a single example out of countless acts of barbarity, to avoid engaging in any substantive criticism of the countless acts of barbarity. It's a bad faith tactic on your part, and you know it deep down.
FacelessMint@reddit
I'm actually the only person appearing to try and discuss whether the IDF acted morally or immorally here.
It's you and multiple other people that want to discuss the IDF's behaviour in different other scenarios that were not discussed in OPs article. That's fine and dandy, but perhaps we can deal with the actual content of the article first?
You are the one being bad faith and seemingly avoiding the content of the article or the content of my comment because it isn't the conversation you want to have.
gravygrowinggreen@reddit
Forgive me for not thinking it's appropriate to second guess the moral assessment of the speaker who was there, because a redditor has questions from his armchair.
The only thing you're right about in your post is that I no longer wish to have a conversation with someone so unwilling to admit the fault of his preferred nation state. So I'm ending the conversation with you.
Naurgul@reddit
You're just using a quote that's a summary of an incident, which in turn is just one example out of many, taking it at face value, imagining there is no additional context at all. Of course if the only thing we know is "you're in a battlefield and someone is coming towards you" it's sensible to shoot. But it's a strawman argument to pretend this is all there is to say about this incident.
FacelessMint@reddit
In OPs article, the story I quoted is the only example given of a Palestinian being killed.
What is the strawman? I presented the quote from the article and asked people what they thought should have happened in this particular scenario.
Are there other scenarios that have happened with different particulars? Of course, and they are also worth discussing. This was the example in OPs article.
actsqueeze@reddit
You’re being disingenuous by choosing one event in a vacuum. You’re moving the goalposts, changing the parameters to suit your narrative.
You’re cherry picking one instance and acting like the issue isn’t systemic. You’re ignoring the totality of the circumstances.
FacelessMint@reddit
I didn't choose or cherry pick this event, it was the sole example of a Palestinian being killed in OPs article. How are you claiming I'm being disingenuous and moving goalposts while discussing the content of OPs article? I even acknowledged in my last comment that there are other scenarios that have taken place worthy of discussion, but they were not in this article and bringing them up doesn't address what happened in this instance.
If you want to acknowledge or discuss this instance and then move on to other instances, I think that would be fine... but to ignore the example in the article and just talk about other very different examples is more of a goalpost shift than whatever you think I'm doing.
thirtyuhmspeed@reddit
You mean clearly identifying like the three hostages that freed themselves waved white flags and even cried for help in Hebrew that still got shot to death by the IDF? Even after they shot the first two they realized that they were Israelis and still shit the third one?
Srinema@reddit
Remember the IOF’s excuse?
“The soldiers thought they were Palestinians, hence they shot to kill. We regret that they in fact murdered three Jewish people seeking our help”
actsqueeze@reddit
Not do this:
https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/israel-gaza-haaretz-report-idf-civilians-rcna185058
“Multiple Israeli officers now tell Haaretz that it’s more than just an exclusion zone. Those officers alleged it’s a ‘kill zone’ where commanders have given their reserve soldiers free rein to kill any Palestinian who enters, even children.”
“Another recently discharged officer from the same unit told Haaretz the brutality was systematic. ‘We’re killing civilians there who are then counted as terrorists,’ he alleged. ‘The IDF spokesperson’s announcements about casualty numbers have turned this into a competition between units. If Division 99 kills 150 [people], the next unit aims for 200.‘“
https://www.reddit.com/r/UnitedNations/s/z8r2uC1tqG
https://www.reddit.com/r/Global_News_Hub/s/ROcqxEYnFN
FacelessMint@reddit
It's kind of hilarious that in your other comment to me you claimed I was shifting the goalposts when in your response here is to provide examples of totally different scenarios that are not similar to the one mentioned.
I asked what they should have done and you say "Not do this" and then all of the links you shared give examples of what the soldiers already didn't do. So what should they have done?
actsqueeze@reddit
The point is your goalposts don’t leave the scope of the article.
Which is ignoring key context.
