Some Israeli soldiers refuse to keep fighting in Gaza

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

From the story of one of the soldiers that he cannot forget:

On the day the Palestinian teenager was killed last August, he said, Israeli troops shouted at him to stop and fired warning shots at his feet, but he kept moving. He said others were also killed walking into the buffer zone — the Netzarim Corridor, a road dividing northern and southern Gaza.
Vilk acknowledged it was hard to determine whether people were armed, but said he believes soldiers acted too quickly.

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

And then when Palestinians react....Use this as an excuse to chip away a larger chunk.

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

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

Your attitude makes it seem like you totally support Israel fighting a war in Gaza. Here's your philosophy in action:

World - Don't do it, don't do it, don't do it, please don't do it.

Hamas/PIJ/Gazan Militants - Does it anyway.

Shit happens

Hamas/PIJ/Gazan Militants - Well, what should we have done? We had no choice

[-]

i_make_orange_rhyme@reddit

Im stunned that you would treat Israel and Hamas as equal partnerships in this war.

One is a first world modern democracy with 500 billion in GPD and one of the top millitarys in the world. IDF members get government funded salaries.

The other is a international designed terrorist organisation. They are killed on sight, have assets frozen and they sticky tape crude missiles together and rely on stealing food in order not to starve.

They are evil and theres no point negotiating with them.

You should stop stealing land because its immoral to do so. Not because Hamas demands it.

You should stop stealing land because that is the right thing to do. Regardless of what Hamas does.

You are marching though long grass complaining every time the snake bites you. Acting like the snake should know better.

Build your fucking wall and stay safe behind it.

Stop building settlements. Stop demolishing homes.

You might be surprised how quickly local support for Hamas dries up when you turn off the orphan factory.

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

I'm stunned that you would treat Israel and Hamas as equal partnerships in this war.

I'm not sure what you mean here... I don't treat them as military equals (as your next sentences make it seem like you mean). Israel is obviously militarily more powerful. I also don't treat them as equals when is comes to bearing responsibility for this war. The war would not be taking place if Gazan militants hadn't carried out the atrocities of Oct 7th 2023. The war also wouldn't be endangering as many civilians if Hamas/PIJ/Others didn't embed themselves in civilian populations and conduct this war in civilian garb.

They are evil and there's no point negotiating with them.

What are you trying to say here? It sounds like you think the only option is to completely destroy the organization and all of its members. I think there's a point to negotiating with them. It sounds like they are close to agreeing to a cease fire deal right now.

Whats victory look like? Do they all need to be dead?

You seem to be projecting some strong opinions on me that I do not hold. To me, long term victory looks like a 2 state solution with a highway or some other means between Gaza and the West Bank to make them a contiguous territory that doesn't have to be beholden to Israel for travelling between. Short term victory to my eyes is the destruction of Hamas infrastructure and militants to ensure they cannot conduct another Oct 7th style attack, the return of the hostages, and the PA taking over control of Gaza - along with a significant push from Israel and the world to rebuild.

[-]

i_make_orange_rhyme@reddit

>What are you trying to say here? It sounds like you think the only option is to completely destroy the organization and all of its members.

Do be so delibrately obtuse.

>You should stop stealing land because its immoral to do so. Not because Hamas demands it.

>You should stop stealing land because that is the right thing to do. Regardless of what Hamas does.

>Build your fucking wall and stay safe behind it.

>Stop building settlements. Stop demolishing homes.

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

>What are you trying to say here? It sounds like you think the only option is to completely destroy the organization and all of its members.

Do be so delibrately obtuse.

How do you deal with an evil militant group that you cannot negotiate with? These are your words that I'm trying to understand... not sure how you think I'm being obtuse. If there's a violent militant group that cannot be negotiated with what can be done about it?

This conversation was not about land theft in any significant way... except for you weirdly saying that this war started because of West Bank settlements - which is a fairly whack take.

I will say that Israel should immediately halt any growth of settlements in the West Bank. West Bank settlements are very problematic and should not have been allowed.

[-]

i_make_orange_rhyme@reddit

Same way the rest of the world deals with Hamas.

>This conversation was not about land theft in any significant way... except for you weirdly saying that this war started because of West Bank settlements - which is a fairly whack take.

The land theft is significant because the "rest of the world" ie every UN member state except for USA and israel, recognises it as the largest obstacle to peace.

Even USA was condemning Israels actions early 2023

https://www.state.gov/israeli-settlement-and-outpost-legalization-announcement/

But....They....Did....It...Anyway.

Do you think this makes israel a safer place?

Do you remember the 2023 Israeli judicial reform protests?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform_protests

"....linked the aim of the reform to the expansion of Israeli settlements and further annexation of Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israeli_judicial_reform_protests#/media/File:%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%90%D7%94_%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%93_%D7%94%D7%94%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%94_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98%D7%99%D7%AA,_%D7%A7%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%9F_%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%AA_%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%97%D7%9D_%D7%91%D7%92%D7%99%D7%9F,_4_%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%A5_2023.jpg

Have a look at that crowd.

Seems like even israelis dont support his policies about land theft.

But....They....Did....It...Anyway.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/netanyahus-government-vows-to-expand-west-bank-settlements-annex-occupied-territory

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

Same way the rest of the world deals with Hamas.

What country other than Israel has been attacked by Hamas? Had it's citizens murdered and kidnapped by Hamas? What is this supposed to mean? The rest of the world doesn't deal with Hamas, I suppose you're saying Israel shouldn't deal with Hamas either and just let them do whatever they want...?

But....They....Did....It...Anyway.

Do you think this makes israel a safer place?

Do you remember the 2023 Israeli judicial reform protests?

You are practically incoherent. I said it's a whack take to say that West Bank Settlements started the current war and you respond to that by asking me if Israel is more safe because of them and if I recall judicial reform protests?

Have a look at that crowd.

Seems like even israelis dont support his policies about land theft

I just said I'm also against settlements in the West Bank...? So what are you even trying to argue?

[-]

i_make_orange_rhyme@reddit

> you respond to that by asking me if Israel is more safe because of them and if I recall judicial reform protests?

Yes, im aware of what i asked. What is the point of reminding me of my own question?

At some point did you consider answering the question?

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

Yes, im aware of what i asked. What is the point of reminding me of my own question?

The point of reminding you is because it's incredibly off topic. What was the relevance of bringing up judicial reform? It has practically nothing to do with West Bank settlements nor the war in Gaza. It seems like you just want to talk about every thing you think is bad about Israel.

At some point did you consider answering the question?

