Rendered at 23:49:17 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
softwaredoug 1 days ago [-]
FWIW, Naza appears to be a fairly in depth documentary where Israeli soldiers give detailed accounts on how the Gaza war worked from the inside, including expansive targets, and well known high civilian death toll.
lopsotronic 1 days ago [-]
The immediate response to the 10/7 infiltration attack was extremely lethal to Israelis as well, something not well covered outside of Israeli media.
28 helicopters emptied their internal stores of 30mm autocannon and Hellfires that day, with many RTB to rearm/refuel, all of them at dense Israeli territory. Seven of them dumped their entire stores into Moshav Tkuma. To this day all deaths there are tallied to the infiltrators, with the exception of Efrat Katz. Rapid bulldozer burial of damaged vehicles and buildings was also performed, as the damage from those weapons is very distinctive. Not a gesture of honesty, that.
Tanks were also instructed to fire their main armament into houses known to have civilians inside. Israeli corpses were, again, tallied to infiltrators; any non-Israeli corpses tallied as hostile.
Pilots, soldiers, tankists, and UAS operators all asked over the radio for targets that day, but were simply directed to apply maximal fires to anything that moved in a Palestinian-like way. Hannibal was cited as justification. The Israeli Hannibal operational order, which directs the use of force to prevent soldiers being taken into captivity, was apparently being cited over the air to justify the deaths of civilians. An extreme distortion, but one which Israelis are increasingly making their peace with, alongside many others.
This is a conspiracy that has next to no evidence to support its claims. Judging by your usage of extremely lethal im going to guess you think a significant % of the deaths that day were friendly fire. IDF have addressed both the friendly fire instances and the deaths were 14
lopsotronic 6 hours ago [-]
Today I learned that "extremely lethal" has an alternative meaning of "composing the majority". Did not know that.
dingaling911 20 hours ago [-]
Brother, it's literally from their own news.
AuthAuth 19 hours ago [-]
The conspiracy is lying and that it was more than it actually was to downplay the hamas deaths. Re-read the comment I replied two and look at the way its worded "The immediate response to the 10/7 infiltration attack was extremely lethal to Israelis as well", "28 helicopters emptied their internal stores of 30mm autocannon and Hellfires that day, with many RTB to rearm/refuel, all of them at dense Israeli territory Seven of them dumped their entire stores into Moshav Tkuma." there was 1 death by helicopter when a hamas truck was shot and there was an isreali hostage inside unknown to the pilot. There is no evidence to support the conspiracy that they were mag dumping everything that moved.
"Tanks were also instructed to fire their main armament into houses known to have civilians inside. Israeli corpses were, again, tallied to infiltrators; any non-Israeli corpses tallied as hostile.". There is no evidence they were instructed to do this and there is only one instance of tank fire killing isreali's and it was due to unknown hostages inside the house.
The entire response was within reason for what you'd expect but the iran propaganda network works hard to spin the narrative and create doubt and weave conspiracy.
dingaling911 19 hours ago [-]
So the conspiracy is that Israel killed its own people, but in a different way than the person said.
AuthAuth 2 hours ago [-]
The conspiracy is that a significant portion of deaths were from the idf and the language they used aligns with that conspiracy.
These supports my argument more than yours. You are posting confirmation of what im saying and articles that are speculation and out of context quotes or complete rejections of the claims you are making.
monideas 24 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
monideas 1 days ago [-]
My understanding is that no Israeli soldier went on record, it’s all anonymous testimonies. If these were true allegations it’s understandable why they would want to be anonymous, but obviously the Israeli government is going to figure out who was in this documentary, so it would have been more logical for them to just go on the record if these allegations were true.
iainmerrick 15 hours ago [-]
Okay, one viewpoint is that it's broadly true, maybe with some exaggeration by the filmmakers and/or interviewees. It's very understandable that soldiers would want to stay anonymous in that version.