FacelessMint@reddit
You're telling me I'm shifting the goalposts by discussing an example from the OP article and not stuff that isn't in the article? I actually don't know how to deal with this criticism. I even acknowledged in multiple comments (including to you) that this isn't the only scenario that occurs with Palestinians being shot at the Netzarim Corridor, but it is the one in the article posted in this thread.
actsqueeze@reddit
Correct. You’re limiting yourself to this article and ignoring the other evidence that points to a pattern of behavior by the IDF.
You can ignore the overwhelming evidence that the IDF guns down children with impunity, you’ve obviously had no problem ignoring it up until now.
To help illustrate my point, idk if you heard about the recent allegations of rape against Neil Gaiman. There have been several articles with different accounts by accusers.
If, for example, there was an article with only one account, which Gaiman supporters could conceivably spin to make him look less guilty/innocent, and they use that fact to defend him.
“Oh, what was he suppose to do?” “how would you expect him to act?”
Would it not be fair to counter that by bringing up the accusations in the other articles?
FacelessMint@reddit
Do you think its irrelevant to investigate individual actions? Are you comfortable just calling everything and anything that the IDF does a war crime without examining the discrete events? I did not nor have I ever made the claim that there are no cases where the IDF have committed war crimes. There are war crimes that have been committed during this war. I don't think it means we shouldn't look at a standalone account of something that happened and consider whether it was reasonable or not. In fact, I think evaluating individual cases is necessary. Is it so hard for you to discuss the example in the article because it doesn't align with the worst villainy you expect from the IDF?
Your analogy does not track this situation at all. What's more analogous would be if multiple people accused Mr. Gaiman and multiple assistants of his of rape. In this hypothetical I would be bringing up allegations against one of the assistants and saying that this one doesn't appear to be a rape and you would be saying that I'm shifting the goalposts by not talking about the allegations of rape in the other cases! It wouldn't be fair to judge one of the assistants based on the allegations against Mr. Gaiman and the other assistants though, would it?
BDB-ISR-@reddit
The following paragraph also seems relevant.
>> In the end, he said, Hamas is to blame for some deaths in the buffer zone — he described one Palestinian detained by his unit who said Hamas paid people $25 to walk into the corridor to gauge the army’s reaction.
Sad to see someone die for something so meaningless, but it's pretty clear he wasn't innocent, whether he was unarmed or not.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
This is a very notable development and should not be ignored or dismissed. There are tens of thousands of Israelis who have fought for the IDF in Gaza. A full 200 developing consciences and deciding to stop killing innocents is far in excess of what I or anyone else reasonable would have expected. By a factor of like, 8 or 10, at least. Wow!
cap123abc@reddit (OP)
The IDF is full of human beings just like any other military force. The bodies of innocents can only pile so high before people start to realize how terrible things really are in Gaza. Especially when they are witnessing or participating in the atrocities.
rowida_00@reddit
Remove Gaza and what’s happening from the equation and you have a decades long brutal military occupation. That’s what the IDF does. It literally maintains that occupation designed to subjugate Palestinians for an existence.
AgileCaregiver7300@reddit
Actually Gaza was free to elect it's own government, and squandered billions in free aid.
Let's see if they learned their lesson as the IDF carves up terrorist land to set up security buffer zones
buylowselllower420@reddit
you mean they elected the only group willing to fight on their behalf? You're using one election that happened decades after the war started to justify genocide?
AgileCaregiver7300@reddit
You mean the elected the only group willing to commit mass rape and genocide.
Maybe losing half their lands will teach them not to invade, don't you think?
buylowselllower420@reddit
no I meant what I said
AgileCaregiver7300@reddit
OK then, lose more gaza lands it is
buylowselllower420@reddit
how does it make you feel to hear half of the people killed since oct 7 were women and children? Does it still feel like you're supporting a fight against hamas? Or just supporting a genocide?
AgileCaregiver7300@reddit
You'll be happy to know the ICC already ruled no genocide is happening in gaza and it's top prosecutor Khan admitted he doesn't have the evidence either.
Oh and every death is caused by hamas who started this war, just like hitler was responsible for german deaths. How does it feel to support a genocidal terror org like hamas?
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges
"On the basis of material presented by the Prosecution covering the period until 20 May 2024, the Chamber could not determine that all elements of the crime against humanity of extermination were met."
buylowselllower420@reddit
The ICC prosecutes specific individuals, not states.
