D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Ben Shapiro just dismantled the "genocide" argument masterfully

https://notthebee.com/takes/ben-shapiro-just-dismantled-the-genocide-argument-masterfully

On the idiotic accusation of genocide leveled at Israel:

Quote:

---

Is there any doubting that if given the same kind of advantages, Palestine's masters Hamas would not be so measured in their prosecution of the conflict? But leave speculation out of it, and the fact that Israel has sent its troops into dangerous urban combat rather than simply level buildings with civilians inside is all you need to know about these kinds of hyperbolic accusations.

---

Unfortunately, the antisemites and terrorist apologists won't accept the intelligence and logic of his arguments.

Bigotry is always irrational.

---

The type of argument that Shapiro's using is an old and easily recognizable one. It's called lying.

---

What particular facts did he assert that you believe are false?

Does Hamas not use "human shields?" They have a history of doing so according to just about everyone who has looked at it.

https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf

Does genocide not actually have a definition?

You don't have to think everything the IDF does is great to see that if they wanted to carry out a genocide in Gaza they would have used very different tactics. You can be an antisemitic Nazi and still concede that war and genocide are not the same thing.

---

Who are you calling an antisemitic Nazi?

---

No one. It is an example of how even someone who was an antisemitic Nazi might still be able to understand that not all war is genocide.

---

Well, the reason I use the term is precisely that it has been carefully defined, and the same authorities that defined it have documented it in the case of Gaza.

Shapiro's lie is that the IDF doesn't routinely level buildings with civilians inside. No one with any knowledge of their tactics can possibly believe that.

---

Civilians do die in wars independent of genocide. War, as said by someone who knew, is hell. However, a force committing genocide does not sent text messages, phone calls or voicemails, or drop leaflets, or engage in "roof knocking," in advance of attacks. Additionally, a force as powerful as the IDF would have no problem killing a hell of a lot more people if they were committing genocide.

Sometimes politics rather than clear analysis comes in to play in determining whether something is or is not genocide.

---

This has been thoroughly addressed, not only by the UN but also by Israeli human rights groups. Such warnings are ineffective when there's no safe place to go, no safe passage to get there, and you're being attacked every step of the way. The main purpose of the warnings wasn't to save lives but rather to help depopulate the cities and move more Palestinians into refugee camps (where the IDF didn't hesitate to bomb them again). Even if some lives were spared, at least temporarily, it doesn't excuse attacks on those who failed to evacuate.

Bottom line, there's a difference between issuing evacuation orders before entering urban combat according to accepted rules of war and issuing evacuation orders before engaging in indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Shapiro would have you believe Israel only does the former, but he knows that isn't true.

---

In war, we people die, including civilians. This does not make their deaths "genocide." When Hamas sticks rocket launchers in neighborhoods, and store weapons under schools and hospitals, and put tunnels in densely populated areas and booby trap houses or apartments those locations become legitimate military targets and tend to make those deaths greater. The situation is a lot more complex than your simplistic "look at the Jews committing genocide" can explain.

Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, by the way, is what Hamas has been doing for a quarter century, yet I have not seen you on here condemning their attempt at genocide. The only reason that many thousand of Israeli citizens have not been blown to bits is that the IDF has managed to mitigate the attacks somewhat.

---

We're talking about the actions of an extremist Likud Party government that's increasingly seen as illegitimate by the rest of the world. So let's leave "the Jews" out of it.

Civilians die in war. That doesn't give Israel the right to kill them on purpose.

Quote:

---

The Commission reiterates its findings that (i) the Israeli security forces had intentionally killed Palestinian civilians in Gaza by using wide-impact munitions that caused high numbers of deaths and (ii) the actions were conducted with the knowledge that they would cause the deaths of Palestinian civilians. In its previous report, the Commission found that the conduct of the Israeli security forces constitutes the war crime of wilful killing where the attacks led to the deaths of Palestinian civilians. Having concluded in its previous reports that the crime against humanity of murder and the war crime of wilful killing have been committed, the Commission analysed the scale of the killings and concluded that the killings of Palestinian civilians were conducted in a large-scale manner over a significant period of time and widespread geographical area. The victims of the bombing were not singled out or targeted as individual civilians. On the contrary, victims were targeted collectively due to their identity as Palestinians. The Commission therefore concluded that the Israeli authorities have committed the crime against humanity of extermination in the Gaza Strip by killing Palestinian civilians. While the number of victims is not relevant for an act to constitute an act of genocide, the Commission notes that the number of victims may be taken into consideration to establish genocidal intent, discussed below.

In its previous report the Commission has found that the Israeli security forces intended to target and attack Palestinian civilians, including children, women, persons with disabilities and older persons, during their evacuation, within the designated safe zones and in shelters. Specifically in relation to children, the Commission found, that it was foreseeable on many occasions that civilians, including children, would be present in the area targeted by the Israeli security forces (for example, in residential buildings, UNRWA schools, medical facilities and within designated safe zones) and that the Israeli security forces intended to target Palestinian civilians in Gaza, including children.