I don't think many people would buy your "more logical for them to just go on the record" claim -- in this situation, people are scared! And they have conflicted loyalties as well. They want to blow the whistle, but don't necessarily want to directly accuse their immediate colleagues to their faces.
Another viewpoint is that it's partly true but misleading -- the filmmakers and whistleblowers have blown things entirely out of proportion. That sounds entirely possible. But wouldn't the "logical" response then be more transparency, rather than accusations of treason and a witch-hunt for the collaborators?
And another viewpoint is that it's all completely fabricated, malicious lies. Possibly an extreme crackdown might be an appropriate response in that case? That seems very counter-productive to me, as an outsider, but again cold logic doesn't always apply.
Which of those viewpoints do you find yourself agreeing with?
To me, the broadly true one seems most likely from the available evidence; the hiding of evidence and the attempted crackdown support that one too. It also seems like some people genuinely believe (or pretend to themselves) that it's all malicious lies. To me that smacks of sheer paranoia. Understandable after the October 7 attack, sure, but not rational or productive.
monideas 14 hours ago [-]
My sense given what I’ve read is that it’s partly true but misleading (and there’s probably some outright lies). But even the idea of “misleading” is very difficult to define because we’re talking about moral judgments about how to conduct war.
For example, apparently in the film they recount a NAZA that was done for strikes to assassinate Hamas leaders in Gaza (NAZA is an acronym in Hebrew that means “collateral damage assessment”, these are done before all strikes in order to assess potential civilian casualties). In this particular case, the strike was planned to kill the Hamas leaders in their homes at night which would likely also kill their families, as opposed to some other time to kill them which would have more or less or different civilian casualties.
So in my opinion there is no issue with killing Hamas leaders in Gaza in their homes even if their families would also die but this may offend western sensibilities for various reasons including perhaps blanket opposition to killing or military conduct at all. But then again Western sensibilities have produced Western societies which have below replacement birth rates and various other social ills which Israelis cannot even conceive of because those issues do not exist in Israel. Jewish teenagers do not go and shoot up their schools, that is something only Arab terrorists do and the reason they do that is very obvious, as are the ways of preventing that.
In the most charitable interpretation, the filmmakers chose to make this film as Western liberals trying to influence the Israeli government to adopt more Western liberal values and approaches to conducting warfare. This is still traitorous conduct since they are aligned with a foreign ideology and interests who seek to do harm against their own state and their own people.
iainmerrick 10 hours ago [-]
You're hanging a lot of weight on birth rates to assert that they are wrong and therefore we are right. A birth rate above replacement isn't endlessly sustainable either, right?
And "the west" isn't really homogenous for these purposes. Most western countries don't have a school shootings problem, only the USA does. The parts of the west most heavily criticising Israel are not the USA, it's places like Spain and Ireland (both of which have interesting historical parallels!) I think the USA has a higher birth rate than the EU, so maybe you'd prefer them on that basis, but then you don't want school shootings, so maybe you prefer the EU. You can probably find a reason to dislike everyone if that's what you want to do.
In the most charitable interpretation, the filmmakers chose to make this film as Western liberals trying to influence the Israeli government to adopt more Western liberal values
That's hardly the most charitable interpretation! Maybe they're trying to influence Israeli citizens, or maybe they're trying to influence Zionists abroad? There's no need to assume some insidious outsider conspiracy.
Surely people are allowed to disagree non-violently with their current government! If that's the kind of "foreign ideology" that you're dismissing out of hand, well, that certainly clarifies things.
My point about the birth rates is that you need to treat all Western sensibilities as suspect given that they have led to non-viable societies. It doesn’t necessarily mean that every Western sensibility is wrong but that you have to essentially dismiss them all.
On one hand we have a functional society that is growing in wealth and also in population due to native born citizens meeting, getting married, having children.
On the other hand you have stagnant or declining societies (in real GDP terms) where people are not meeting, not getting married, not having children.
The school shootings is just one social ill I bring up, in Europe you have an issue with mass migration and Muslims engaging in mass sex crimes against children. I could go on about others (suicide rates, drug use rates, migration of young native people to other countries).
Does that make sense?
I never claimed there was an insidious outsider conspiracy although of course there is verified flows of foreign money from governments and NGOs to fund leftist causes and groups within Israel. You can look this up yourself, there are ongoing investigations in Congress as far as US moneys are concerned.
In this case I doubt that had much to do with it.
Israelis are well known for disagreeing with their government. This obviously goes beyond disagreement and into traitorous activity and it’s being treated as such by the Israeli government and Israeli public.
iainmerrick 8 hours ago [-]
I don't think we are ever going to see eye to eye, but thanks for trying to explain.
monideas 7 hours ago [-]
Fair enough, hopefully you and your society get a nice footnote in a history book somewhere
Yes - this is a very important story, but the "Reuters Connect" page is completely awful.
Hey, let's present our story as a series of soundbites over emotive imagery and ominous music, that definitely evokes serious journalism.
trinsic2 1 days ago [-]
I know it looks like an effort to deliberately fragment the narrative
vcryan 1 days ago [-]
Sounds very democratic...
2Gkashmiri 1 days ago [-]
The classic "democracy" and "freedoms" paradox.
Iran for example is accused of silencing critics, when everyone else does so as a "normal thing" but Iran is the boogeyman.
I can only imagine the level of propaganda by Israel in trying to downplay their heinous crimes....
ImJamal 1 days ago [-]
I'm not defending Israel as the minister is clearly wrong here, but surely silencing critics by killing them (what Iran is accused of) is quite a bit more severe than removing citizenship?
Thanks for giving me an article of something I know about and think is terrible. That unfortunately wasn't the comparison and if it was I wouldn't have made my comment. The comparison was with removing citizenship.
datsci_est_2015 1 days ago [-]
Funniest comment I’ve read all day, thanks. Never seen someone make light of a government rendering someone stateless. Especially rich in the context of an apartheid state.
ImJamal 1 days ago [-]
Are you saying your own comment is funniest your read all day? If not then I am quite confused because I never made light of anything and made it clear that it was the wrong thing to do. I just think comparing murder and removing citizenship is not a great comparison.
If anybody made light of anything it was the person I was responding to.
Israel has murdered journalists in Gaza. That would be the better comparison to Iran's actions. I don't think Israel removing citizenship has an equal comparison with anything Iran has done.
pvaldes 24 hours ago [-]
How many Journalists were killed by Israel in Gaza in the last years?
ImJamal 19 hours ago [-]
Quite a few. If that was the comparison I wouldn't have mentioned anything because it would be a similar thing. Comparing murder with removing citizenship is not the same thing. Israel murdering journalists is, but not related to the conversation.
Though to be fair I think this article still might not qualify.
mrtesthah 1 days ago [-]
Actually it is:
>Named for the Hebrew military acronym for collateral damage, the film speaks to 24 unidentified Israeli military and intelligence officers who outlined the AI-powered targeting systems used by the Israeli army to bombard Gaza in the war triggered by the Hamas-led attack on 7 October 2023.
Is it not possible to want to improve one's country?
monideas 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
ozgrakkurt 1 days ago [-]
If you have members of your country that think the country is in the wrong and you tell them “then leave the country”… it should be pretty obvious.
monideas 1 days ago [-]
It should be pretty obvious what?
chomp 1 days ago [-]
It’s generally a fascist viewpoint to say that dissenters should consider leaving the country.
monideas 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
dwaltrip 1 days ago [-]
You've just changed your argument?
monideas 1 days ago [-]
This was always my argument. They’re very obviously lying but I should have stated that in my original comment. It’s so obvious that they are lying that I forgot to state that was my position.
dwaltrip 1 days ago [-]
Thanks for owning up to being unclear about what you meant. Other people can't read your mind :)
ceejayoz 1 days ago [-]
> Can you explain to me how that’s fascism?
"We have lots of babies so it can't be fascism" is a really out-there argument I'm having trouble following. It's like posting "Turtle is purple ice cream 203-B"; I don't follow.
monideas 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
ceejayoz 1 days ago [-]
> you live in a society which is non-viable
I'm not certain "start a war with half the region that gets the other friendlier half of the region's entire economic engine blown up by Iran" counts as viable in the long run.
jst1fthsdys 1 days ago [-]
You live in stolen land, surrounded by people that hate you (the number which is growing daily), run by genocidal thugs who are on a fascist death drive. That is non viable, pal.
monideas 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
jst1fthsdys 1 days ago [-]
The cope is thinking Israel would survive without the fanatical material support the west gives it now.
Anyway, have fun going on about your Lebensborn. We all know how well that worked out for your predecessors.
jesutere7 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
jst1fthsdys 1 days ago [-]
Tell that to the many jewish cultures that were eradicated by the Nazis in Europe.
jesutere7 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
monideas 1 days ago [-]
The Holocaust only happened after there was a viable functional Jewish settlement in Israel. Tel Aviv was founded in 1909 just to give you a sense of the infrastructure that existed.
Jews are not meant to live out their lives in exile
meruner 24 hours ago [-]
Most Jews who died in the Holocaust were unable to go to Israel. It sounds like you are blaming people who died for being in Europe.
monideas 20 hours ago [-]
They were unable to go to Palestine because when they tried to leave it was too late. There were many Jews who made Aliyah from Germany many years before because they could see the handwriting on the wall
jst1fthsdys 6 hours ago [-]
It is just the typical antisemitism zionists gladly boast about. They had slurs for holocaust survivors and looked down on them. They viewed the jews who dared stay in Europe with the communities they built over many years as inferior and weak. They still talk down to the diaspora today.
It is why the false equivalence of jew and zionist is so bad. It aids the antisemites in erasing the many rich and vibrant jewish communities that existed in Europe.
SauciestGNU 1 days ago [-]
Our societies are both committing suicide by fascism. Do you think any country in the world will tolerate the existence of "Israel" in the wake of this genocide? I expect every single Israeli citizen who ever served in the IDF (most Israeli people) to have to face trial for conspiracy to genocide and crimes against humanity at The Hague. Participating in Israel's military apparatus has been clearly and openly genocidal since the Nakhba at least.
1 days ago [-]
monideas 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
mrtesthah 1 days ago [-]
“Social conditioning” does not strictly determine the birth rate of developed nations. For that you must look at economic policy making it financially untenable to build a family. What you conveniently ignore here is Israel’s own economic policy of subsidizing orthodox jewish families, which is the main source of that growth.
monideas 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
westmeal 1 days ago [-]
You've gotta be trolling I mean come on man
croes 1 days ago [-]
What has the birth rate to do with viable moral sensibility?
monideas 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
croes 1 days ago [-]
> meaning that eventually your society will die out.
Because birth rates never change.
You could also say a constantly growing population isn’t viable because resources are limited and at some point overpopulation leads to a collapse.
But usually people adjust
monideas 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
croes 1 days ago [-]
Because historically low birth rates were the result of diseases, famines or wars but since the birth control pill it’s a decision.
Totally different scenario.
monideas 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
bentde2 1 days ago [-]
This may have less to do with morals and more with populations adjusting their growth as needed naturally.
The population of world Jews has still not recovered from the Holocaust, and needs exponential growth to catch up.
Most other developed countries have saturated populations due to advances in medicine and life expectancy, and a downward adjustment wouldn’t hurt them, and is likely to lower the price of housing and food etc with lower demand.
As soon as those populations go below a certain point, growth will kick back in - if only because the minority of the population who do want more kids will grow faster, and it will be easier for them as resources will have become cheaper.
monideas 13 hours ago [-]
People don’t have children due to some particular genetic predisposition (every human has this), they do so for various reasons that involve the psyche which influence the will and the psyche is heavily influenced by social conditions.
This is to say that even if someone comes from a large family they are going to be influenced by what they see on TV, learn in school, etc and even more broadly, nowadays there is no survival necessity to have children, they are not needed to work the family farm or provide elder care. People have children out of love and desire to bestow goodness to someone else besides them. It takes a lot to raise someone to have these selfless qualities and virtually no society has succeeded in this.
metobehonest 1 days ago [-]
So Israel is a "developed world democracy", but criticism shouldn't be allowed and dissenters should be considered enemies?
Your comments on "birth rates" and how western liberalism is decadent (or dare I say, "degenerate"?) make it very clear though.
monideas 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
metobehonest 1 days ago [-]
They actually do. They mean you think there's a "chosen people" that's so special that it is morally correct to exterminate other peoples through military means so that yours may thrive. The terms just express this in a condensed form.
monideas 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
basisword 1 days ago [-]
They're both Israeli. Why should they leave their country? The right move is to expose the evils and try to improve it.
tomlockwood 1 days ago [-]
Should zionists leave new york because they don't like the mayor?
monideas 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
ceejayoz 1 days ago [-]
Now we're advocating ethnic cleansing of Zionist Jews from New York City?
monideas 1 days ago [-]
By definition if you are a Zionist Jew you would not be living in New York or anywhere outside of Israel, if you had the means to do so which nearly all Jews do given the support from the Israeli government, they will even pay for your flight.
ceejayoz 1 days ago [-]
A definition of "zionist" that excludes Chuck Schumer is a bit odd.
Can you link a commonly accepted definition - encyclopedia, dictionary, what have you - saying that it requires immediate migration?
monideas 1 days ago [-]
Chuck Schumer supported sanctions against Ben Gvir and Smotrich and various other hostile actions during the Biden administration.
ceejayoz 1 days ago [-]
That's the "Turtle is purple ice cream 203-B" thing again. It's flatly non-responsive to the question.
blovescoffee 23 hours ago [-]
There are plenty of Jews that support Zionism and consider themselves Zionists that live in NY. You’re speaking from ignorance.
mhb 1 days ago [-]
No, that's not the "definition".
heyitsmedotjayb 1 days ago [-]
Zionist isn't an ethnicity, similar to how Nazi isn't an ethnicity.
ceejayoz 1 days ago [-]
> similar to how Nazi isn't an ethnicity
The people super-focused on "Aryan heritage" didn't have an ethnic bent?
The topic is fraught with misunderstandings/talking over each other, but I think the point of GP is that you can adopt the ideology, but not adopt an ethnicity, or vice versa.
Someone can be against zionism, but not against all jews, agreed?
Thus, the two categories must be distinct, regardless how much or little overlap they have.
Also for specificity, the nazis co-opted "aryan" much like they co-opted the swastika. Neither actually represent what they claim, even if both are now tainted by their use of it.
TL;DR: "Nazis lie", which I guess is a truism.
heyitsmedotjayb 1 days ago [-]
Aryan would be a distinctly different category than Nazi. Similar to how Jew is a distinctly different category than Zionist. Please try to keep up.
ceejayoz 1 days ago [-]
What would you say the average ethnicity of a Nazi typically was?
heyitsmedotjayb 1 days ago [-]
Some would have been Aryan, but you'd be naive to assume Nazism has exclusively white Aryan followers. And anyway, It doesn't matter. Ethnicity and political beliefs are categorically different things. You're engaging in an antisemitic trope by conflating Israeli and Jewish values.
> Jews, or the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group and nation, originating in the Israelites of ancient Israel and Judah.
If the US forcibly kicked Jews out of NYC, it'd be ethnic cleansing. No one would contest that description.
heyitsmedotjayb 1 days ago [-]
Was it ethnic cleansing the way we persecuted and prosecuted Nazis post WW2? Despite them mostly making up and representing the Aryan ethnic group? Zionism is a political position distinctly different to Judaism.
Let me ask you a question - Can we ascribe blame to all Jews if the state of Israel were to do something bad?
ceejayoz 1 days ago [-]
> Was it ethnic cleansing the way we persecuted and prosecuted Nazis post WW2?