Yes! I answered the judicial reform question quite directly. As for if settlements are making Israel more safe, I would say that's a very complicated question to answer and I'm not sure if it or isn't. I would lean toward it not really making much of a difference in terms of Israel's security.

Would you support international weapons aid to palestinians, just like we did in ukraine when Russia invaded because of "historical claims to the land"?

Sure, to the PA in some limited capacity. Not that the situation is particularly analogous between Israel/Palestine and Ukraine/Russia.

What did you mean when you said: "Same way the rest of the world deals with Hamas."?

[-]

i_make_orange_rhyme@reddit

> What was the relevance of bringing up judicial reform? It has practically nothing to do with West Bank settlements nor the war in Gaza.

I even highlighted it for you

"....linked the aim of the reform to the expansion of Israeli settlements and further annexation of Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories."

> I would lean toward it not really making much of a difference in terms of Israel's security.

There we have it.

I strongly disagree.

I thought that if i came and bulldozed your house and kicked you out, you would be mad.

But i guess im wrong. You must be a monk or something.

Surely you can understand that "most people" get mad when their family is killed or home is destroyed.

Can you understand, in principle at least, that there are probably a million palestinians who work boring jobs and literally had no fucking idea oct 7 was going to happen? Because they are getting punished regardless.

If more than 10,000 palestinians were aware than mossad was certainly aware.

https://www.state.gov/joint-statement-of-the-foreign-ministers-of-france-germany-italy-the-united-kingdom-and-the-united-states-on-the-israeli-settlement-announcement/

We strongly oppose these unilateral actions which will only serve to exacerbate tensions between Israelis and Palestinians and undermine efforts to achieve a negotiated two-state solution.

Do you think these foreigh minsters are less informed than you?

Everything is about the land thefts. Everyone has been shouting this at you for decades, you just choose to ignore it.

ie "The UN is just biased..."

>What did you mean when you said: "Same way the rest of the world deals with Hamas."?

Rather than type a few paragraph, ill just say "they punish guilty people for crimes"

Rather than collective punishment and land thefts.

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

I even highlighted it for you

Did you read the part of that Wikipedia page where it tells you that the Judicial Reform was not passed? So how is it having any effect on this conflict and how is it relevant to the discussion?

I strongly disagree.

I thought that if i came and bulldozed your house and kicked you out, you would be mad.

But i guess im wrong.

Surely you can understand that "most people" get mad when their family is killed or home is destroyed.

This doesn't really have much to do with increasing or decreasing Israel's Security which is what you were asking about.

Do you think these foreigh minsters are less informed than you?

I don't think you're even reading my side of the conversation? I already told you I am also against settlement of the West Bank. I agree with the statement of these Foreign Ministers. I think I agree with every single word of that joint statement.

Rather than type a few paragraph, ill just say "they punish guilty people for crimes"

Rather than collective punishment and land thefts.

Who's even attempting to punish Hamas for their crimes? I have no clue what you're talking about. Frankly, I don't think you do either.

[-]

i_make_orange_rhyme@reddit

>This doesn't really have much to do with increasing or decreasing Israel's Security which is what you were asking about.

In your own words, what does "Israel's security" mean to you?

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

Tell me how judicial reform (that has not been passed) is relevant to the discussion and what the heck you meant about how the rest of the world deals with Hamas.

[-]

i_make_orange_rhyme@reddit

>Tell me how judicial reform (that has not been passed) is relevant to the discussion

As i said the judical reforms were deeply unpopular and;

"....linked the aim of the reform to the expansion of Israeli settlements and further annexation of Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories."

I believe this is the 3rd time ive linked this exact sentence. Try reading it out loud this time and maybe it will sink in.

This is relevent because Netyenyahu is doing things (stealing land) that are against the public wishes, against international law, and that deeply hurts israels security.

He is knowingly trading land for israeli lives.

>what does "Israel's security" mean to you?

"Israel's security" refers to the measures and strategies aimed at ensuring the safety, stability, and sovereignty of the state of Israel and its citizens. It encompasses protecting against external threats, such as military aggression or terrorism, and maintaining internal peace by fostering social cohesion and addressing internal challenges. It also involves securing Israel's borders, safeguarding critical infrastructure, and promoting diplomatic relations that contribute to regional stability. Fundamentally, it is about creating an environment where the people of Israel can live free from fear and pursue their aspirations in peace.

Netyenyahus pledge to annex more land was EXTREMELY damaging to israels security.

Unless of course you can do the mental gymnastics to believe that islamic jihadist dont really mind.

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

You've said it 3 times but it still isn't relevant since it obviously hasn't had an effect on any annexations nor settlements seeing as the reform has not happened. The fact that you keep bringing it up and trying to pretend like the attempted judicial reform has done something to change the situation in the West Bank is ridiculous. If anything, the attempt at judicial reform only worked to decrease support for Netanyahu or at least energize the people who are against Netanyahu.

Unless of course you can do the mental gymnastics to believe that islamic jihadist dont really mind.

Honestly, this is a hilarious statement coming from you who wants to make it seem like this is all about West Bank settlements. Islamic Jihadists obviously don't care about this at all. If there were no West Bank settlements, Islamic Jihadists would continue to work towards destroying Israel and killing or subjugating the Jewish people.

[-]

i_make_orange_rhyme@reddit

I tell you what.

Igore the other comments i just made. ( i deleted them)

Instead ask me a question along the lines of "what should happen to hamas" or something like.

And ill tell you my opinion and lets see if you disagree.

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

Why it took place in 2023 since I already wrote my response to your comment:

That's probably the first time they were prepared to conduct such a widescale operation with the resources, training, and support needed for it and they likely wanted to prevent normalization of Israeli relations with Saudi Arabia which appeared to be shortly on the horizon at the time.

Gaza wasn't ruled by terrorists in 1990 so that's pretty simple...

Hamas was likely still recovering from Operation Cast Lead and probably didn't have the resources or the confidence to conduct the operation in 2010.

Probably a multitude of other reasons as well.

If you're going to suggest that it's because of settlements in the West Bank in 2023, it's not as if the settlements hadn't been increasing over the past decades.

Don't want to comment on the Islamic Jihadists that you brought up or how the attempted judicial reform has had no effect at this time on any settlement growth?

Go off on your opinions about Hamas.

[-]

i_make_orange_rhyme@reddit

So we both agree that people who engage in terrorism should be punished to the full extent of the law?

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

Yes.

Now try not to compare military operations that fall within the Laws of Armed Conflict with terrorism.

[-]

i_make_orange_rhyme@reddit

"Millitary operations" that DO comply with LOAC... with international laws, such as the Geneva Conventions...(etc)

I have no issue with.

I dont think you will ever be able to find a quote from me where i have critized israel for something that wasnt illegal.

Ill sweeten the next question to make it easier for you to answer.

"Do you think israel has the right to defend itself, but should do so within the Laws of Armed Conflict"?

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

This is silly. Make a point.

[-]

i_make_orange_rhyme@reddit

Israel should be held accountable for crimes committed

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

Sounds good.

[-]

i_make_orange_rhyme@reddit

Who should hold then accountable?

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

Much like every country in the world, they must hold themselves accountable.

[-]

i_make_orange_rhyme@reddit

So we shouldnt have taken any punitive measures against Russia for invading Ukraine?

Just let Russia "hold themselves accountable"

Doesnt seem like you thought that though at all.

SOUNDS like you just wanted to say "lets not punish israel for their crimes"

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

Just let Russia "hold themselves accountable"

Who is actually holding Russia accountable?

The only country holding Russia accountable appears to be Ukraine. I haven't seen or heard of any other nation doing anything besides some sanctions and sending aid to Ukraine.

Similarly many countries have sanctioned individuals and organizations associated with West Bank settlements and many countries send financial and humanitarian aid to Palestinians.

Doesn't seem like you thought that through at all.

[-]

i_make_orange_rhyme@reddit

>doing anything besides some sanctions and sending aid to Ukraine.

Yea.. They have done nothing. Except of course the billions in millitary equipment, the intellegence sharing, and the embargos placed on Russia....

ie the only reason ukraine hasnt already fallen.

But yea... apart from that...

You live in a world of your own made up fantasy.

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

So the world has held Russia to account eh? Russia who annexed Crimea in 2014 and have been engaging in a full scale war in Ukraine for the past 3 years... Who's holding them accountable? Who's stopping them?

Is providing military equipment (which I acknowledged in my comment) holding Russia accountable? The only people really holding Russia to account (or at least trying to) are the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the Ukrainian people.

You're the one out here seemingly comparing Russia's invasion of Ukraine to settlements in the West Bank...? Do you really find them analogous? They have a lot of significant differences which if you're not living in a world of your own fantasy you would use logic and reason to see.

[-]

i_make_orange_rhyme@reddit

>Islamic Jihadists obviously don't care about this at all

This in not obvious to me, and the volumes of corresponse from hamas...

"we are really mad about this"...says otherwise.

Do you need me to link some evidence that Hamas opposes settlements? Or can you take that at face value?

[-]

i_make_orange_rhyme@reddit

why do you think the oct 7 attacks happened in 2023 and not 1990 or 2010?

[-]

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.

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

I'm still not sure how you're trying to apply this to the situation.

[-]

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.

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

This doesn't feel like a coherent thought to me. What are you trying to say and how does it relate to our conversation?

[-]

FtDetrickVirus@reddit

Israel chose to remain at war, so they don't get to complain when it doesn't go their way.

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

Okay...

I still don't understand what you're trying to say in the context of the earlier conversation, but if we apply your statement here in reverse it just makes for unending war that no one can complain about:

"Hamas (and other Gazan Militants) chooses to remain at war, so they don't get to complain when it doesn't go their way."

[-]

FtDetrickVirus@reddit

Not true, they aren't the ones refusing to define their borders.

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

Still irrelevant to our earlier conversation... But that's true I suppose. They defined their borders as all of Palestine and refuse to compromise or concede any of it to the "Zionist Entity".

[-]

FtDetrickVirus@reddit

That's because Israel occupies all of Palestine, and they have negotiated with Israel to withdraw, but Israel refuses to draw a border, probably because that would defeat the purpose of their conquest.

[-]

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?

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

The partition plan called for consent of all parties

I'd be interested to see evidence if this is true... I'm not so sure that it is. The British were in control of Mandate Palestine and asked the UN to decide what to do with the country. They certainly wanted both the Jews and Arabs to agree to whatever the outcome was, but I don't think they needed Jewish nor Palestinian consent to give the country over to the two new states that would be formed.

so what did Palestinians who already possessed the land need to fight for,

I guess I'm not 100% sure what you mean here, but Palestinians did not already possess the land. The ruling body was the British government who had taken the land from the Ottomans. I'm not sure how many Palestinians owned private property but I don't believe any of them would have had to give up their private property because of the Partition Plan.

[-]

FtDetrickVirus@reddit

It's in the text, and the UN general assembly doesn't have the authority to create any countries, which the British knew, and the British didn't take the land from the Ottomans, the Arabs did. Do you think the British built the Suez canal too?

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

I'm starting to think you're just trolling here...?

Palestinian territories - Timeline - BBC News

Britain conquers Palestine from Ottomans.

History of Israel - Wikipedia

After pushing out the Ottomans, Palestine came under martial law. The British, French and Arab Occupied Enemy Territory Administration governed the area shortly before the armistice with the Ottomans until the promulgation of the mandate in 1920.

Timeline - Palestine Portal

Sykes-Picot Agreement – divides the Ottoman Arab lands into zones exercised by either French or British spheres of influence. Palestine comes under British influence

[-]

FtDetrickVirus@reddit

The BBC is state funded propaganda. Ottomans were defeated by the Arab revolt supported by the British and French, not directly by the British military. The British also promised independence to Arab territories like Palestine in the Husayn McMahon agreement before they abrogated it so they could cleanse Europe of Jews.

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

You seem to be sidestepping the facts and it seems intentional at this point. Did the British take over as the administrators of the land of Palestine after the Ottomans? If you can't acknowledge this, you need to reevaluate your understanding of the region's history.

[-]

FtDetrickVirus@reddit

The British had consent initially because they promised to return the territory, that's what Arabs get for trusting an Anglo though, you'd think they'd learn their lesson by now.

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

So are you agreeing that it was the British in control of the land after the Ottomans...?

[-]

FtDetrickVirus@reddit

No, their control was never legitimate, they stole it

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

You say no and then you clearly say that they were in fact in control of it.

I can't continue talking to you while you contradict yourself and refuse to acknowledge historical reality that literally no one debates.

[-]

FtDetrickVirus@reddit

Well conquest is actually not legitimate, otherwise it's still legal to do things like the Holocaust (Hitler controlled Eastern Europe).

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

LOL. Ok. I cannot continue speaking with you if you think legitimate conquest = the Holocaust is legal.

Also, guess who won the land by conquest prior to the British... The Ottomans.

Who had the land via conquest before them? The Mamluks.

We can do this many many times until we reach a conclusion I don't think you'll be happy with.

I don't think I can continue to speak to you since your grasp of reality seems more loose than I can handle.

[-]

FtDetrickVirus@reddit

Great so then you don't see any problem with Israel being conquered, despite international law after the Holocaust.

[-]

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

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.

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

You engage in a ton of arguments about this conflict but you think everyone agrees with you?

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

what's happening in Gaza right now

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.

[-]

FtDetrickVirus@reddit

They have done no such thing, they cannot agree to something that they refuse to define.

[-]

AntaBatata@reddit

Have you even bothered to click the link?

[-]

FtDetrickVirus@reddit

I don't need to, because Israel has never offered a map of the territory they would accept, thus they have never actually offered a real peace deal.

[-]

AntaBatata@reddit

You don't need to look at evidence provided to you because it goes against your faulty, current world view? Wow, supreme cognitive bias and fixation

[-]

FtDetrickVirus@reddit

Is there a map in there?

[-]

AntaBatata@reddit

Why, are you unable to read text?

[-]

FtDetrickVirus@reddit

No map, no peace offer

[-]

AntaBatata@reddit

Are you mentally incapable? It really looks like so from your comments.

[-]

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

Well, the soldier literally said he believes they acted too quickly.

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!"

[-]

ppp7032@reddit

i personally love echo chambers of those opposed to genocide. im proud to say i live my real life on one <3

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

lol. Cool virtue signal. <3

[-]

ppp7032@reddit

virtue signal is when genocide bad.... noted ☺️

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

Yes, your comment provided no information or relevant points to the discussion and was merely to say how much you dislike genocide. It is the definition of a virtue signal.

[-]

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

[-]

Get_on_base@reddit

U/bot-sleuth-bot

[-]

FacelessMint@reddit

What are you trying to communicate here? Or is this just some sort of spam comment?

[-]

Get_on_base@reddit

That’s a bot.

[-]

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

It's very interesting phrasing.

From the article, or mine?

Israelis shouted at him to stop from a long distance in a language he didn't understand.

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?

Was he approaching them or trying to get away? Did they shoot him in the back?

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?

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?

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

From the article, or mine?

Both.

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?

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.

Would you agree that the language of warning shots at your feet is fairly universal?

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.

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?

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.

What do you think the soldiers should have done in the scenario?

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.

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.

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

You don’t always know where the shots came from

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.

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.

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?

There have been dozens of videos of Palestinians killed by the IDF - some shot in the back - usually without warning.

But in this case he explicitly said that they warned the person both verbally and with warning shots.

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.

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.

The fact that you can’t imagine not killing a Palestinian when the opportunity presents itself is rather a telling giveaway.

Comical Strawman you've put up here.

So you are ok with murdering innocent civilians as long as you warn them you are going to first?

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

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.

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?

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?

It happens all the time. The worst atrocities are always erased promoted the delicate sensibilities of Israel’s frothing defenders.

But in this case he explicitly said that they warned the person both verbally and with warning shots.

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.

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.

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.

Comical Strawman you’ve put up here.

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.

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.

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

So you believe that people always know where the bullets are coming from?

Strawman after strawman. You are an unserious person.

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.

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.

And the victim was a teenager (child?) and was in fact not a terrorist and posed no threat to the IDF who murdered him.

In fact not a terrorist and posed no threat? That's an unfalsifiable claim with no backing.

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?

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.

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.

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

Strawman after strawman. You are an unserious person.

You initially said this:

When people are shouting at you and intentionally firing warning shots at you do you think they are hiding their position?

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?

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.

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.

In fact not a terrorist and posed no threat? That's an unfalsifiable claim with no backing.

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.

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.

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.

Clearly not something we absolutely know....

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 people are shouting at you and intentionally firing warning shots at you do you think they are hiding their position?

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.

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

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.

You have no evidence he was a terrorist

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.

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?

How can you not see the difference...? I am not asserting this with 100% confidence like you are.

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.

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.

You are attempting to say that this is justified in this case based on things that you have no evidence of.

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

Allah Akbar. God is great. But also the last two words any Israeli wants to hear on a bus

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

Okay, that's not what was described in this instance by this soldier recounting what he saw in Gaza.

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 hard for everyone that's responded to my comment to discuss this?

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

Why is it so hard for you to confront that Israel may be acting immorally here?

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.

But it's a strawman argument to pretend this is all there is to say about this incident.

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.

[-]

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.

[-]

TutsiRoach@reddit

I don't, id much rather spend some time in prison than have the faces of the people i had killed ingrained i to my eyes so i can see them every night when i close my eyes.

To be able to tell people out in the world openly where i was while the massacres were occurring. Safe in the knowledge that no-one would be able to thibk i was part of it.

Ask any middle aged south african what they were doing in the worst years and they were all "good people apposed to the way the blacks were being treated" so everyone looks at the sideways knowing theres a 90+% chance they are lieing, and even if their in the ~5% who cared they were still benefiting from the status quo.

Meet a South african who was imprisoned for activism and you know what side of the fence they were on for sure.

I'd be clambering for a cell right now, most of their classmates will be pariahs for the rest of their lives after this

[-]

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."

[-]

KalaiProvenheim@reddit

In Israel, you are locked up for renewable 30 day sentences until you yield, and are branded a traitor by society for refusing if you keep at it

[-]

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...

[-]

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.

[-]

l339@reddit

I’m not entertaining your bullshit further, just Google it and it really isn’t hard

[-]

Sin317@reddit

So, no, then?

[-]

WistopherWalken@reddit

It's just a fact that it takes far more effort to engage with someone being obstinate in bad faith than it does to simply be a POS who selectively ignores widely reported information.

[-]

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.

The Chamber also found reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gallant each bear criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.

[-]

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.

[-]

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.

[-]

-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

Do you want me to tell you how to enact apartheid in the West Bank?

Yes. You are sure that it’s no apartheid, tell us how Israel can institute apartheid there.

The stupidity of that question aside, you do know that the West Bank is administered by the Paleatinian Authority, right?

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

There is no apartheid in Israel

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.

[-]

binary_blackhole@reddit

The bar is really low I must say, if refusing to kill children makes you a hero then I don’t know what to say really…

[-]

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.

