HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submitlogin

> Hamas itself parades in uniforms but fights in civilian clothing… But Israeli soldiers as a rule wear uniforms and Palestinians do not - ever.

Not even in parades?

> The west bank incident is also completely irrelevant.

How convenient.

> the IDF soldiers wear uniform and fight according to international laws

They are widely and credibly accused of not fighting according to international laws.

> You can't seriously suggest that Israel should equip Hamas with "thousands of items of military clothing, including boots, coats and combat vests, all in camouflage colors."

What military doesn't have boots, coats, and combat vests in its uniform?

You can't claim you get to treat them as illegal combatants because they don't have uniforms when you are embargoing the uniforms, lol.

> That said the Hamas tactics of being "civilian" do endanger their civilians in situations that could be ambiguous.

IDF HQ is right by a shopping mall. Fair to target?

help


8 days ago [flagged] [6 more]

[flagged]

> Is there a way that we can actually take this discussion beyond propaganda?

That would be great.

> I served in the IDF (a long time ago). I talked with soldiers who fought with Gaza.

I can cite a former Prime Minister of Israel, if we're playing that game. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/former-israeli-pm-olmert-e...

And the former head of Shin Bet. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/israeli-war-opposition-...

> The IDF does not just go around shooting every military aged male in Gaza.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Alon_Shamriz,_Yotam...

"The men had emerged from a building and were approaching a group of IDF soldiers when they were shot dead, in spite of the fact that they were shirtless and visibly unarmed while waving a makeshift white flag and calling out for help in Hebrew."

> IDF HQ is not "right by a shopping mall". The Kiryah in Tel Aviv is clearly delineated from the civilian area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matcal_Tower

Let's be serious, here; Google Maps has it ~300 feet from the mall and hotel across the street. Do that in Gaza and it'll be deemed to be using civilians as human shields.

> Widely yes. Credibly no.

Some of these war crimes are on video.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/04/world/middleeast/gaza-isr...

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyk1dk7d9do


> That would be great.

Then why do you keep at it?

We are debating the original claim and you keep bringing up random things.

The original statement that the IDF views every military age male in Gaza as a combatant from a targeting perspective is still false. It's easily falsifiable and you don't care. I provided an actual credible reference (The ICRC), a pointer to video evidence where you can cleasrly see the IDF not targeting military aged males, and my personal experience. My job is easier because you need to prove this is the law/rules/regulations/commands/practice and I just need to provide counter-examples to show that those are not actually the law/rules/regulations/commands. As to the official Israeli law and commands they are very clear about this. You can argue that's not what soldiers are doing on the ground but this claim needs a lot more support than you're providing.

>> So the administration does not intentionally target civilians, they have just stopped caring about who a civilian is. > Well Israel has defined "combatant" as "male between 14 and 55", and the Western world more or less shrugged and moved on without missing a beat. I'm not optimistic.

It's false and you keep insisting it's true. So if you want to build your theory of the world on false things keep doing it.

None of your claims/evidence support your conclusion. The way for you to challenge your conclusion and the original statement is by looking for evidence that it's false. And there is plenty of evidence beyond my personal experience and that of people I know - which you're welcome to discount.

The incident of the killing of the Israeli hostages is indeed very troubling. And it does not prove your point. It does agree with my more nuanced take. Your point is easily disproven by the thousands of interactions between the IDF and civilians in Gaza where military aged men are not shot at. That's what matters. Not whether there have been any war crimes or incidents where civilians have been killed. It should be obvious that if the IDF wanted to kill all military aged males in Gaza that number would be higher than the 9,000 cited in your other response given there are probably around 700k military aged males in Gaza.

It should also be obvious that Hamas tactics of fighting as civilians increases the likelihood of civilians being mistaken for combatants. That's why there's the requirement to wear uniforms in the first place. If you can't acknowledge that this is wrong that's another piece of evidence that you have decided what's wrong and what's right regardless of the actual facts. And no, Hamas isn't fighting in civilian clothing because Israel doesn't let them import uniforms. That's ridiculous.

It's not true that if Hamas had a designated HQ that was clearly delineated from civilian areas, even if it was 300 feet away, "it would be deemed to be using civilians as human shields". Hamas' practices include getting children and civilians to converge on assets that were under evacuation warnings. These practices are not comparable in any shape or form. What is true is that many/most western nations end up having some military installations in proximity of civilians. That is very different than setting up camp inside a civilian building or underneath. There are many examples of these practices by Hamas.