That being said, they issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Weird huh?
Every death is caused by hamas? By what logic? They're an occupied territory and they are fighting the occupiers. You do realize Israel is the colonizer in this case right?
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/12/amnesty-international-concludes-israel-is-committing-genocide-against-palestinians-in-gaza/
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227078791/icj-israel-genocide-gaza-palestinians-south-africa?
You started sending me links so it's only fair I educate you back
AgileCaregiver7300@reddit
Yes, they issued warrants for Bibi and Yoav, but rejected or admitted they don't have evidence for genocide against them.
And the ICC was created to prosecute genocide, and are the most qualified to do so, along with the ICJ.
buylowselllower420@reddit
Kinda hard to go collect evidence in a warzone when you'll probably get killed by the IDF, even if you claim to be a neutral third party like UN healthcare workers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_health_workers_in_the_Israel–Hamas_war?
Do you not classify the prevention of delivery of crucial medical resources, clean water, and food as genocide? Because Israel has done all of that.
You're dead wrong about everything so far, I hope you're at least getting paid to spout stupid propaganda, otherwise this is just embarrassing for you
Private_HughMan@reddit
Certainly genocide-adjacent, at least. But the apologists will not care.
AgileCaregiver7300@reddit
The ICC, the most qualified court in the land, rejected the genocide charge, as everyone knows by now.
You remind me of amateur farmers snorting horse paste during covid saying it'll cure them hahahahaha
buylowselllower420@reddit
Did you just send me the same link and quote the same paragraph we already debunked? I think we've reached the end of this conversation. Try debating with chatgpt next time instead
AgileCaregiver7300@reddit
Yes because you didn't seem to read it the first time, let me repeat since you don't understand english. The most qualified court on the planet says is no genocide happening in gaza
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges
buylowselllower420@reddit
Send it again, maybe this time I'll fall for it
Private_HughMan@reddit
Israel is also free to elect their own government. But only one side suffered consequences for the far-right, racist genocidal regime they elected.
rowida_00@reddit
The level of ignorance propagated by Zionists is truly and unequivocally staggering. Let’s address a few facts.
According to the ICJ’s recent ruling;
Israel’s disengagement from Gaza in 2005 Gaza has never changed their status as an occupying power or restrained their war crimes, atrocities or turning Gaza into an open air prison.
That has already been made unambiguously clear years ago, the ICJ ruling simply reaffirmed that reality.
As for as anyone is concerned, in accordance to international law, Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territories including Gaza is unlawful and illegal. That’s is the root cause for this conflict. Denying that fundamental truth won’t add credence to your argument.
AgileCaregiver7300@reddit
And that all went out the window with the invasion of 10/7. UN laws allow defending countries leeway to take invaders land for security purposes.
So yep, gaza dug this hole themselves with the mass rape and murder. Elections or no elections, Gaza is responsible for their own demise.
Lets see if they invade again in the future and lose even more lands
rowida_00@reddit
What went out the window? What the hell are you on about? Gaza prior to October the 7th was an open air prison and under an occupation by Israel and that transitioned into a genocide after October the 7th. It’s that simple.
AgileCaregiver7300@reddit
There were no soldiers in Gaza prior to 10/7, and Egypt borders them as well.
Then they attacked in a genocidal assault which included mass gang rape. And will lose a good amount of land for that.
rowida_00@reddit
Just tell me you don’t know how international law works and be done with it already.
AgileCaregiver7300@reddit
What a great response filled with facts, we can agree to disagree and watch as the IDF puts gaza lands to much, much better use
rowida_00@reddit
Again, your genocidal convictions are independent to the stipulations of international law. As far as I’m concerned you made an uninformed comment which I’ve addressed. It’s that simple.
AgileCaregiver7300@reddit
> What a great response filled with facts, we can agree to disagree and watch as the IDF puts gaza lands to much, much better use than terrorist training grounds.
Unable_Duck9588@reddit
Sounds like you found a reason to not care about dead civilians.
Good for you man.
MooseyGooses@reddit
Careful you’re about to be downvoted into oblivion
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
But a full 200 developing consciences? After only 15 months? There are only 300,000 or so IDF members, and nowhere near all of them served in Gaza. This is unprecedented in both scale and speed.
Days_End@reddit
Most soldier won't even intentional shoot another person this is well documented. Honestly 200 is only unprecedented by how small it is after 15 months.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
The IDF are exceptional, I’ll grant you that.
cap123abc@reddit (OP)
Anyone who decides to speak out against the genocide we are witnessing should be heard and taken seriously. It’s that simple.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
I agree. I just can’t believe that this many people in the IDF did, and after only 15 months of slaughter.
speakhyroglyphically@reddit
By 'this many people' do you mean the 200 the article mentions?
I ask because in reality it may even be more than that. A state committing genocide is for sure keeping details hidden
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
I’ve seen enough articles by people who have visited Israel or who are history or genocide experts, and seen enough Israeli media to understand that the majority of the population knows exactly what’s happening happening in Gaza, and they don’t care to stop it.
IDF members have been broadcasting pictures of themselves murdering Palestinians and destroying buildings for 15 months. Pretending that somehow Israelis don’t know what’s happening is absurd.
Blue_boy_@reddit
you're extremely comitted to your cynicism
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
It’s realism, not cynicism.
ycnz@reddit
History is not rife with instances of nations committing genocide going "Yeah, that's enough now". To the point that I'm not aware of any. Relying on 200 vaguely decent humans out of the 170,000 IDF members is not going to do it in the slightest.
DeepState_Auditor@reddit
None of this is new, what is new it's that western mainstream media is acknowledging it.
There is particular case of one guy that wen to. Israeli television and said he couldn't eat meat because he saw too many bodies squidesh with bulldozers and in the same breath called every Palestinian they killed terrorists because they are terrorists.
Mofo killed himself a months later, I wouldn't be surprised to the very end he couldn't make sense of what he done, only that he couldn't cope.
Funtycuck@reddit
Well at least he finally killed someone that deserved it...
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
I still can’t believe the outpouring of sympathy for someone who admitted murdering people by running over them with a bulldozer.
I guess if his victims are brown and non-Jewish it’s ok.
Nurple-shirt@reddit
Your hate allowed you to forget that humans are human that feel human feeling such as empathy.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
Wow. Such a deep and meaningful response defending an army of genocidal spree killers.
Nurple-shirt@reddit
You’d probably do the same in their position.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
So to you murdering people because you hate them and calling out those murderers is the same thing? Should I just avoid reading about Israelis murdering Palestinians?
Nurple-shirt@reddit
I didn’t say that at all lol. I’m saying you are displaying the same sort of hate that you see when training soldiers against an enemy. People who allow themselves see others as less than human are the type same type of people that could do what the IDF is doing.
You’d fit right in.
latexpumpkin@reddit
You're being completely ridiculous and ironically it's clearly rooted in dehumanization of Palestinians.
You wouldn't blather on about how we need to respect the humanity of the Waffen SS and their capacity to be redeemed because you see European Jews as full fledged humans. On some level you've been conditioned to see Palestinians as less than other people and therefore cut their killers some slack.
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
Yeas, of course, because saying “murder is vile” is exactly the same as wanting to spree kill Palestinian children.
Private_HughMan@reddit
These are brave people. They're patriots second and human beings first. Nationalists never. No matter what, your enemy are humans. Kill Nazis all you want. But killing children? Destroying the lives of civilians? Stealing from them? Abhorrent.
They're braver than any of the people who aim guns are children. Cowards kill children. Brave people stand up to those killing children, even if it puts a target on their back.
demonspawns_ghost@reddit
Earlier today I had someone in this sub call me a coward because of my opposition to war. I don't believe it takes courage to do what you are told. It takes courage to refuse to participate in murder. There are a lot of good people in Israel. I hope they can inspire others to be courageous and do the right thing.
Kaymish_@reddit
I think the Israelis who go to jail for refusing conscription are the bravest of the lot.
Sin317@reddit
How?
cap123abc@reddit (OP)
Because the soldiers in the IDF stand to lose much if they speak up and they see the destruction first hand. Those who speak up and refuse to pretend the IDF are engaging in anything other than atrocities in Gaza should be hailed as hero’s.