[-]

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

[-]

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;

In terms of its territorial scope, question (a) refers to “the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967”, which encompasses the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. The Court notes that the various United Nations organs and bodies frequently make specific reference to the different parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court also does so in the present Advisory Opinion, as appropriate. However, the Court recalls that, from a legal standpoint, the Occupied Palestinian Territory constitutes a single territorial unit, the unity, contiguity and integrity of which is to be preserved and respected. Thus, all references in this Opinion to the Occupied Palestinian Territory are references to this single territorial unit.

Based on the information before it, the Court considers that Israel remained capable of exercising, and continued to exercise, certain key elements of authority over the Gaza Strip, including control of the land, sea and air borders, restrictions on movement of people and goods, collection of import and export taxes, and military control over the buffer zone, despite the withdrawal of its military presence in 2005. This is even more so since 7 October 2023. In light of the above, the Court is of the view that Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has not entirely released it of its obligations under the law of occupation. Israel’s obligations have remained commensurate with the degree of its effective control over the Gaza Strip.

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.

In August and September 2005, Israel unilaterally withdrew approximately eight thousand settlers, along with military personnel and installations, from the Gaza Strip and four small settlements in the northern West Bank near Jenin. While Israel has since declared the Gaza Strip a “foreign territory” and the crossings between Gaza and Israel “international borders,” under international humanitarian law (IHL), Gaza remains occupied, and Israel retains its responsibilities for the welfare of Gaza residents. Israel maintains effective control over Gaza by regulating movement in and out of the Strip as well as the airspace, sea space, public utilities and population registry. In addition, Israel declared the right to re-enter Gaza militarily at any time in its “Disengagement Plan. Since the withdrawal, Israel has carried out aerial bombardments, including targeted killings, and has fired artillery into the northeastern corner of Gaza.

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.

[-]

rowida_00@reddit

Like agreeing to a ceasefire, planning a withdrawal of troops and not “removing Hamas from power entirely”?

[-]

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.

[-]

AgileCaregiver7300@reddit

Thats true, elect isis level terrorists like hamas who start mass murdering and raping, and well, the results won't be good.

[-]

Private_HughMan@reddit

WHich is why you should do what Israel does: elect terrorists MUCH worse and more powerful than ISIS to do all of the war crimes. Then the results will be good because everyone else is too dead to stop you.

[-]

AgileCaregiver7300@reddit

Sorry bud, they're doing an amazing job shitstomping terrorists just like the allies shitstomped Hitler. In fact the ratio of civilians killed is 1/6 of WW2, so they're doing an amazing job

Which is why the world continues to ship them weapons and maintain good diplomatic relations

[-]

Private_HughMan@reddit

Congrats on the terrorists you support killing the terrorists you don't support. I guess this means that they're the good guys. Nevermind the apartheid and non-stop ethnic cleansing they've been doing for decades, or the numerous calls for genocide coming from the ruling party in just the past few months. Might makes right in your eyes.

Which is why the world continues to ship them weapons and maintain good diplomatic relations

You're delusional. Nations ship them weapons because they're a strategic ally in the Middle East. It has nothing to do with a moral stance. A country giving you a tank doesn't make you the good guy. It just makes you a guy with a tank.

[-]

AgileCaregiver7300@reddit

Funny how you're supporting the actual genociders who killed and mass raped every person they could find on 10/7 including children. Whereas less than 2% gazans are dead half soldiers.

Supporting hamas who killed 100% of everyone they found vs the IDF < 2%. So hilarious, which is why the world laughs at you and your protests.

Oh wait pro hamas protests are dead and non-existent now. Maybe you've learned your place?

[-]

Private_HughMan@reddit

Sorry, it's hard to hear you over Israel ethnically cleansing the West Bank and torching Palestinian homes while the IDF stands by and watches. I'm also distracted by the IDF pouring concrete into their wells and streams to kill off their farming communities, intentionally setting fields ablaze, and arresting people for collecting rain water. Did you know that was a crime in the West Bank? Palestinians are not allowed to collect rain water. According to them, all the water that falls from the sky is Israel's.

Oops, sorry again. Was distracted by their national security minister leading a march through occupied Jerusalem while chanting "death to Arabs." Such a peaceful nation! No wonder those Palestinian civilians volunteer to be tied up and walked at gunpoint to trigger any boobytraps ahead of IDF soldiers. Only Hamas uses human shields. THe IDF gets around that because they don't consider Palestinians to be humans.

Supporting hamas who killed 100% of everyone they found vs the IDF < 2%. So hilarious, which is why the world laughs at you and your protests.

This is such a stupid statement that I can't believe you said it. "Hamas killed 100% of the people they found" so long as you exclude all the people who escaped and the people they didn't kill and the hostages. There were a LOT of survivors considering that you just told me that they're dead. Do the survivors know Hamas killed them? Or are the people only "found" when Hamas kills them? Pathetic.

Maybe you've learned your place?

Ah, the fascist dogwhistle. Shut up. You're every bit as genocidal as the monsters you complain about. Possibly moreso. You just hide it behind your nation's money and high-tech WMDs.

[-]

AgileCaregiver7300@reddit

"Hamas killed 100% of the people they found" so long as you exclude all the people who escaped

Hahahaha so they killed and raped and took hostages of everyone they could catch eh? How vile do you have to be to support these vile inhuman scum. See this is why everyone hates hamas protestors and your protest are dead all over the world.

Enjoy watching the idf carve up gaza towards fighting these monstrous genocidal terrorist rapists, maybe they'll will learn not to repeat 10/7!

[-]

Private_HughMan@reddit

Hahahaha so they killed and raped and took hostages of everyone they could catch eh?

No, they didn't. And I do love how quickly you walk back your claim that they killed 100% of the people they encounter. It was too stupid for even you to stand by.

How vile do you have to be to support these vile inhuman scum

I dunno. I don't support Hamas but you support the IDF. You should ask yourself how you can support such vile scum.

See this is why everyone hates hamas protestors and your protests are dead all over the world.

There are still protests, you cabbage. In my own city of Toronto there was a massive protest of thousands of people just in November. There was another huge protest here in October. They're still ongoing.

And we're not Hamas protestors. Unlike you, we don't cheer for terrorism. And certainly not with the unrestrained bloodlust you've been showcasing without a hint of shame. We want Palestinians to be free.

Thanks for your taxpayer donations as the IDF carves up gaza towards fighting these monstrous genocidal terrorist rapists, maybe they'll will learn not to repeat 10/7!

While you cheer on Israel doing far worse for decades on end. Vile, inhumane scum, indeed.