There's plenty of true/real things to be critical of Israel about. I would even join in some of these. But a lot of the criticism levelled at Israel, like this one, are based on falsehoods. The conclusion is chosen first and then reality is formed to fit it. Even bringing up Israel in the context of this thread on Iran is odd. If anything this thread shows that bad things happens in wars. We should be critical of the US here for good reasons. But this example (or countless others from US wars) does not prove that the US targets civilians or doesn't care about civilians. It proves that despite having rules and processes (that are way beyond what non-western armies have) civilians still get killed in wars.


> Then why do you keep at it?

https://www.reddit.com/r/whoosh/, I guess.

> As to the official Israeli law and commands they are very clear about this.

Oh, come on. The sitting PM is getting out of his corruption trial by keeping the conflict going. The only person punished for gang-raping a Palestinian detainee was the prosecutor who leaked it because they were getting away with it. You're gonna really pull the "well it's illegal!" thing?


Btw, random from your guys: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74wBqSkgIpo (and this is not related to the debate but since you're throwing random things at this and we're not getting anywhere anyways). This video has a Palestinian videographer who admits he did not share footage of Israeli hostages being abused by Palestinians due to fear for his and his family's safety [EDIT: from Hamas if it's not clear]. That is the view you get from Gaza.

You are still stuck and I can't help you. If your logic somehow explains things existing at the same time 1) Israel considers every military age male a target and attacks them 2) That such a relatively small percentage of military age males were killed in Gaza despite overwhelming military superiority of Israel 3) That there is endless footage showing the IDF soldiers in interactions where they don't just shoot every military age male. 4) the rules/commands/laws of Israel are what I say they are.

Your comment is again not relevant to our question. It is also, as seems to be a pattern, twisting the truth:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy0kpd97qqko

"Broadcast in August 2024 on an Israeli news channel, the footage shows reserve soldiers at the Sde Teiman military base in southern Israel taking aside a detainee, then surrounding him with riot shields to block visibility while he was allegedly beaten and stabbed in the rectum with a sharp object."

Gang raping -> you made this up. The video does not show that. There is no evidence.

This was being investigated. So that part of the system was working. There was a political pressure against the investigation but the investigative body is independent.

"Five reservists were charged with aggravated abuse and causing serious bodily harm to the detainee. They have denied the charges and have not been named."

This is the system doing what you claim it's not doing. It doesn't support your argument.

It's true that the end result of the prosecutor leaking the video, thus betraying trust, led to her dismissal, and compromised the case.

Personally I wouldn't rule out that Hamas captured during Oct 7th while murdering Israelis would face extreme violence in detention. It's possible. The evidence does not prove this conclusively.

I also agree Netanyahu has reasons to prolong the conflict and avoid justice. This is also not relevant to the validity of the original broad statement we're debating. It does not follow logically that because Netanyahu wants to remain PM that he is somehow instructing soldiers to shoot every military aged male in Gaza. He also doesn't actually have the power to do that. Part of every soldier's training in Israel is that they should not follow illegal orders. (another actual fact) And the PM doesn't have absolute authority over the chief of staff of the IDF. That position has a certain amount of independence in law. And sometimes they disagree - even publicly.

Is there anything that can be said or any piece of evidence that would convince you that the broad claim is false? If not then it's really up to you to ask yourself why.

This has nothing to do with the broader claim still being false and obviously so.

The world has complexity and has nuance. You insist in seeing it in black and white. And ofcourse in your world Israel is always in the black despite any evidence to the contrary.


> Gang raping -> you made this up. The video does not show that. There is no evidence.

You have a very odd approach to evidence plainly visible here. The detainee has confirmed rectal injuries and there's video of the incident that caused it. (Rape with an object remains rape, if that's the attempted quibble.)

To recap:

"This video has a Palestinian videographer who admits" is credible.

"This video shows the actual incident in question, which has corroborated physical evidence and was bad enough someone senior in the Israeli government whistleblew at great personal risk to get it out there" is not.

> Is there anything that can be said or any piece of evidence that would convince you that the broad claim is false?

"Is there one piece of evidence that would outweigh all the other pieces of evidence pointing the other direction" is quite the question.

No, there'd need to be pretty significant and widespread evidence to contradict clear lying about incidents like shooting ambulances (and covering up the site), raping detainees, shooting unarmed Israeli hostages trying to be rescued (oops!), and confimed video of the sitting Israeli national security minister personally abusing detainees.

> That there is endless footage showing the IDF soldiers in interactions where they don't just shoot every military age male.

This is a strawman, and you know it.

The problem with the "military-aged male" thing is it's used to excuse killings of civilians.

> The world has complexity and has nuance. You insist in seeing it in black and white.

"random from your guys"

Physician, heal thyself. Again. Hamas ain't "my guys". Why does this complexity and nuance apply only to one side?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: