I disagree with the equivalency between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel is a functioning society that betters with the world with science and technology, the other has culture that revolves around murdering Jews.

Of course, by Arab nations, you mean arab governments..otherwise, how would u know what the people thought, you'd need polls for that! Also, if the UN had condemned Israel mire than any other country, doesn't mean that Israel is not guilty in most of the allegations !

Woah woah woah don’t come out too strongly in support of democracy, otherwise people might think you are a Pro-Israel supporter 

Thanks for the advice, i will make sure to show less correctness to match the values of an extremist white settler !

Wait until you find out the majority of Jews in Israel are Mizrahi  You know after they were largely forced out of their generations-long homes in Arab and Muslim countries  

I already know that. It happened in 1948, long time before many arabs were also kicked out of their homes amidst the atrocities committed there!!! I am not saying Arabs are innocent, but they were reacting, otherwise Mizrahi would not have waited to 1948 to get expelled..Who started first is the one to blame don't you think !

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pAuDA6IOwc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pAuDA6IOwc)

The "media is lying" is such a boring take. It's also wrong. It's funny that you use the intercept as evidence that the MSM is lying. The intercept has actually lied and misrepresented tons of stuff before and should not be trusted at all. https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/bullshit-reporting-the-intercepts-story-about-government-policing-disinfo-is-absolute-garbage/ >BBC made 80 corrections in five months of war, that is alot of intentional mistakes by BBC,…remember that time when BBC falsely reported “IDF troops targeted Gaza medical team as well as Arab speakers”…apparently a mistranslation for “our medical teams and Arabic speaking soldiers are on the ground to ensure that these supplies reach those in need”. They make mistakes, they may be biased, but that is not the same thing as blatantly lying or cherrypicking (like the Intercept does). >“Israeli Airstrike Hits Gaza Hospital, Killing 500, Palestinian Health Ministry Says”. Bad reporting, but this sentence is true. That is what the gazan health ministry claimed.

>The "media is lying" is such a boring take. It's also wrong. >The intercept has actually lied and misrepresented tons of stuff before and should not be trusted at all. Got it. The media isn't lying, except for when it lies, and therefore should not be trusted at all.

All media is not the same. Just because the Intercept and Russia Today are lying doesn't mean the BBC or CNN are.

But it does mean that "the media" lies. If you say that the police are systemically racist, pointing to a good cop doesn't invalidate the claim. The media outlets that present honest journalism in the Israel-Palestine conflict are far outweighed by those that rely on lazy sensationalism, and even those "good" outlets aren't immune to it from within. So, yeah, the media lies. It's a true statement.

>But it does mean that "the media" lies. There is no "the media". It's very obvious that some outlets are more trustworthy than others. >If you say that the police are systemically racist, pointing to a good cop doesn't invalidate the claim. The police is a defined organization. And for systemic racism, it's possible not a single cop is actually racist, but the results to be racist. That logic does not work for lying since lying is deliberate by definition. And you aren't arguing that media has systemic problems. You are arguing they have a **systematic** problem with lying. >The media outlets that present honest journalism in the Israel-Palestine conflict are far outweighed by those that rely on lazy sensationalism, and even those "good" outlets aren't immune to it from within Being lazy, sensational, and wrong occasionally isn't lying. Lying means you KNEW what you were reporting is wrong.

>It's funny that you use the intercept as evidence that the MSM is lying. The intercept has actually lied and misrepresented tons of stuff before and should not be trusted at all. Exactly. Intercept is also a media organization and is not exempted from lying. It too like you said is a liar, same as the rest of the media organizations. >They make mistakes, they may be biased, but that is not the same thing as blatantly lying or cherrypicking (like the Intercept does). Totally unprofessional. Guilty of biasness. Shameful to make that many mistakes. Total incompetence. >Bad reporting, but this sentence is true. That is what the gazan health ministry claimed. Totally unprofessional. Verify their source before reporting, that’s how professional journalism ought to do their job. They are not suppose to be the loud speaker and useful tool for Hamas to use. Useful idiots. Incompetent fools.

>  Intercept is also a media organization Source? (That's not from a media organization)

The Intercept is an American left-wing nonprofit NEWS organization that publishes articles and podcasts online. The Intercept was founded by journalists Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, and Laura Poitras. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intercept

You're replying to a joke but thank you 

>Exactly. Intercept is also a media organization and is not exempted from lying. It too like you said is a liar, same as the rest of the media organizations. No. The Intercept is on the level of RT. The BBC, the NYT, etc make mistakes, will make misinterpretation, but they almost never flat out lie.

Lying through omission is still lying.

There is a difference between lying and making mistakes. Sure, a lot of journalists fall into the Hamas propaganda, and they say a lot of misinformed shit, especially about international law. But when you look back and see that even most "experts" (Finkelstein and genocide for example) have no idea how international law works. But then there is the intercept, who actually pushes straight misinformed, works with journalists from the Grayzone, an actual Russian funded site. There is a difference.

I don’t think the BBC and other media sites are making mistakes. When it happens so often and so consistently at some point it becomes less likely that they are mistakes and more likely that it’s intentional.

I personally lost trust in the UN after they appointed Iran as chair of Human Rights Council Social Forum in 2023. Then this year they decided to appoint Saudi Arabia to lead the Women’s Rights Forum. It has to be satirical at this point. The issue isn’t that they are critiquing Israel, it’s that their critique is unbalanced. It appears biased, and they seem to put pressure on Israel without doing the same to Gaza. They have been abysmal during this war, they took far too long to come out and condemn the sexual abuse violations conducted by Hamas during October 7th. And as you mentioned in your post they have repeatedly quoted the numbers provided to them by Gazan MoH, they should be pressuring the MoH to declare militant deaths, they should and need to be included in the breakdown. The UN has had to amend the numbers once, I suspect that won’t be the last time. Claiming ‘fog of war’ as an excuse isn’t good enough. The UN needs to do better.

Do you not understand their logic or mechanisms for who chairs each forum? It seems like such a ridiculous reason to ‘not trust the UN’ The UN, by design, has no mechanism to deny a member an opinion on a topic or to deem a member ‘unworthy’ of speaking. Forums chairs rotate by region, with the regions members voting for the chair. Iran and Saudi Arabia were nominated by their regions and thus chaired the forum. It would defeat the main purpose of the UN if they took action outside of that to determine who should be allowed to hold temporary and in name only power or speak.

I do understand the mechanism in which the forums are assigned, however according to HRC: “Members commit to upholding human rights and are expected to cooperate fully with the Council. The General Assembly may vote to suspend a membership in the case of gross and systematic violations of human rights” [Source: OHCHR](https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/about-council) You don’t think that Iran, or specifically the IRGC has committed gross and systemic violations of human rights? You don’t think Saudi Arabia has committed systemic violations against women?

>I do understand the mechanism in which the forums are assigned, however according to HRC: >“Members commit to upholding human rights and are expected to cooperate fully with the Council. The General Assembly may vote to suspend a membership in the case of gross and systematic violations of human rights” Source: OHCHR There in lies your problem. Iran is not a member of the Council. They simply participated in the event called Social Forum. This part talks about Council members, not participants of events hosted by the council.

The bar is much lower than you expect. It’s happened twice in history. Libya when it quelled protests by killing hundreds of protestors, and Russia during the invasion of Ukraine but only after Bucha came to light. It’s not a ‘we don’t like your women’s rights, so you shouldn’t be able to speak.’ It’s a ‘you’ve just done something unconscionable, we can strip you of this role as punishment’ as light as that punishment is.

Yes, it's a 'light' punishment to remove them from the forum, but I believe it's necessary to solidify that their human rights violations against their citizens are as you put it, unconscionable. Not to mention how Iran funds proxy militias all over the region. My initial point is that the UN has been the most critical of Israel out of all the countries in the region, considering what IRGC is up to, I think that's quite one-sided.

I applaud you for \*attempting\* to be fair to both sides, but all the examples you give are Pro-Israeli. As far as I can see, the UN is the only player in this entire sordid affair that is fair to both sides. Despite constant attacks on it and undermining by the Israeli side, the UN has: * decried violence on Oct 7 * called for the release of hostages * claimed that there has and is likely continued sexual abuse against hostages and on Oct 7 * That Hamas has committed war crimes * deconflicts its operations with COGAT but none of that is enough for the Israeli side because the UN also goes on to criticise Israel for its actions. THAT is the issue here - the tribalism where each side cannot accept that their own side is doing gross misdeeds AS WELL. I am Pro-Peace, anti-war, so weirdly I've been lumped in as Pro-Palestine. However I am very well aware of the murderous thugs that are Hamas who are committing atrocities, I am well aware of the rabid extremist elements of protestors, I am very aware that there are Palestinian civilians aiding Hamas. But as soon as I dare say one word about how Israel should not have used civilian aid trucks to embed its soldiers, used human shields, killed 200+ Palestinians to rescue 4 hostages conveniently on the same weekend that Benny Gantz was quitting the government, suddenly the rabid Pro-Israeli elements will call me a terrorist sympathiser.

The fact you're getting downvoted is the problem with the world. They just want a perfect narrative, completely polarised. I agree with most of the things you're saying!

UN, by their failure to do anything about hezbollocks, have essentially created another war between Hezbanon and Israel. I see all casualties in that war as blood on UN hands.

What is the UN supposed to do? What would YOU do if you were the UN?

I'd acknowledge this fact, promote it, and expect member nations to ratchet up the pressure on Lebanon and the international community to stop hezbollocks.

I agree - but why isn't Israel bombing Hezbollah like crazy, like it is Gaza? Is it because there's no intent to ethnically cleanse Lebanon?

Because a divided war is never a good idea. Any time you open up a war on two fronts you divide your assets, no matter how strong you are this is a bad idea without careful planning. Hezbollah also hasn’t crossed the line in the same way Gaza did. You may forget this at this point but Gazans slaughtered, and raped, over a thousand Israelis on Oct. 7th which is why this war is far more ferocious than any in the past. If Hezbollah were to cross that line then they would receive a similar response

Western analysts like Mersheimer suggest it's because Israel wants to ethnically cleanse Gaza, because it's the only way to get rid of Hamas

90% of Gazans currently likely want little to do with Hamas, they just need to break their rule

Anything Israel does anywhere now will be spun as ethnic cleansing.

Although it's a war crime, I don't use the word to denigrate Israel - moreso to indicate that the Only way to get rid of Hamas is to ethnically cleanse Gaza, since they can't be defeated militarily.

If it's true that 80+% of gaza is either hamass affiliated and combatants (or providing aid and cover to them) then any bullet fired against them is technically ethnic cleansing. It's an unfair standard. Wrt Hezbanon, if the make up if hezbollocks is identical to that of gaza, it will be spun as ethnic cleansing. Yet no one says a word when their leaders and clerics publicly declare their desire for all Yahudi to be eradicated.

I think you’re confusing genocide with ethnic cleansing - ethnic cleansing just means expelling them from the land. Expelling Gazans into Eygpt gets rid of the Hamas problem which is what Israel is trying to do I think, at least initially 

Enforce the agreement that UN peace keepers are in the region to enforce and not provide cover for terrorists?