BTW, thanks for not denying any of the verifiable acts of terrorism that I listed the IDF doing. Good to know you aren't willing to deny everything. You seem to accept the IDF does it. You just also like it. You like that the they suffer. You're a sad person. And I can already hear you typing away your response. Something along the lines of "The IDF will destroy every last one of your terrorist buddies," or some other violence-worshipping rhetoric you've been saying for the past few hours. That's because you don't see right and wrong. You see winners and losers. And so long as your side is killing more people, you think they're the good guys.

Enjoy your genocide. Though I don't gotta tell you that. You're clearly having a ball.

[-]

AgileCaregiver7300@reddit

So why do you support the mass murder and rape of civilians and kids? Does it bring you joy to support their genocide?

Do you hate jews that much you want them gone, just like Hitler did?

[-]

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

[-]

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

[-]

AgileCaregiver7300@reddit

No need, the war against terror is going very well anyway.

[-]

buylowselllower420@reddit

the war against terror(children), so scary

[-]

Private_HughMan@reddit

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.

Certainly genocide-adjacent, at least. But the apologists will not care.

[-]

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

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.

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

I just can’t believe that this many people in the IDF did

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.

[-]

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

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.

[-]

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.

[-]

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?

[-]

AnoniMiner@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?

The more you talk the more you prove how dumb you are. So thank you for that u/Siman421.

There was no ruling because it would be difficult to establish it is a genocide. That much your minor brain should agree with. So yes, we cannot legally state, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is a genocide right now. Two comments, and here you may want to switch your brain in turbo mode:

You can likewise not say there is no genocide.
In the future this very issue may well be revisited, if/when more evidence emerges; and boy is there plenty of evidence being dutifully collected.

Israel today is not guilty of genocide much like OJ Simpson was innocent.

How daft are you?

[-]

Siman421@reddit

Until proven guilty, you are by definition innocent. I did not say you can never say there is a genocide. I have even stated in other comments that if there is a ruling, I will not argue with people saying it is one. You just can't currently state there is one.

You can say there isn't, since law doesn't work by assumption of guilt, guilt must be proven. Or is this too hard to grasp?

[-]

AnoniMiner@reddit

You just can't currently state there is one.

Yes you can. You absolutely can. What you cannot say is that there's overwhelming evidence that would have a court proclaim there is. This is very different.

I steal something but nobody sees or can convincingly prove that I did steal. Does that make me not a thief?

You can say there isn't

You cannot say that. Toy can say that we don't have enough evidence to firmly prove there is, but once again to my stealing example above, it doesn't mean there isn't. OJ Simpson once again.

Nobody could prove, and this is not a hypothetical but a real life example, that Al Capone was a mob boss criminal. Everyone knew he was, and a murderer, but nobody could prove it. That's why he got convicted for tax evasion. Does that make him NOT a murderer?

Is this really that hard to grasp?

[-]

Siman421@reddit

if there isnt evidence that a court can then say that something is proven, then there isnt enough evidence to prove it, and if its not proven, you cant say its correct.

I steal something but nobody sees or can convincingly prove that I did steal. Does that make me not a thief? - until someone proves it, they cant. thats how law works. you really dont know do you?

no evidence to prove there is, by way of the court working on innocent until proven guilty, means by definition you are innocent of the accused crime until proven otherwise, and therefore can say its not happening.

you lack basic logical understanding of cause and effect in matters of law.

if no one could prove al capone was a murderer, than you can claim he wasnt, and cant be proven incorrect. it means you cant say he was, since you cant prove it.

you cant say 1+1=3 since you cant prove it.

you can say 1+1=0 (mod 2) since you can prove it.

thats how proof works. its not hard.

[-]

AnoniMiner@reddit

You are seriously challenged in understanding reality.

I am fully aware of "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt". The difference appears to be that you don't seem to be able to understand "doing something" vs "claiming something". And you clearly are on slippery slope when I put forward the example of me stealing, and need to resort to verbal acrobatics.

That you are not charged under the law doesn't mean you didn't do it. This is so self evident that you really need to middle of the curve hard core to not get it.

Another example. If Epstein stopped with his debauchery some 10 years ago he would never had been convicted or jailed. Yet we know that he did a ton of disgusting stuff way before then. We just couldn't prove it "beyond reasonable doubt".

And that doesn't even start getting into the, unfortunate, reality of political corruption. Epstein would have been a free man because of his many high up connections, had he not gone so iver board it was just impossible to protect him.

You again demonstrate such a middle of the curve understanding of "beyond reasonable doubt" it beggars belief. Just for your own understanding, prosecutors strategize about the best time to bring a case to court, and also what exactly to charge someone with, precisely so they can present a case strong enough to be "beyond reasonable doubt". That means that between the time they have evidence on something, like Capone being a murderer, and the moment they actually bring charges against him there could be a lot of time passing. It may also never happen! But that's not because he didn't do it, but because they didn't have proof "beyond reasonable doubt" AND because of political corruption. Hence ultimately they ended up jailing him for tax evasion.

So let's go back to our favorite genocidal country. That judges didn't want to go ahead absolutely doesn't necessarily mean no genocide happened. It may very well be a coordinated discussion whereby the prosecutors have been told the evidence doesn't necessarily make an iron clad case. In other words, go back to the drawing board and strengthen your case further.

If a court doesn't convict you it just means you can "claim" to be innocent and walk freely. It doesn't mean you are innocent. You will walk like a free man, that's a hard fact. This is just a feature, or bug, depending on how you look at it, of our legal system. In other words, and using simple examples that even someone like you should understand, under our legal system we have "unpunished crimes" (you did it but did not get convicted) as well as the reverse "punishment for no crime" (you didn't do it but got punished anyway). I'm willing to bet money you can provide examples for both cases, and yet you'll choose to do more acrobatics to try to somehow argue that the middle eastern genocidals are not, in fact, genocidals because no court has finally closed this horrendous chapter.

Ask yourself what would you have thought of the Nazi genocide when it was happening. Not after Nuremberg, as it was happening. "They're innocent, because no court has proclaimed they did in fact commit genocide".

Go to bed tonight and try to square your genocidal apologism in your head, if you can.

[-]

Siman421@reddit

If you don't know, and have no proof, you can't claim someone is guilty. Thats why the Nuremberg trials were so important. They provided the indisputable proof.

I didn't say someone did or didn't do it. I'm simply saying you can't claim they did.

You not doing, and people not being able to claim you did aren't the same. I'm sure you know that. Since you aren't the perpetrator in this case, you can't claim the perpetrator is guilty.

I'm not claiming people are or aren't genocidal, I'm simply saying that due to how law works, you can't claim they are, and since guilt must be proven, the assumption of innocence is at play, so you can claim they didn't , until proven otherwise.