Sin317@reddit
Refusing conscription is a normal thing in any nation that has conscription and has nothing to do with "what you think happens in Gaza."
cap123abc@reddit (OP)
Yes refusing conscription is common. It’s less common that the force you are being conscripted into is committing a genocide.
Sin317@reddit
There still is no genocide and never was, no matter how often you repeat that nonsense lie...
NotEvenWrong--@reddit
It's a losing battle, my friend. They're too deep into the genocide narrative and can't open their eyes.
Sin317@reddit
Sadly true.
l339@reddit
But so what is your stance? Do you think it’s a conspiracy theory anyone is being killed in Gaza?
Sin317@reddit
It's a warzone. Of course, people are killed. And it's always a tragedy when innocent people are among the dead. Especially when it is kids.
The problem is, it is a very sense urban environment, which is absolute hell to fight in for any army, especially when you have to fight an unconventional armed terrorist force, that doesn't wear uniforms, blends into civilian crowds and hides among them, has no real military infrastructure, other than hundreds of kilometers of tunnels that are almost always hidden inside and underneath civilian and public buildings like schools, hospitals, refugee camps, and even UN(RWA) buildings.
Hate the IDF and Israel all you want, but ask any military specialist, and they will tell you that they're taking extraordinary measures to avoid civilian death. To their own detrimental, because they pretty much announce in advance, where they will strike.
Meanwhile, Hamas has been bobby trapping every building ahead of the IDF, forcing them to either risk their lives going on or just flatten thalose buildings.
In that instance, what would you do? Enter every building, knowing at any moment it could and will explode and collapse on you, or just say f... it and level it?
The problem with you guys is, you only look at the available information from a very close distance, where you can't see the big picture, but only what Hamas, etc, want you to see to stir an emotional response and not a logical one.
l339@reddit
The only thing I really disagree with with you is your statement that the IDF is trying its best to avoid civilian casualties. It has been proven time and time again that they literally do the exact opposite. Many independent news sources and doctors have confirmed this. Just look at the specific sniper headshots the IDF has made on children of Gaza
Sin317@reddit
Allegedly...
And if you wanna see how it looks, when an army doesn't give a f..., look at cities in Ukraine. Look at Bakhmut, for example. That's how it looks, when an enemy doesn't give a f...
l339@reddit
It’s not really allegedly anymore when there is so much overwhelming evidence that the IDF is actively targeting civilians in Gaza during military operations or at the very least does not care very much if they kill civilians or not. You can disagree with Hamas’ actions and that’s absolutely fair, I think most people would disagree with them, but denying the crimes the IDF has committed with the overwhelming evidence just makes you look like a crazy conspiracist like some flat earther
Sin317@reddit
Where is that overwhelming evidence? Show me.
no_u_mang@reddit
There's apparently enough evidence to issue a warrant for the arrest of Netanyahu and Gallant for alleged IDF war crimes.
Arrest warrants aren't issued on a whim.
Due process stipulates the court must establish that there is probably cause by reviewing evidence.
Sin317@reddit
They also have issued warrants against the leadership of Hamas. You know, your buddies of the "resistance" lol.
no_u_mang@reddit
I don't support Hamas and your deflection is frankly retarded.
l339@reddit
I’m not entertaining your bullshit further, just Google it and it really isn’t hard
Sin317@reddit
So, no, then?
-prostate_puncher-@reddit
At the very least there is atrocities against civilians, and an effort to stifle aid. You can disagree about whether or not it's a genocide, but countless charities and non profits have come out condemning what were seeing.
Sin317@reddit
They condemn anyone for anything.
Hust91@reddit
Okay, what would make you raise your head and go "oh shit, this is some bad shit going down here"?
What's your mine canary for "the things going on here are unacceptable"?
Sin317@reddit
If Hamas had surrendered and the IDF would continue.
And I mean complete surrender.
FlyingVolvo@reddit
I don't think you understood his question. He's asking what it would take until you recognize that something is seriously, seriously wrong.
75 000 dead human beings? 100 000? 500 000? 1 000 000?
At what point would you think what's being done there is unacceptable?
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
I’ve asked this question of lots of Zionists. No answer. I’ve also asked those who deny that the West Bank has an apartheid system what Israel would have to do to institute apartheid. The answer is always nothing.
Sin317@reddit
There is no apartheid in Israel...
Also, i don't think you guys really understand the terms "apartheid" or "genocide."
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
What would need to change in the West Bank to make it apartheid?
Sin317@reddit
Do you want me to create an apartheid state in theory for you now?
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
It's a simple question. What would Israel need to change to institute apartheid in the West Bank? Would they need to introduce new laws, and what would they be? A permit system that only applies to Palestinians? Formalise discrimination? Something else?
You claim to understand apartheid well enough to know it's not apartheid in the West Bank. This should be simple for you to answer.
Sin317@reddit
Do you want me to tell you how to enact apartheid in the West Bank? The stupidity of that question aside, you do know that the West Bank is administered by the Paleatinian Authority, right?
SpontaneousFlame@reddit
Yes. You are sure that it’s no apartheid, tell us how Israel can institute apartheid there.
60% of the West Bank is under full Israeli security and civil administration. How would Israel institute apartheid in area C of the West Bank?
Sin317@reddit
Ok, I'm just going to block you now...
Hazeium@reddit
Oh no did you get hurt by the facts after living in delusion? That's awfully convenient. Feel free to block me too.
Keep living in delusion.
FlyingVolvo@reddit
Then what is it? It's literally two different legal systems where Israelis have an aura around them were they're under Israeli civil law even if they're outside what Israeli law considers their borders like unrecognized outposts and settlements, while Palestinians on their own land that has a settler on it where Palestinians answers to a military court that has a whole different evidentary system, who judges cases, who can be held for X amount of days without even seeing a lawyer I could go on and on.
You have different roads systems exclusively for settlers, state infrastructure support, state financial support and incentive structures for people to live in settlements, there are many, many more examples I could give.
There are two seperate systems for two different people, even if they're on the same land. What would you call that?
https://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101_this_is_apartheid
Sin317@reddit
I think your issue stems from the problem that you don't understand how and by whom the West Bank is administered. The West Bank isn't "one continuously territory," let alone country. It has several different zones, some controlled by Israel, some by the Palestinians. I'm pretty sure what you call settlers are in the Israeli controlled buffer zones and not in the Palestinian controlled areas. Unless I am wrong, and you can prove to me that I am. The problem with this is that it is not inside Israel, but in a territory under nominal military occupation, so there are no civil courts or laws. And yeah, those "settlers" take advantage of that, no doubt, but it's a lot more complicated than that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank_areas_in_the_Oslo_II_Accord
soyyoo@reddit
Hamas is a 35 year old organization retaliating 70+ years of r/israelcrimes
-prostate_puncher-@reddit
Isn't that awfully convenient.
Sin317@reddit
For Hamas and their fans, yes.
-prostate_puncher-@reddit
Didn't realise charities like Oxfam, Save the Children and Amnesty were such big fans.
Sin317@reddit
I meant guys like you who glorify Hamas as "resistance fighters", lol.
-prostate_puncher-@reddit
No you didn't. I said countless charities and non profits have condemned Israel's actions, and you replied they condemn anyone for anything. If you were talking about "guys like me" you'd have referred to me inclusively in that statement.
I get it though the goal posts are ever changing, and it's hard to be a member of the IDFDF right now. We're all reeling from the consistent undermining of western values by hypocritical regimes. Glorification of Hamas as resistance fighters would be as naive as describing the IDF as a "defence" force, though I'd imagine you have difficulty condemning the atrocities of the IDF in a way I have no trouble condemning October 7th.
Zellgun@reddit
Don’t bother with them, every genocide has a group who will deny it, why do you think there’s so many holocaust deniers today. This person is basically the same
-prostate_puncher-@reddit
I know, it's just so frustrating. I like to believe that the ordinary person is genuinely well meaning but has blind spots, but that's my own naivety.
soyyoo@reddit
Hamas is a 35 year old organization retaliating 70+ years of r/israelcrimes
Zellgun@reddit
Yeah I understand why you’d think that, there’s plenty of holocaust deniers today too.
Sin317@reddit
The holocaust was an actual genocide.
Status_Winter@reddit
Well that’s literally denying genocide. Nice.
cap123abc@reddit (OP)
Ok genocide denier.
mikeber55@reddit
That slogan was pulled from someone’s ass. It fits well when dealing with people who have different opinions.