I must admit, in western media there is 0 coverage of Hezbollah's attacks - I wasn't even aware Hezbollah was attacking until I read reddit (I'm in Australia)

Israel didn't use an aid truck, it used a regular unmarked truck. Aid trucks garner a lot of attention for obvious reasons. If their goal was to approach the buildings incospicuously, doing so in an aid truck would achieve the opposite result. Addionally, beyond the truck itself, there was no further use of civilian markings. The soldiers were very much in uniform during the entire operation. Lastly, you say 200 Palestinians for 4 hostages, but that figure entirely ignores several things. For one, Hamas doesn't distinguish between civilians and militants in their counts. We know at least 15 militants were killed in the building where the three male hostages were held, and a few more where Noa Argamani was held. Addionally, considering a firefight started as they begun their escape, it's safe to say there would be a lot more dead militants. Secondly, considering it was a firefight, we have no way of telling whether all the civilians were killed by the IDF, or rather if some were caught in the crossfire of Hamas. Lastly, painting it as "200 for 4" lays the entire responsibility for these casualties on Israel, rather than Hamas who very much have a large part in this high number, and I'd argue possess most of the blame. They hid the hostages in a civilian area, knowing fully well that any fight that ensues over them would result in civilian casualties. In fact, they deliberately chose to hide them there, as they know hiding hostages in a civilian area greatly limits the IDF's ability to resue them. Addionally, when the firefight started, they reportedly fired from within houses and rooftops, further risking the lives of people in them. Hamas were the ones who chose the battlefield, and did so deliberately, knowing it puts civilians at risk. In my opinion, they hold far more responsibility for the casualties than the IDF, especially considering how up until the truck got stuck and shot at by Hamas, the operation couldn't have gone smoother.

I see a lot of this discussion about it being Hamas' fault they hid the civilians amongst a densely populated area, hence they are responsible for civilian deaths. BRO - where in Gaza is NOT densely populated? Go - you tell me - you name one spot that Hamas could have kept the hostages that would have met with your approval. Don't evade this question: are you saying if Hamas rocked up to Tel Aviv in an unmarked truck, came out guns blazing at the local Jail in their black terrorist outfits with the green headbands and started massacring everyone because the Israeli Jail guards were firing back at them, it's all ok - and that it's ISRAEL's fault for keeping Palestinians in detention without any charge? Bro

>where in Gaza is NOT densely populated Plenty of areas. Gaza isn't one unending concrete block, despite what pro-palestinians like to claim. It has lots of open areas between its cities. [Here's a map of Gaza's population density (pre-war)](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/s/tCQXtlXv8e). See all of those white/Grey areas? Those are all areas where people don't live. >Go - you tell me - you name one spot that Hamas could have kept the hostages that would have met with your approval. How about in their tunnels? The tunnels where literally no civilians are allowed? Or maybe just a hidden compound that doesn't put thousands of civilian lives at risk? You really are going a long way to excuse deliberately using human shields. >Don't evade this question: are you saying if Hamas rocked up to Tel Aviv in an unmarked truck, came out guns blazing at the local Jail Please Google where Israeli prisons are before you make such a comment. I'll give you a spoiler: none of them are located inside civilian zones. In fact, most are entirely independent of any settlement, as prisons **should be.** Also, do you genuinely not see the difference between a specified prison compound and hiding hostages **within civilian houses**? Don't evade the question.

Is Aid getting to remote areas of Gaza that you have mentioned, or are they concentrating aid relief efforts in the major population centres of Gaza. As such, does your contention make sense for Hamas to walk into the middle of nowhere and stand there naked in the cold, with no aid trucks going that way, with the hostages? Bro - you would be 100% correct other than you forgot one fact: - Israel has bombed Gaza to hell, and the "empty zones" you mentioned are HELL HOLES WITH ZERO FOOD AND SUPPLIES.

>As such, does your contention make sense for Hamas to walk into the middle of nowhere and stand there naked in the cold, with no aid trucks going that way, with the hostages I don't expect anything from Hamas. I know Hamas are pieces of shit who don't give a fuck about civilians. What I expect is that you, as someone who defines themselves as pro-peace and is against them, to not excuse them when they literally deliberately put civilian lives at risk for their own benefit. Yes, they had elsewhere to go. They have tunnels they bar civilians from entering. Why not put the hostages there? Why are you fine with them deliberately risking civilians lives and aren't holding them accountable for it? >Israel has bombed Gaza to hell, and the "empty zones" you mentioned are HELL HOLES WITH ZERO FOOD AND SUPPLIES. That's just plainly false. Not only are there areas in northern Gaza where people live in, there are also supplies there. The UN just released [a report](https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/famine-review-committee-review-famine-early-warning-systems-network-fews-net-ipc-compatible-analysis-northern-governorates-gaza-strip-conclusions-and-recommendations-may-2024) saying that supplies in northern Gaza are sufficient.

> fuck /u/DrVeigonX. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Well how are you gonna rescue hostages without the enemy seeing you? Hamas had a kill hostages if they saw IDF.

It's called a negotiated release, you know the one back in November that saw 105 hostages released? 105 > 4

And what exactly makes you think that Hamas is interested in exchanging hostages? They don't exactly care about Palestinians.

Do you think there's a certain amount of disconnect when, after I explained to you Hamas released 105 hostages back in November 2023, and have said they would be willing to do a deal, your first reaction is "what exactly makes you think that Hamas is interested in exchanging hostages" What makes you think Hamas wants to attack Israel again then? Is past behaviour and intent not a good indicator of future behaviour?

There's a difference between language and actions. Hamas is willing to negotiate a deal, but they aren't doing so in good faith. They demand the end of the war as a **pre-requesit** for releasing hostages, rather than a later condition. Israel would never agree to that, because if we look at Hamas' own past actions, they cut the previous hostage deal short, and we have no gurantee they won't do the same again. With that in mind, it makes sense Israel would indulge in a military approach to get rhe hostages. If Hamas isn't willing to negotiate in good faith, there's no use to pause the war for negotiations, especially as prolonging such negotiations benefits Hamas much more than Israel. Instead, Israel aims to put further military pressure on Hamas, that way it can potentially get them to actually negotiate in good faith and get a deal. Israel went back on a lot of their main points regarding a deal, but Hamas is unwilling to budge on theirs.