You seem to not like it, but you even admit this is how courts work

There are easy examples for both cases- trump being guilty but not punished, and multiple deaths row inmates being innocent and killed anyway.

If you don't like how the law works, work to change it. Until then, the nuances of law agree with my take.

What I think is irrelevant, I'm saying what you can claim. Claim it as an opinion, in an obvious matter, and I can't argue. Claim it as a fact, the way you have, and youll be wrong (since until proven, it is not a fact)

You can think it's a genocide, you can't claim it's a genocide.

Understand the difference?

Even about Epstein, no proof means no claims. Have an opinion, and state your opinion as an opinion, and you won't have a problem (I'm sure you've heard of liable) .

The problem is you claiming things in a matter that can be construed as fact.

[-]

FudgeAtron@reddit

Convicting the jew is more important than the truth it seems

[-]

AnoniMiner@reddit

Don't throw Jews under the bus, that's despicable. The accusation is straight at Zionists and their (your?) genocidal actions. Zionists are Jews only incidentally, much like Nazis were Christians.

Stop playing victims, you (Zionists) are the perpetrators of genocide. Not the victims. Pretty much all actual Jews wholly agree with this.

[-]

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.

[-]

cesaroncalves@reddit

Still hitting that nail I see, and still getting corrected by others.

Are you doing the "repeat a lie enough times"?

[-]

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.

[-]

themightycatp00@reddit

Seven soldiers who’ve refused to continue fighting in Gaza spoke with AP

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

Soon Inshallah.

It's funny cause when an Arab says in inshallah it means its not happening.

Ummi can we get ice cream? Inshallah

[-]

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

Some Israeli soldiers refuse to keep fighting in Gaza

JERUSALEM (AP) — Yotam Vilk says the image of Israeli soldiers killing an unarmed Palestinian teenager in the Gaza Strip is seared in his mind.

An officer in the armored corps, Vilk said the instructions were to shoot any unauthorized person who entered an Israeli-controlled buffer zone in Gaza. He saw at least 12 people killed, he said, but it is the shooting of the teen that he can’t shake.

“He died as part of a bigger story. As part of the policy of staying there and not seeing Palestinians as people,” Vilk, 28, told The Associated Press.
       [Image](https://dims.apnews.com/dims4/default/964a465/2147483647/strip/true/crop/8640x5760+0+0/resize/599x399!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews.com%2F2f%2F8b%2F801b08ed1a63f1e62b9d964ed823%2F460e6c62ed7643f0b396d0f203e76d27) Yotam Vilk, who served in an armored unit in the Gaza Strip and is now one of a growing number of Israeli soldiers speaking out against the 15-month conflict, poses for a portrait in Tel Aviv, Israel, on Friday, Jan. 10, 2025. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)
Yotam Vilk, who served in an armored unit in the Gaza Strip and is now one of a growing number of Israeli soldiers speaking out against the 15-month conflict, poses for a portrait in Tel Aviv, Israel, on Friday, Jan. 10, 2025. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)

Vilk is among a growing number of Israeli soldiers speaking out against the 15-month conflict and refusing to serve anymore, saying they saw or did things that crossed ethical lines. While the movement is small — some 200 soldiers signed a letter saying they’d stop fighting if the government didn’t secure a ceasefire — soldiers say it’s the tip of the iceberg and they want others to come forward.

Their refusal comes at a time of mounting pressure on Israel and Hamas to wind down the fighting. Ceasefire talks are underway, and both President Joe Biden and President-elect Donald Trump have called for a deal by the Jan. 20 inauguration.

Seven soldiers who’ve refused to continue fighting in Gaza spoke with AP, describing how Palestinians were indiscriminately killed and houses destroyed. Several said they were ordered to burn or demolish homes that posed no threat, and they saw soldiers loot and vandalize residences.
     [Image](https://dims.apnews.com/dims4/default/48c372a/2147483647/strip/true/crop/1712x2288+0+0/resize/599x801!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews.com%2Fc4%2F7b%2F127ec21742e207f6d5f52d733cb0%2F25e9e260a2564920a9af99423a5c4364) Israeli graffiti is seen on the walls of Palestinians’ houses in Khan Younis, Gaza Strip, in Dec. 2023. (Yuval Green via AP)
Israeli graffiti is seen on the walls of Palestinians’ houses in Khan Younis, Gaza Strip, in Dec. 2023. (Yuval Green via AP)

Soldiers are required to steer clear of politics, and they rarely speak out against the army. After Hamas stormed into Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, Israel quickly united behind the war launched against the militant group. Divisions here have grown as the war progresses, but most criticism has focused on the mounting number of soldiers killed and the failure to bring home hostages, not actions in Gaza.

International rights groups have accused Israel of war crimes and genocide in Gaza. The International Court of Justice is investigating genocide allegations filed by South Africa. The International Criminal Court is seeking the arrests of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant.

Israel adamantly rejects genocide allegations and says it takes extraordinary measures to minimize civilian harm in Gaza. The army says it never intentionally targets civilians, and investigates and punishes cases of suspected wrongdoing. But rights groups have long said the army does a poor job of investigating itself.

The army told AP it condemns the refusal to serve and takes any call for refusal seriously, with each case examined individually. Soldiers can go to jail for refusing to serve, but none who signed the letter has been detained, according to those who organized the signatures.
       [Image](https://dims.apnews.com/dims4/default/997c13f/2147483647/strip/true/crop/8640x5760+0+0/resize/599x399!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews.com%2F32%2Fd7%2F3f0e6da81692aaff65c5bb5062d9%2F7154be512f544365b0d5670d3bab7426) Yotam Vilk shows a photo of himself on the Israel-Gaza border during army reserve duty before he joined a growing number of Israeli soldiers speaking out against the 15-month conflict and refusing to continue fighting, at home in Tel Aviv, Israel, on Friday, Jan. 10, 2025. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)
Yotam Vilk shows a photo of himself on the Israel-Gaza border during army reserve duty before he joined a growing number of Israeli soldiers speaking out against the 15-month conflict and refusing to continue fighting, at home in Tel Aviv, Israel, on Friday, Jan. 10, 2025. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)

Soldiers’ reactions in Gaza

When Vilk entered Gaza in November 2023, he said, he thought the initial use of force might bring both sides to the table. But as the war dragged on, he said he saw the value of human life disintegrate.