No, just as it wouldn't be ethnic cleansing to evict one Jewish person. We convicted a relatively tiny handful of Nazis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Georg_Kiesinger eventually served as chancellor of West Germany!
> Can we ascribe blame to all Jews if the state of Israel were to do something bad?
Certainly not. But kicking them all out of NYC would still be ethnic cleansing!
_bernd 1 days ago [-]
You could also be "volksdeutsch". Like slavik people from former German territory or at least German influenced. They could be proper Nazis but with for instance polish background. Don't ask me how it actually works out but you asked...
1 days ago [-]
croes 1 days ago [-]
You are confusing the current government with Israel.
It’s the same as with the USA, the current government isn’t the USA.
monideas 1 days ago [-]
You will find that 95% of Israelis support the actions of the IDF in this war regardless of how they feel about Netanyahu or his coalition.
28 helicopters emptied their internal stores of 30mm autocannon and Hellfires that day, with many RTB to rearm/refuel, all of them at dense Israeli territory. Seven of them dumped their entire stores into Moshav Tkuma. To this day all deaths there are tallied to the infiltrators, with the exception of Efrat Katz. Rapid bulldozer burial of damaged vehicles and buildings was also performed, as the damage from those weapons is very distinctive. Not a gesture of honesty, that.
Tanks were also instructed to fire their main armament into houses known to have civilians inside. Israeli corpses were, again, tallied to infiltrators; any non-Israeli corpses tallied as hostile.
Pilots, soldiers, tankists, and UAS operators all asked over the radio for targets that day, but were simply directed to apply maximal fires to anything that moved in a Palestinian-like way. Hannibal was cited as justification. The Israeli Hannibal operational order, which directs the use of force to prevent soldiers being taken into captivity, was apparently being cited over the air to justify the deaths of civilians. An extreme distortion, but one which Israelis are increasingly making their peace with, alongside many others.
"Tanks were also instructed to fire their main armament into houses known to have civilians inside. Israeli corpses were, again, tallied to infiltrators; any non-Israeli corpses tallied as hostile.". There is no evidence they were instructed to do this and there is only one instance of tank fire killing isreali's and it was due to unknown hostages inside the house.
The entire response was within reason for what you'd expect but the iran propaganda network works hard to spin the narrative and create doubt and weave conspiracy.
'IDF: friendly-fire casualties on 10/7 won't be investigated — "immense and complex quantity" (Ynet)' https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rkjqoobip
'Apache pilots recount 10/7: ammo ran out, RTB to rearm, "sweeping permission" to fire inside Israel (Ynet)' https://www.ynetnews.com/magazine/article/s1nch1cuc
'Pilot: "We had run out of munitions… flew to the base to refuel and rearm" over fleeing Nova cars (Ynet)' https://www.ynetnews.com/magazine/article/rk5vuzk3ge
'"I choose targets where the chance I'm shooting hostages too is low… but it's not 100%" — Apache squadron commander (Mako/N12)'https://www.mako.co.il/pzm-soldiers/Article-199bdbb03215b810...
'IDF probe: hostage Efrat Katz likely killed by IAF helicopter friendly fire (Jerusalem Post)' https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-795543
'Same Katz finding in a right-wing outlet: "Hostage Efrat Katz was killed by IAF fire" (Arutz Sheva)' https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/387990
'Officers invoked defunct Hannibal Protocol; Hiram ordered tank fire on Be'eri house, 14 hostages, 13 killed (Times of Israel)'https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-officers-invoked-defunct-h...
'Police source: IDF helicopter "apparently also hit some festival participants" at Nova; police denied (Haaretz)' https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-18/ty-article/.p...
'Yedioth Ahronoth's "28 helicopters emptied all ammunition, hundreds of 30mm shells and Hellfires, renewed runs to rearm" — carried verbatim by ABC News'https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-07/israel-hannibal-direc...