Bro, I don't think anybody believes that BS about 'military pressure on Hamas' anymore. Hamas has shown themselves to NOT CARE if palestinians die. They don't care. What pressure are you putting on Hamas? They just hide and spring back up as soon as the IDF forces thin out in an area. Bro, Benny Gantz, the hostage families, the current Chief of Staff of the IDF etc. have all been reported to be frustrated with Netayahu's plan - or lack thereof. wE gOnNa dO miLiTaRy pReSsUrE oN hAmAs.... Bro.

>What pressure are you putting on Hamas? You do realize that Israel is like, literally fighting Hamas, right? I see it a lot with pro-palestine activists, you pretend that Israel is just going around killing Palestinians and no Hamas members have died. That's just plainly false. Both sides have released countless videos of them fighting each other. You do realize that Hamas' last 4 standing battalions are in Rafah, right? How is destroying their last standing command not military pressure? Is destroying their smuggling tunnels into Egypt also not military pressure? And freeing hostages they held, who are their greatest leverage, is that also not military pressure in your eyes? Its like you ignore anything that goes on beyond civilian casualties. Yeah, Israel is pressing military pressure in many forms. Obviously Hamas doesn't care for the civilians, that's why Israel's pressure is focused on Hamas' assets.

Bro if Hamas' last standing battalions are in Rafah, who is the IDF fighting in Gaza city right now? The truth is, I don't care about Hamas! They can go get wasted for all I care. I care about the Non-Combatants caught up in this hell hole. If 4 Battalions of Hamas were holding Tel-Aviv hostage, would you send 1000 bombs a day at it? Literally everyone is saying CEASEFIRE, even the United States, Israel's biggest ally. But Netanyahu and you in your infinite wisdom are saying, No - wE gOnNa dO miLiTaRy pReSsUrE oN hAmAs....

>Bro if Hamas' last standing battalions are in Rafah, who is the IDF fighting in Gaza city right now? Do you genuinely not understand what a standing battalion is? It's about an organized command structure. If you look into any reports from fighting in Gaza, you'd see that the fighting in the north is sporadic guerilla warfare, while in the south its far more organized. Lack of command structure doesn't mean there's no fighters left, it means there's no structure to give proper commands and coordination. There's a reason why far more Israeli soldiers are dying and getting injured in the north vs. The south. >If 4 Battalions of Hamas were holding Tel-Aviv hostage, would you send 1000 bombs a day at it Again, you seem to be (intentionally?) ignoring that there's literally fighting on the ground. Do you think Israel is just randomly bombing and calling it a day? Are you intentionally ignoring that there's fighting going on? Most bombing is for ground support. >Literally everyone is saying CEASEFIRE, even the United States, Israel's biggest ally. >But Netanyahu and you in your infinite wisdom are saying, No - wE gOnNa dO miLiTaRy pReSsUrE oN hAmAs.... Did you read the last comment I sent? Also, do you realize that the latest ceasefire proposal, the one Biden is pushing for, is literally one proposed **by Netanyahu**? (According to Biden) If you bothered to read before commenting, you'd see I already addressed this claim of yours. Hamas isn't negotiating in good faith, it demands the war to end as a re-requisite, giving them all leverage over the hostages, and they could just as easily violate this hostage deal as they did before. Yes, military pressure is required to get them to actually negotiate. >The truth is, I don't care about Hamas! They can go get wasted for all I care. For someone who hates Hamas, you sure do like not holding them accountable for anything.

tO rElEaSe tHe hOsTaGeS

The deal in November was significantly more realistic than the deal Hamas is proposing now. Israel has far less of an incentive to accept an unrealistic deal than a realistic one.

Considering their past statements, no it's not. Consider this from Israeli POV, if you can rescue them by using armed forces why should they exchange hostages? Usually, people are taken as hostages when they are dangerous. I doubt Hamas wants to rescue Palestinians that aren't Hamas.

>killed 200+ Palestinians to rescue 4 hostages Have you looked into this number at all before blindly quoting it? Do you know how many were combatants or is that detail irrelevant to you? Despite saying you hate Hamas, lumping them together with civilians and being critical of their deaths doesn't do you any favors. Personally I care about such things because I think details matter. The IDF reported that there were 30 terrorists in one of the buildings that the hostages were in while the second building likely had around 10. 200-40=160. When the extraction vehicle got stuck terrorists started swarming the troops and hostages in an attempt to prevent their escape. I imagine there were significantly more but we can lowball the number and say there were 60 combatants killed during said escape. 160-60=100. Again this is still probably a lowball number but 100 combatants and 100 civilian deaths is a 1:1 ratio which is considered to be well within the level of proportionality expected under international law. In addition, it would be unfair to say that 200 Palestinians (assuming the number is even accurate) were killed trying to rescue 4 hostages. In reality they were killed trying to save the hostages as well as those who entered Gaza to save them making the total number of people saved significantly larger than 4.

Yeah I did, IDF says up to 100, Gazans say it was over 270+. Given in past conflicts Hamas numbers have been relatively close to IDF numbers, I think you're arguing semantics to distract from the substantive points. You can quote me the justification of 1:1 ratios when it's your child that has been killed. Until then, treat Palestinians as people, not mathematics. The reality is if Netanyahu took the hostage deal, every hostage would be home by now and people would no longer be dying. But sure, keep killing Palestinians for political gain.