(BTW, I’ve seen similar tactic used when discussing Ukraine. If someone asks how long the war will last or how long the west plans to provide aid to Ukraine, the knee jerk response is always: “Are you a Russian bot”? Basically implying that if your opinion doesn’t match 100% with that of the OP, you must be a spy or propagandist paid by Putin. There’s no other possibility.
mikeber55@reddit
That’s all your personal imagination and delusion. However you can think whatever you want. Thinking is free.
jackdeadcrow@reddit
The soldiers say it themselves. So are you saying they are… lying?
mikeber55@reddit
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That doesn’t mean there aren’t many casualties and thousands were not killed. But genocide is something else. I only referred to using the term “genocide”…
Its already two days since I didn’t hear about “ethnic cleansing” (Gaza population will be deported to make room for Israeli settlements. Yes, they’ll all be sent swimming in the sea). Another pearl is “Apartheid”. The Apartheid in Gaza is horrible (parroted by kids who can’t point where Gaza is on the map). Using these slogans/ terms is intended to further dramatize the situation. “(Casualties” and “dead” are no longer effective).
krulp@reddit
Westbank is text book Apartheid, there is simply no denying it.
Gaza is a massacre of innocent people. It's hard to see an end goal that isn't genocide. That is, the complete removal of Palestinians from gaza.
jackdeadcrow@reddit
Israel minister has already used the word “cleanse” when it comes to gaza. Do you want to guess what the context is?
https://x.com/bezalelsm/status/1878729345444843940?s=46&t=XNFVM-C-NkO9Fr5negWS2w
If Israel don’t want that reputation, why are they keep giving these scumbags government salary?
mikeber55@reddit
As armchair warrior you’re doing well! And yes, there are many like you especially in EU and here in US.
jackdeadcrow@reddit
Back to the “not acknowledging contradicting evidence” mode, are we?
Status_Winter@reddit
Should we believe the people who are actually in Gaza or you?
mikeber55@reddit
No, we should believe the Irish! From thousands of miles away the Irish know everything so well, that is sufficient to make that island the most hateful country in Europe! Yes, from the far edge of the continent!
Srinema@reddit
Says a European offering his unsolicited opinion on a crisis in the Middle East.
cultish_alibi@reddit
Easy for you to say when you're supposedly from a country that hasn't been in a war for hundreds of years. It's a lot more brave to refuse to fight when your country is in a war and there's extremely high nationalist fever about it.
AgileCaregiver7300@reddit
Well the rest are busy building out safe/buffer zones and carving out parts of gaza as they settle in for the long war
teslawhaleshark@reddit
Remember, there's always a part of society who thinks true courage is willingly doing excessive harm in the name of justice.
AgileCaregiver7300@reddit
State sanctioned mass murder and rape like Hamas on 10/7 yes, good thing the world continues to ship the IDF weapons to stamp them out, as the pro-hamas protests are dead now.
AnoniMiner@reddit
It's good to see there's humanity left in the IDF. Unfortunately their actions over the past year didn't inspire much hope. And in front of an international tribunal like Nuremberg the excuse "the high command ordered to do it" wouldn't hold any water. It's what we decided was the right thing after WW2.
AgileCaregiver7300@reddit
You'll be happy to know the ICC already ruled no genocide is happening in gaza and it's top prosecutor Khan admitted he doesn't have the evidence either
https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-israels-challenges
ThanksToDenial@reddit
You do know that the Extermination is a whole different crime from genocide, right?
Extermination is a Crime Against Humanity under article 7 of the Rome Statute. Genocide is a whole different crime, under article 6 of the Rome Statute. They are separate crimes, with vastly different definitions.
In fact, Genocide is its own category of atrocity crimes on its own, due to its uniqueness. It requires specific intent, to do something specific, to a specific national, religious, ethnic or racial group. in fact, genocide doesn't even require one to kill a single person, tho that can also be genocide if done with the specific required intent. Preventing births within the group and/or transferring children out of the group with the required intent would also suffice, and fulfill the requirements to be defined as genocide, and can be done without directly killing a single member of the group.