I don't think many people would buy your "more logical for them to just go on the record" claim -- in this situation, people are scared! And they have conflicted loyalties as well. They want to blow the whistle, but don't necessarily want to directly accuse their immediate colleagues to their faces.
Another viewpoint is that it's partly true but misleading -- the filmmakers and whistleblowers have blown things entirely out of proportion. That sounds entirely possible. But wouldn't the "logical" response then be more transparency, rather than accusations of treason and a witch-hunt for the collaborators?
And another viewpoint is that it's all completely fabricated, malicious lies. Possibly an extreme crackdown might be an appropriate response in that case? That seems very counter-productive to me, as an outsider, but again cold logic doesn't always apply.
Which of those viewpoints do you find yourself agreeing with?
To me, the broadly true one seems most likely from the available evidence; the hiding of evidence and the attempted crackdown support that one too. It also seems like some people genuinely believe (or pretend to themselves) that it's all malicious lies. To me that smacks of sheer paranoia. Understandable after the October 7 attack, sure, but not rational or productive.
For example, apparently in the film they recount a NAZA that was done for strikes to assassinate Hamas leaders in Gaza (NAZA is an acronym in Hebrew that means “collateral damage assessment”, these are done before all strikes in order to assess potential civilian casualties). In this particular case, the strike was planned to kill the Hamas leaders in their homes at night which would likely also kill their families, as opposed to some other time to kill them which would have more or less or different civilian casualties.
So in my opinion there is no issue with killing Hamas leaders in Gaza in their homes even if their families would also die but this may offend western sensibilities for various reasons including perhaps blanket opposition to killing or military conduct at all. But then again Western sensibilities have produced Western societies which have below replacement birth rates and various other social ills which Israelis cannot even conceive of because those issues do not exist in Israel. Jewish teenagers do not go and shoot up their schools, that is something only Arab terrorists do and the reason they do that is very obvious, as are the ways of preventing that.
In the most charitable interpretation, the filmmakers chose to make this film as Western liberals trying to influence the Israeli government to adopt more Western liberal values and approaches to conducting warfare. This is still traitorous conduct since they are aligned with a foreign ideology and interests who seek to do harm against their own state and their own people.
And "the west" isn't really homogenous for these purposes. Most western countries don't have a school shootings problem, only the USA does. The parts of the west most heavily criticising Israel are not the USA, it's places like Spain and Ireland (both of which have interesting historical parallels!) I think the USA has a higher birth rate than the EU, so maybe you'd prefer them on that basis, but then you don't want school shootings, so maybe you prefer the EU. You can probably find a reason to dislike everyone if that's what you want to do.
In the most charitable interpretation, the filmmakers chose to make this film as Western liberals trying to influence the Israeli government to adopt more Western liberal values
That's hardly the most charitable interpretation! Maybe they're trying to influence Israeli citizens, or maybe they're trying to influence Zionists abroad? There's no need to assume some insidious outsider conspiracy.
Surely people are allowed to disagree non-violently with their current government! If that's the kind of "foreign ideology" that you're dismissing out of hand, well, that certainly clarifies things.
https://knowyourmeme.com/sensitive/memes/the-writers-barely-...
On one hand we have a functional society that is growing in wealth and also in population due to native born citizens meeting, getting married, having children.
On the other hand you have stagnant or declining societies (in real GDP terms) where people are not meeting, not getting married, not having children.
The school shootings is just one social ill I bring up, in Europe you have an issue with mass migration and Muslims engaging in mass sex crimes against children. I could go on about others (suicide rates, drug use rates, migration of young native people to other countries).
Does that make sense?
I never claimed there was an insidious outsider conspiracy although of course there is verified flows of foreign money from governments and NGOs to fund leftist causes and groups within Israel. You can look this up yourself, there are ongoing investigations in Congress as far as US moneys are concerned.
In this case I doubt that had much to do with it.
Israelis are well known for disagreeing with their government. This obviously goes beyond disagreement and into traitorous activity and it’s being treated as such by the Israeli government and Israeli public.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vgy8d8256go
Hey, let's present our story as a series of soundbites over emotive imagery and ominous music, that definitely evokes serious journalism.