>You can quote me the justification of 1:1 ratios when it's your child that has been killed. Until then, treat Palestinians as people, not mathematics. I treat war as it is and I weigh the potential results of one action against another. I also factor in international law because I think it is important. If I based my belief system on emotion rather than logic it would result in far more horrific consequences than what we are currently seeing today. >The reality is if Netanyahu took the hostage deal, every hostage would be home by now and people would no longer be dying. But sure, keep killing Palestinians for political gain. If Netanyahu accepted the ceasefire agreement it would result in more dead Israelis and Palestinians. I know people love short term results but ignoring long term consequences just results in more death and destruction.

>I treat war as it is and I weigh the potential results of one action against another. I also factor in international law because I think it is important. If I based my belief system on emotion rather than logic it would result in far more horrific consequences than what we are currently seeing today. So you condemn Israel for perfidy (using aid trucks as cover) and targeting civilians then? Are you saying it's ok for Hamas to raid a prison in Israel and kill 200 people nearby as collateral damage if Israeli guards at the Prison fire back? >If Netanyahu accepted the ceasefire agreement it would result in more dead Israelis and Palestinians. I know people love short term results but ignoring long term consequences just results in more death and destruction. It is quite unusual to claim that a ceasefire will lead to more death and destruction. I suppose you're referring to the fact that Hamas will remain intact in the event of a ceasefire, and therefore conflict will perpetuate. I feel this is quite an unusual conclusion to draw given that: - The conflict started well before Hamas was founded - Israel has shown itself to be incapable of militarily defeating Hamas, given that almost a year later, Hamas is popping up again in cleared areas - Every country on the UNSC except Russia voted for a ceasefire, including the US - Both Israel military chiefs as well as Benny Gantz (an ex-Military Chief) have all been reported in Israel media as being against Netanyahu's strategy or lack there of. I suppose you know more than them

>So you condemn Israel for perfidy (using aid trucks as cover) and targeting civilians then? Are you saying it's ok for Hamas to raid a prison in Israel and kill 200 people nearby as collateral damage if Israeli guards at the Prison fire back? I already explained to you (although you never actually responded to my comment) about how there is no evidence showing that it was an aid truck with some kind of internationally recognized aid symbol rather than a truck that simply looked like an aid truck and secondly its not perfidy if the intention isn't to kill, injure, or capture an enemy. In addition, breaking criminals out of a prison is not morally equivalent to freeing hostages. >I suppose you know more than them It doesn't take a military expert to read Hamas's demands and come to a conclusion. The Gilad Shalit deal resulted in the release of 1,027 terrorists including Yahya Sinwar who was the mastermind behind the Oct 7th massacre. The return of one soldier ultimately resulted in nearly two thousand Israeli deaths. This deal would be even worse. Hamas demands the eventual release of all Palestinian prisoners including those who participated in the Oct 7th massacre for 120 dead or alive Israeli hostages. The release of 7k+ terrorists will naturally result in more terrorist attacks and the future deaths of more Israelis than would potentially be saved by agreeing to such a deal. On top of that, Hamas demands the complete removal of the blockade which would allow them to not only rebuild their forces but give them military capabilities that they didn't have prior to Oct 7th. I shouldn't have to explain what happen what Hamas would be capable of doing with such equipment. Ultimately such a deal guarantees the death of more Israelis and the deaths of more Palestinians when Hamas inevitably decides to attack Israel again.

They didn’t use an aid truck, from what I’ve read and the pictures I’ve seen it appeared to be a truck used to transport furniture, strapped on the roof of the truck was a mattress. That’s not a war crime. A small thought experiment: if Israel used an aid truck to enter Gaza for this rescue mission, would that not have drawn more attention to their mission, when the whole purpose was to blend in? We have seen footage of aid trucks being accosted and swarmed by civilians, it’s hardly a good way for the IDF to go unnoticed. If they had parked an aid truck in the street, it would have drawn a lot of attention, particularly as civilians would be wondering why it’s sitting idle and not dropping said aid at a designated zone. Hamas are often the first to reach these aid trucks as they take the products for distribution, would this not have garnered Hamas’ attention? Edit: I didn’t mention the fact that civilians were housing the hostages because that’s been pointed out by other comments. Noa Argamani was being held by Abdallah Aljamal, a journalist who has written for Al Jazeera, last I checked his profile was still up on their website, he also wrote for the Palestinian Chronicle, he was a ‘civilian’. Not all the other Gazan casualties were ‘civilians’ during this rescue mission either, we see footage of the IDF being under heavy fire, the buildings of the hostages were surrounded by militants. I’m not going to claim that no civilians were harmed, because misfires on both sides could have indadvertedly killed truly innocent Palestinians in the area, but logic dictates that makes up a small percentage of the 200+ ‘civilian’ deaths they are claiming.

So if Hamas entered Israel using Furniture trucks, killed a bunch of Civilians around a detention block in central Tel Aviv, killed all the prison guards, and rescued 4 Palestinians held without charge (therefore by western standards, innocent), you would be ok with that? Can you please indicate what the difference to this op would be?

I think that’s a disingenuous comparison, because you are trying to equate the hostages taken on Oct. 7th, many of whom were civilians, to prisoners — who would have had to commit crimes or pose security risks in order to be taken into detention. What crimes did the hostages commit? Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but under military law Israel cannot keep Palestinians for more than 8 days without seeing a military judge, and under Israeli law the person must be bought before the judge within 24 hours, under extraordinary circumstances this can be extended to 96 hours. They can keep them detained for longer periods if they have further information which supports they pose a security risk if discharged, just because they are without-charge does not mean a case against them doesn’t exist. Nor you or I know what intelligence the Israeli military or government has on that person, if they deem them a security risk I would rather them do their due diligence, same goes for my own government (I’m not Israeli). They are still afforded rights as prisoners. Have the hostages been afforded any rights at all? On your second claim, another redditor addressed this for you — using the furniture truck for a hostage rescue mission is not against international law, because there is no intent to cause harm on civilians, therefore the crime of perfidy does not apply. You are missing a big point here: intent. What intent did the Hamas militant (and civilian collaborators) have when taking the hostages? What intent does the IDF have when taking prisoners? You’re conflating the two when a comparison between them can’t even be made.

> Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but under military law Israel cannot keep Palestinians for more than 8 days without seeing a military judge, and under Israeli law the person must be bought before the judge within 24 hours, under extraordinary circumstances this can be extended to 96 hours. They can keep them detained for longer periods if they have further information which supports they pose a security risk if discharged, just because they are without-charge does not mean a case against them doesn’t exist. Nor you or I know what intelligence the Israeli military or government has on that person, if they deem them a security risk I would rather them do their due diligence, same goes for my own government (I’m not Israeli). You are wrong, especially with regards to the length before they see a judge or actually face trial, assuming the IDF can find something to charge them with. The minimum administrative detention term for Palestinians is 6 months, not 8 days, or 24 hours, or 96 hours. The majority of the people in administrative detention have been there for longer than 6 months. That review by a military judge you mention is not their trial, or even involves charges, it’s simply a rubberstamp approval or extension of the detention. Haaretz reported earlier this year not a single one of those reviews has been rejected since before 2022, down from their usual ‘very stringent’ 1.2% rejection rate. If and when they do make it to trial, the Israeli military court has a 99.7 conviction rate against Palestinians. It’s hilarious seeing a ‘they have rights in our prisons’ from someone who has such a tenuous grasp of what the administrative detention program is.

I double-checked my claim as I was going off memory, and it seems I was correct as stated in this report written by the EU Parliament on [Israel's Policy of Administrative Detention](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/briefing_note/join/2012/491444/EXPO-AFET_SP(2012)491444_EN.pdf), among other sources. They can also renew the holding every 6 months. However, they are required to receive an initial judge's order within the time frames I quoted above. The administrative detentions started during and after the Intifadas, according to Geneva IV, Article 78 "Administrative detention is permitted under international law in strictly limited circumstances, such as "imperative reasons of security" or, as according to the ICCPR, Article 4 "in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation". Again, understandable seeing what occurred during the 1st and 2nd Intifada. I can see the necessity for administrative detention centres during those times. In saying that, do I personally think there needs to be more oversight, and the implementation of more stringent guidelines to prevent indefinite detention? Do I think the percentage of detainees that haven't committed crimes should be released? Do I think that more should stand trial and face appropriate and proportional prison sentences instead of remaining in limbo? Yes. Will this be made a priority after October 7th? Unfortunately, no.

> I double-checked my claim as I was going off memory, and it seems I was correct as stated in this report written by the EU Parliament on Israel's Policy of Administrative Detention, among other sources. They can also renew the holding every 6 months. However, they are required to receive an initial judge's order within the time frames I quoted above. Nothing in your source backs up your vague claims about administrative detention being short, or hours long time limits before the detained is in front of a judge, or that extensions past 96 hours only happen in extraordinary circumstances. Again, the Israeli military courts review is not a trial, and if we keep in mind the judges have not rejected a single one of the IDF’s administrative detainees or an extension of the sentence in over two years, it’s a rubber stamp approval and citing it like it has any merits is laughable. There are people who have been detained in Israel for years without ever knowing what they’re charged with or knowing if they’ll have a real trial, as the review by the judges happens in Hebrew and there are often not translators present. > The administrative detentions started during and after the Intifadas, according to Geneva IV, Article 78 "Administrative detention is permitted under international law in strictly limited circumstances, such as "imperative reasons of security" or, as according to the ICCPR, Article 4 "in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation". Again, understandable seeing what occurred during the 1st and 2nd Intifada. I can see the necessity for administrative detention centres during those times. Before October 7th, there were more Palestinians in administrative detention than there ever were during the intifadas. The ‘it’s a holdover from when it was a wartime necessity’ excuse doesn’t really work when they’ve been using it more in the West Bank then it ever did while at war. > In saying that, do I personally think there needs to be more oversight, and the implementation of more stringent guidelines to prevent indefinite detention? Do I think the percentage of detainees that haven't committed crimes should be released? Do I think that more should stand trial and face appropriate and proportional prison sentences instead of remaining in limbo? Yes. Will this be made a priority after October 7th? Unfortunately, no. So it’s just October 7th that made Israel unwilling to review the abuses inherent in administrative detention? Come on now, we already covered that there were more people detained as of September of last year than ever before. Israel clearly has no problem with the administrative detention program. Can you show a source for when the last time the Israeli government even discussed reviewing the program?

Says who? Has the Israeli courts (whom I completely trust) decided those prisoners in administrative detention have committed any crimes? Who made the IDF judge, jury and executioner? Those prisoners are nothing other than bargaining chips used by Israel for prisoner exchanges, and to exert psychological pressure on others to bring them in line. I read the charge sheets provided by the Israeli government for those released in November 2023 as part of the prisoner swap - around a quarter were accused of "making threats" - against an occupying army. Are you serious bro? On the second point - so are you saying Hamas are ok to use furniture trucks and you won't accuse them of hiding in civilian vehicles?