Crime of Extermination is just the act mass killing, with no specific intent requirements. It does not require you to target a specific group of people either. Let's use an example that would approve of... Let's say there is a concert, attended by people from all over the world, with various ethnic, national, religious and racial backgrounds. Some people attack that concert, and kill those in attendance, regardless of their group affiliations, be it nationality religion, ethnicity or race. That would be extermination. But not genocide, because genocide requires the targeting of a specific national, religious, ethnic or racial group.
Get the difference?
AgileCaregiver7300@reddit
Ah the hamas lies again! Your own ICC prosecutor said he doesn't even have evidence to bring genocide charges :)
https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/ampr/date/2024-05-20/segment/01
Hamas supporter lying all day long and taking the L like you do all day in gaza!
ThanksToDenial@reddit
Oh, you are one of those...
I'm just gonna block you. I don't converse with crazy weirdos with delusions.
AnoniMiner@reddit
You may want to re-read that again and understand it. It doesn't at all say that "no genocide is happening". Maybe English is not your first language, which would explain your mistake. Or you're simply completely unfamiliar with legal language.
AgileCaregiver7300@reddit
Okie, the ICC judges rejected the prosecutors request to bring charges of genocide.
AnoniMiner@reddit
Yes. That's not inconsistent with what I said. And doesn't mean "there's no genocide".
Siman421@reddit
A ruling saying there is a genocide means there is. No ruling means there isn't, until proven otherwise. Unless you believe In guilty until proven innocent.
AnoniMiner@reddit
No.
Siman421@reddit
What do you mean no? You disagree?
FudgeAtron@reddit
The same people who hold the ICC rulings in such high regard are the same people who don't care what that ruling is if it goes against their personal beliefs.
AnoniMiner@reddit
There was no ruling. Stop spreading genocidal propaganda.
FudgeAtron@reddit
Convicting the jew is more important than the truth it seems
Siman421@reddit
That's the whole point. No ruling, with specific mention of current lack of ability to make the ruling, means that you can't say its a genocide, since it's not been proven to be one.
How daft are you?
cesaroncalves@reddit
Still hitting that nail I see, and still getting corrected by others.
Are you doing the "repeat a lie enough times"?
themightycatp00@reddit
This whole article for seven soldiers and people are here like there's a change in the winds
ParagonRenegade@reddit
There won't be any change until Israel is sanctioned and diplomatically isolated. Soon Inshallah.
l339@reddit
I don’t get why neighbouring countries don’t do that? Would make it harder for Israel to trade
TearOpenTheVault@reddit
They did. It didn’t work, heightened tensions and they got nothing from it.
Throwaway5432154322@reddit
Because a) there's no benefit to them fighting Israel & they'd rather make peace, and b) they've already tried that, and it didn't work.
FudgeAtron@reddit
It's funny cause when an Arab says in inshallah it means its not happening.
ro0704@reddit
No bro allah is clearly with us
Soggy_Association491@reddit
Soldiers refusing to keep fighting in a war is nothing new. It is also easier to get news about that from the Israel side rather than Hamas.
Get me back when AP can find someone refused to keep fighting for Hamas and then got out alive.
bonesrentalagency@reddit
You know what it’s good that they’re speaking out about this and refusing to participate any more, but if I may make a suggestion: Try fragging ur command staff instead boys. That’ll get em to rethink their military operations real quick.
Cultural-General4537@reddit
okay a few good Isralis.. . majority see Palistinians as sub human...
empleadoEstatalBot@reddit
empleadoEstatalBot@reddit
Maintainer | Creator | Source Code
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
coverageanalysisbot@reddit
Hi empleadoEstatalBot,
We've found 2 sources (so far) that are covering this story including:
OC Register (Leans Right): "Some Israeli soldiers refuse to keep fighting in Gaza"
Associated Press News (Leans Left): "Some Israeli soldiers refuse to keep fighting in Gaza"
So far, there hasn't been any coverage from the CENTER.
Of all the sources reporting on this story, 50% are left-leaning, 50% are right-leaning, and 0% are in the center. Read the full coverage analysis and compare how 2+ sources from across the political spectrum are covering this story.
I’m a bot. Read here to learn how it works or message us with any feedback so we can improve the bot for you.
AutoModerator@reddit
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.