Iran for example is accused of silencing critics, when everyone else does so as a "normal thing" but Iran is the boogeyman.
I can only imagine the level of propaganda by Israel in trying to downplay their heinous crimes....
If anybody made light of anything it was the person I was responding to.
Israel has murdered journalists in Gaza. That would be the better comparison to Iran's actions. I don't think Israel removing citizenship has an equal comparison with anything Iran has done.
https://time.com/7344931/trump-threatens-to-denaturalize-us-...
and the OG version of course:
https://www.ushmm.org/online/hsv/source_view.php?SourceId=49...
Though to be fair I think this article still might not qualify.
>Named for the Hebrew military acronym for collateral damage, the film speaks to 24 unidentified Israeli military and intelligence officers who outlined the AI-powered targeting systems used by the Israeli army to bombard Gaza in the war triggered by the Hamas-led attack on 7 October 2023.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vgy8d8256go
Is it not possible to want to improve one's country?
"We have lots of babies so it can't be fascism" is a really out-there argument I'm having trouble following. It's like posting "Turtle is purple ice cream 203-B"; I don't follow.
I'm not certain "start a war with half the region that gets the other friendlier half of the region's entire economic engine blown up by Iran" counts as viable in the long run.
Anyway, have fun going on about your Lebensborn. We all know how well that worked out for your predecessors.
Jews are not meant to live out their lives in exile
It is why the false equivalence of jew and zionist is so bad. It aids the antisemites in erasing the many rich and vibrant jewish communities that existed in Europe.
Because birth rates never change.
You could also say a constantly growing population isn’t viable because resources are limited and at some point overpopulation leads to a collapse.
But usually people adjust
Totally different scenario.
The population of world Jews has still not recovered from the Holocaust, and needs exponential growth to catch up.
Most other developed countries have saturated populations due to advances in medicine and life expectancy, and a downward adjustment wouldn’t hurt them, and is likely to lower the price of housing and food etc with lower demand.
As soon as those populations go below a certain point, growth will kick back in - if only because the minority of the population who do want more kids will grow faster, and it will be easier for them as resources will have become cheaper.
This is to say that even if someone comes from a large family they are going to be influenced by what they see on TV, learn in school, etc and even more broadly, nowadays there is no survival necessity to have children, they are not needed to work the family farm or provide elder care. People have children out of love and desire to bestow goodness to someone else besides them. It takes a lot to raise someone to have these selfless qualities and virtually no society has succeeded in this.
Your comments on "birth rates" and how western liberalism is decadent (or dare I say, "degenerate"?) make it very clear though.
Can you link a commonly accepted definition - encyclopedia, dictionary, what have you - saying that it requires immediate migration?
The people super-focused on "Aryan heritage" didn't have an ethnic bent?
Huh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_racial_theories
Someone can be against zionism, but not against all jews, agreed?
Thus, the two categories must be distinct, regardless how much or little overlap they have.
Also for specificity, the nazis co-opted "aryan" much like they co-opted the swastika. Neither actually represent what they claim, even if both are now tainted by their use of it.
TL;DR: "Nazis lie", which I guess is a truism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews
> Jews, or the Jewish people, are an ethnoreligious group and nation, originating in the Israelites of ancient Israel and Judah.
If the US forcibly kicked Jews out of NYC, it'd be ethnic cleansing. No one would contest that description.
Let me ask you a question - Can we ascribe blame to all Jews if the state of Israel were to do something bad?
No, just as it wouldn't be ethnic cleansing to evict one Jewish person. We convicted a relatively tiny handful of Nazis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Georg_Kiesinger eventually served as chancellor of West Germany!
> Can we ascribe blame to all Jews if the state of Israel were to do something bad?
Certainly not. But kicking them all out of NYC would still be ethnic cleansing!
It’s the same as with the USA, the current government isn’t the USA.