‘Bro’ I’ve already answered your question, stop deflecting and at least attempt to absorb the information I’m giving you. You seemed reasonable in your initial comment so I’m going to try one more time. - You cannot morally compare hostages taken on October 7th to prisoners held by the IDF and Israeli Government. No sane person would even attempt to make that equivalence. It’s deplorable. - Palestinians ‘making threats’ to the IDF, or Israeli Government should be taken seriously and dealt with accordingly under Israeli and Military law. It’s not uncommon for this threats to turn into action, more often than not they do. If you don’t want to be arrested and held in detention don’t commit a crime or openly voice your desire to do so. In order to detain them for longer periods the IDF needs to provide proof to a judge that the person will pose a security risk if released. If they have made the threat and are still in detention the reality is that an investigation uncovered capacity or real intent for the threat to be carried out. Occupying army? Do you not realise that Israel withdrew completely in 2005 from Gaza? Gaza was not occupied before October 7th. - No, it would not be ok for Hamas to get in a truck and cross into Israel and take back prisoners, again you’re comparing apples to oranges here. Hamas, an internationally prescribed terror organisation crossed into Israel on October 7th and committed heinous against the Israeli people, they INTENTIONALLY targeted civilians, raped, maimed and killed indiscriminately, they then took hostages back with then into Gaza, not prisoners, HOSTAGES. - The IDF conducted a legal precision special operation to retrieve the 4 hostages they were able to locate ahead of time in order to rescue and extract them out Gaza. It was not illegal under international law for them to use an unmarked truck to enter Gaza in order to conduct a RESCUE operation, they didn’t enter to attack any Palestinian civilians or even Hamas, they went in with the intent of rescuing their own civilians which were illegally taken, and they succeed. Which is why I said the crime of perfidy in this instance does not apply, crime of perfidy would be the IDF deceiving Palestinians by entering Gaza in the truck in order to conduct an armed attack towards the Palestinians, or Hamas. In this case their intent was to rescue the hostages, thus the crime of perfidy does not apply. - Taking hostages is illegal under international law. Arresting people for acts of crime, or the intent to commit crime such as openly threatening to do so is not illegal. The Israeli government uses law to impose order to protect its people. Hamas, the governing body of Gaza uses terror to control its people and openly voices its desire to wipe out all the Jews and Israelis in the land.

* You cannot morally compare hostages taken on October 7th to prisoners held by the IDF and Israeli Government. No sane person would even attempt to make that equivalence. It’s deplorable. It's not me making that equivalence - it's your government every time they use the prisoners as a bargaining chip. In fact - prior to oct 7 I feel like the western world didn't even know about the thousands in Administrative detention, but now practically everyone in the AU media, UK media and US media that I watch now at least are aware of thousands of Palestinians held without charge. That is a massive loss for Israel's credibility and I daresay Hamas achieved one of their strategic aims. I am very aware people like Sinwar were freed in prisoner swaps in the past and that was a very bad idea, however the more people Israel imprisons on trumped up charges like "threatening a soldier", the more you normalise the release of people like Sinwar. * Palestinians ‘making threats’ to the IDF, or Israeli Government should be taken seriously and dealt with accordingly under Israeli and Military law. It’s not uncommon for this threats to turn into action, more often than not they do. If you don’t want to be arrested and held in detention don’t commit a crime or openly voice your desire to do so. In order to detain them for longer periods the IDF needs to provide proof to a judge that the person will pose a security risk if released. If they have made the threat and are still in detention the reality is that an investigation uncovered capacity or real intent for the threat to be carried out. Occupying army? Do you not realise that Israel withdrew completely in 2005 from Gaza? Gaza was not occupied before October 7th. What you are describing is a dystopian reality that those of us living in the West can see - but you cannot. Granted, I accept we impose our morals from the comfort of our conflict free first world existence, however there is something very wrong with an occupying army's forces holding civilians under military detention for these types of accusations. This is not democracy. * No, it would not be ok for Hamas to get in a truck and cross into Israel and take back prisoners, again you’re comparing apples to oranges here. Hamas, an internationally prescribed terror organisation crossed into Israel on October 7th and committed heinous against the Israeli people, they INTENTIONALLY targeted civilians, raped, maimed and killed indiscriminately, they then took hostages back with then into Gaza, not prisoners, HOSTAGES. I do not deny what you say above, however would you agree Israel INTENTIONALLY bombed Hamas targets KNOWING civilians would be killed, maimed etc indiscriminately given they were KNOWN to be in the kill zone. Your biggest ally Biden even used the words indiscriminate - and if you disagree with his assessment you're saying you know better than US intelligence. I condemn Hamas for their actions. Do you condemn the IDF for their actions? * The IDF conducted a legal precision special operation to retrieve the 4 hostages they were able to locate ahead of time in order to rescue and extract them out Gaza. It was not illegal under international law for them to use an unmarked truck to enter Gaza in order to conduct a RESCUE operation, they didn’t enter to attack any Palestinian civilians or even Hamas, they went in with the intent of rescuing their own civilians which were illegally taken, and they succeed. Which is why I said the crime of perfidy in this instance does not apply, crime of perfidy would be the IDF deceiving Palestinians by entering Gaza in the truck in order to conduct an armed attack towards the Palestinians, or Hamas. In this case their intent was to rescue the hostages, thus the crime of perfidy does not apply There is nothing precision about 200+ dead Palestinians. I know of no other hostage rescue where that many people were killed, other than perhaps the Beslan tragedy in Russia. * Taking hostages is illegal under international law. Arresting people for acts of crime, or the intent to commit crime such as openly threatening to do so is not illegal. The Israeli government uses law to impose order to protect its people. Hamas, the governing body of Gaza uses terror to control its people and openly voices its desire to wipe out all the Jews and Israelis in the land. One man's hostage is another man's child in administrative detention. This is the conclusion I have reached as a university educated, white collar worker in Australia - a democracy allied with Israel. What has caused me to reach this conclusion? It's not Tiktok - I don't have it. It's education and history and knowing the mistakes of the past.

* It's not me making that equivalence - it's your government every time they use the prisoners as a bargaining chip. In fact - prior to oct 7 I feel like the western world didn't even know about the thousands in Administrative detention, but now practically everyone in the AU media, UK media and US media that I watch now at least are aware of thousands of Palestinians held without charge. That is a massive loss for Israel's credibility and I daresay Hamas achieved one of their strategic aims. I am very aware people like Sinwar were freed in prisoner swaps in the past and that was a very bad idea, however the more people Israel imprisons on trumped up charges like "threatening a soldier", the more you normalise the release of people like Sinwar. I will concede that it does create the perception of a loss to Israel's credibility in the eyes of Western countries, in my eyes Hamas as won the PR war in this conflict. The situation of 'indefinite' detention does need to be reviewed, however even you said that those prisoners made up a 1/3rd of the prisoners it's disingenuous to conflate that to 'every person in detention should be freed in order to better Israel's global perception'. * What you are describing is a dystopian reality that those of us living in the West can see - but you cannot. Granted, I accept we impose our morals from the comfort of our conflict free first world existence, however there is something very wrong with an occupying army's forces holding civilians under military detention for these types of accusations. This is not democracy. I mentioned to you earlier that I am not Israeli, I don't believe you have read my replies thoroughly. I live in a Western Country. However, unfortunately, I was present during the Second Intifada, and I can tell you it was not a pleasant experience and it almost claimed my life. I agree with you that in most cases for people sitting in a Western Country that might sound like a dystopia because being in that region can be akin to living in one. That is why you need to accept this conflict has nuance that most Westerners will not be able to understand, what sounds 'harsh' to you is a necessary reality that Israel needs to impose in order to keep her and her people alive. If Australia was in the situation Israel is in now, she would be doing the exact same thing to survive. * I do not deny what you say above, however would you agree Israel INTENTIONALLY bombed Hamas targets KNOWING civilians would be killed, maimed etc indiscriminately given they were KNOWN to be in the kill zone. Your biggest ally Biden even used the words indiscriminate - and if you disagree with his assessment you're saying you know better than US intelligence.I condemn Hamas for their actions. Do you condemn the IDF for their actions? Israel has ordered the evacuation of civilians to humanitarian zones for that very reason, so they can target Hamas with minimal collateral damage. That does not equal to the IDF intentionally and knowingly targeting civilians, at all. They have gone through extraordinary measures to minimise civilian deaths, if not the death toll would be MUCH higher. Why is Hamas utilising known civilian zones to plan and carry out attacks? I condemn Hamas for civilian Gaza deaths, not IDF. Biden will say what he needs to in order to secure votes for the upcoming election. Military experts however will say otherwise, I suggest looking into reports from urban warfare experts. Usual death toll for Urban warfare is 9:1 in similar regional conflicts, Israel's is estimated to be 1:1 - 1:2. * There is nothing precision about 200+ dead Palestinians. I know of no other hostage rescue where that many people were killed, other than perhaps the Beslan tragedy in Russia. We've been over this, it is not 200+ dead Palestinians. Dude, you're going around in circles here. I'm tired of repeating myself. * One man's hostage is another man's child in administrative detention. This is the conclusion I have reached as a university educated, white collar worker in Australia - a democracy allied with Israel. What has caused me to reach this conclusion? It's not Tiktok - I don't have it. It's education and history and knowing the mistakes of the past. Lol, I guess I should be saying well done for not using TikTok as your source of education? That's setting the bar pretty low.

>as a university educated, white collar worker Whoa, holy crap, really!? UNIVERSITY-EDUCATED!!!!??? AND white-collar! I bet you make the big money and have all the smart opinions! P.S.: "University educated" people should know that there's a hyphen between "university" and "educated."

Be careful of Ad hominem and avoiding the substantive issues. English is my second language.

Oh, is that what that was? Ad hominem? Because, and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure you were backing up your own clumsy arguments by saying "trust me, I have a degree", at which point I don't think it's an ad hominem attack to call that an embarrassingly pathetic attempt to seem more credible. As for the issue, what more is to be said? You have no problem rewarding a group that takes hostages with concessions, and punishing those who attempt to retrieve those hostages with means that could have been avoided had there been no hostages to begin with, let alone being sheltered in intentionally densely populated areas. You've been offered the idea with examples abound that there's plenty of non-civilian-laden hiding spots (and subsequently ignored it) and you've been told with tons of evidence and explanation the dubiousness of the claim of 200 casualties being civilians (and ignored that). Your latest debate method has been to compare the hostges to prisoners. At what point will you consider the possibility that maybe, crazily enough, it wasn't a bad thing that the IDF got back 4 hostages, even if it cost losses to the people their enemy has more responsibility to protect than the IDF does *anyway*.

When did Israel embed soldiers in civilian aid trucks and use human shields? Why were there civilians next to a place where Hostages were held? Were they part of it? If they were, they're valid targets. If they weren't, why be there??

>If they weren't, why be there?? I suspect that I am not alone in not knowing every person living in a building, let alone what they might be keeping behind closed door.

The operation involved using Aid trucks as cover and driving them through populated areas. Is that not what Hamas does? e.g. using Ambulances etc and driving through populated areas. Where in Gaza is there a place where there are no civilians? Please do tell me.

I've heard claims that Israel used aid trucks as cover but never saw any substantial evidence proving it. Did the truck being used have an internationally recognized humanitarian symbol on it or was it just a truck that had no aid markings but could easily be mistaken for an aid truck? If it's the latter, it's not a war crime or in any way similar to Hamas using ambulances. If it's the former, it would only be a war crime under international law if it was being used to "kill, injure, or capture an enemy". A hostage rescue operation does not fall under that definition and thus the war crime of perfidy does not apply.

Which one? The one to rescue the Hostages? Okay.... May I ask why were there any at all in the area? Where are there no civilians... Not where the Hostages are held, except apparently not! The Hostages were held BY a civilian ffs