On the day the Palestinian teenager was killed last August, he said, Israeli troops shouted at him to stop and fired warning shots at his feet, but he kept moving. He said others were also killed walking into the buffer zone — the Netzarim Corridor, a road dividing northern and southern Gaza.

Vilk acknowledged it was hard to determine whether people were armed, but said he believes soldiers acted too quickly.

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.

Some soldiers told AP it took time to digest what they saw in Gaza. Others said they became so enraged they decided they’d stop serving almost immediately.
       [Image](https://dims.apnews.com/dims4/default/e038d7d/2147483647/strip/true/crop/8640x5760+0+0/resize/599x399!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews.com%2Ff1%2Ff5%2F51b66e963f4bcdaaffd0dad3eb51%2Fb44e36f930d94b8499f8be45006395b0) Yuval Green, a medic who abandoned his post on reserve duty with the army last January after spending nearly two months in the Gaza Strip, poses for a portrait in Jerusalem, on Thursday, Jan. 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)
(continues in next comment)

[-]

empleadoEstatalBot@reddit

Yuval Green, a medic who abandoned his post on reserve duty with the army last January after spending nearly two months in the Gaza Strip, poses for a portrait in Jerusalem, on Thursday, Jan. 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)

Yuval Green, a 27-year-old medic, described abandoning his post last January after spending nearly two months in Gaza, unable to live with what he’d seen.

He said soldiers desecrated homes, using black markers meant for medical emergencies to scribble graffiti, and looted homes, looking for prayer beads to collect as souvenirs.

The final straw, he said, was his commander ordering troops to burn down a house, saying he didn’t want Hamas to be able to use it. Green said he sat in a military vehicle, choking on fumes amid the smell of burning plastic. He found the fire vindictive — he said he saw no reason to take more from Palestinians than they’d already lost. He left his unit before their mission was complete.

Green said he understands Israeli anger over Oct. 7 but hopes his act of refusal encourages all sides to break the cycle of violence.
       [Image](https://dims.apnews.com/dims4/default/df65a12/2147483647/strip/true/crop/5616x3744+0+0/resize/599x399!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews.com%2Ff5%2F59%2Fed84aa3210ba62fb9bdce462eaa1%2F08587002f0f945029e36ed916bc24cc4) Yuval Green, center, and Yotam Vilk, left, take part in a panel discussion for soldiers refusing to serve in the Gaza Strip, in Tel Aviv, Israel, on Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2025. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)
Yuval Green, center, and Yotam Vilk, left, take part in a panel discussion for soldiers refusing to serve in the Gaza Strip, in Tel Aviv, Israel, on Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2025. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)

The soldiers’ refusal as an act of protest

Soldiers for the Hostages — the group behind the letter troops signed — is trying to garner momentum, holding an event this month in Tel Aviv and gathering more signatures. A panel of soldiers spoke about what they’d seen in Gaza. Organizers distributed poster-size stickers with a Martin Luther King Jr. quote: “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

Max Kresch, an organizer, said soldiers can use their positions to create change. “We need to use our voice to speak up in the face of injustice, even if that is unpopular,” he said.

But some who fought and lost colleagues call the movement a slap in the face. More than 830 Israeli soldiers have been killed in the war, according to the army.
       [Image](https://dims.apnews.com/dims4/default/3328a62/2147483647/strip/true/crop/8640x5760+0+0/resize/599x399!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews.com%2F03%2F1f%2F587e4ae27f437d0e60733a7e6056%2F3ba63c088c03498cbc13a0b1afd2e999) Max Kresch, an army reserve medic who has joined a growing number of Israeli soldiers speaking out against the 15-month conflict in the Gaza Strip and are refusing to continue fighting, poses for a portrait in Jerusalem on Thursday, Jan. 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)
Max Kresch, an army reserve medic who has joined a growing number of Israeli soldiers speaking out against the 15-month conflict in the Gaza Strip and are refusing to continue fighting, poses for a portrait in Jerusalem on Thursday, Jan. 9, 2025. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)

“They are harming our ability to defend ourselves,” said Gilad Segal, a 42-year-old paratrooper who spent two months in Gaza at the end of 2023. He said everything the army did was necessary, including the flattening of houses used as Hamas hideouts. It’s not a soldier’s place to agree or disagree with the government, he argued.

Ishai Menuchin, spokesperson for Yesh Gvul, a movement for soldiers refusing to serve, said he works with more than 80 soldiers who have refused to fight and that there are hundreds more who feel similarly but remain silent.
       [Image](https://dims.apnews.com/dims4/default/451a0eb/2147483647/strip/true/crop/8192x5464+0+0/resize/599x400!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews.com%2Fe0%2F7e%2Fdb1ba9edd603b19fde8712b5e52d%2F855993aff5eb4ae9b0ee054eaa42e6ad) Israeli soldiers stand by a truck packed with bound and blindfolded Palestinian detainees in Gaza, on Dec. 8, 2023. (AP Photo/Moti Milrod, Haaretz, File)
Israeli soldiers stand by a truck packed with bound and blindfolded Palestinian detainees in Gaza, on Dec. 8, 2023. (AP Photo/Moti Milrod, Haaretz, File)

Effects on soldiers

Some of the soldiers who spoke to AP said they feel conflicted and regretful, and they’re talking to friends and relatives about what they saw to process it.

Many soldiers suffer from “moral injury,” said Tuly Flint, a trauma therapy specialist who’s counseled hundreds of them during the war. It’s a response when people see or do something that goes against their beliefs, he said, and it can result in a lack of sleep, flashbacks and feelings of unworthiness. Talking about it and trying to spark change can help, Flint said.

One former infantry soldier told AP about his feelings of guilt — he said he saw about 15 buildings burned down unnecessarily during a two-week stint in late 2023. He said that if he could do it all over again, he wouldn’t have fought.

“I didn’t light the match, but I stood guard outside the house. I participated in war crimes,” said the soldier, speaking on condition of anonymity over fears of retaliation. “I’m so sorry for what we’ve done.”
       [Image](https://dims.apnews.com/dims4/default/d7fcee0/2147483647/strip/true/crop/2288x1712+0+0/resize/599x448!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.apnews.com%2F87%2F2a%2Fea35922987143d3975f45992d165%2F5f05596213c84c4aa0c117b84785d663) Israeli graffiti is seen on the walls of Palestinians’ houses in Khan Younis, Gaza Strip, in Dec. 2023. (Yuval Green via AP)
Israeli graffiti is seen on the walls of Palestinians’ houses in Khan Younis, Gaza Strip, in Dec. 2023. (Yuval Green via AP)

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.