The Commission has found in previous reports that Israeli security forces have deliberately targeted and killed Palestinian medical personnel and aid workers in Gaza. Additionally, the Commission finds that the Israeli security forces intentionally shot at the first responders on 23 March 2025 and, due to the extensive duration of the gunfire, it is reasonable to find that the Israeli security forces had intended to kill the victims and knew that the victims were Palestinians.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Ben Shapiro just dismantled the "genocide" argument masterfully

https://notthebee.com/takes/ben-shapiro-just-dismantled-the-genocide-argument-masterfully

On the idiotic accusation of genocide leveled at Israel:

Quote:

---

Is there any doubting that if given the same kind of advantages, Palestine's masters Hamas would not be so measured in their prosecution of the conflict? But leave speculation out of it, and the fact that Israel has sent its troops into dangerous urban combat rather than simply level buildings with civilians inside is all you need to know about these kinds of hyperbolic accusations.

---

Unfortunately, the antisemites and terrorist apologists won't accept the intelligence and logic of his arguments.

Bigotry is always irrational.

---

The type of argument that Shapiro's using is an old and easily recognizable one. It's called lying.

---

What particular facts did he assert that you believe are false?

Does Hamas not use "human shields?" They have a history of doing so according to just about everyone who has looked at it.

https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf

Does genocide not actually have a definition?

You don't have to think everything the IDF does is great to see that if they wanted to carry out a genocide in Gaza they would have used very different tactics. You can be an antisemitic Nazi and still concede that war and genocide are not the same thing.

---

Who are you calling an antisemitic Nazi?

---

No one. It is an example of how even someone who was an antisemitic Nazi might still be able to understand that not all war is genocide.

---

Well, the reason I use the term is precisely that it has been carefully defined, and the same authorities that defined it have documented it in the case of Gaza.

Shapiro's lie is that the IDF doesn't routinely level buildings with civilians inside. No one with any knowledge of their tactics can possibly believe that.

---

Civilians do die in wars independent of genocide. War, as said by someone who knew, is hell. However, a force committing genocide does not sent text messages, phone calls or voicemails, or drop leaflets, or engage in "roof knocking," in advance of attacks. Additionally, a force as powerful as the IDF would have no problem killing a hell of a lot more people if they were committing genocide.

Sometimes politics rather than clear analysis comes in to play in determining whether something is or is not genocide.

---

This has been thoroughly addressed, not only by the UN but also by Israeli human rights groups. Such warnings are ineffective when there's no safe place to go, no safe passage to get there, and you're being attacked every step of the way. The main purpose of the warnings wasn't to save lives but rather to help depopulate the cities and move more Palestinians into refugee camps (where the IDF didn't hesitate to bomb them again). Even if some lives were spared, at least temporarily, it doesn't excuse attacks on those who failed to evacuate.

Bottom line, there's a difference between issuing evacuation orders before entering urban combat according to accepted rules of war and issuing evacuation orders before engaging in indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Shapiro would have you believe Israel only does the former, but he knows that isn't true.

---

In war, we people die, including civilians. This does not make their deaths "genocide." When Hamas sticks rocket launchers in neighborhoods, and store weapons under schools and hospitals, and put tunnels in densely populated areas and booby trap houses or apartments those locations become legitimate military targets and tend to make those deaths greater. The situation is a lot more complex than your simplistic "look at the Jews committing genocide" can explain.

Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, by the way, is what Hamas has been doing for a quarter century, yet I have not seen you on here condemning their attempt at genocide. The only reason that many thousand of Israeli citizens have not been blown to bits is that the IDF has managed to mitigate the attacks somewhat.

---

We're talking about the actions of an extremist Likud Party government that's increasingly seen as illegitimate by the rest of the world. So let's leave "the Jews" out of it.

Civilians die in war. That doesn't give Israel the right to kill them on purpose.

Quote:

---

The Commission reiterates its findings that (i) the Israeli security forces had intentionally killed Palestinian civilians in Gaza by using wide-impact munitions that caused high numbers of deaths and (ii) the actions were conducted with the knowledge that they would cause the deaths of Palestinian civilians. In its previous report, the Commission found that the conduct of the Israeli security forces constitutes the war crime of wilful killing where the attacks led to the deaths of Palestinian civilians. Having concluded in its previous reports that the crime against humanity of murder and the war crime of wilful killing have been committed, the Commission analysed the scale of the killings and concluded that the killings of Palestinian civilians were conducted in a large-scale manner over a significant period of time and widespread geographical area. The victims of the bombing were not singled out or targeted as individual civilians. On the contrary, victims were targeted collectively due to their identity as Palestinians. The Commission therefore concluded that the Israeli authorities have committed the crime against humanity of extermination in the Gaza Strip by killing Palestinian civilians. While the number of victims is not relevant for an act to constitute an act of genocide, the Commission notes that the number of victims may be taken into consideration to establish genocidal intent, discussed below.

In its previous report the Commission has found that the Israeli security forces intended to target and attack Palestinian civilians, including children, women, persons with disabilities and older persons, during their evacuation, within the designated safe zones and in shelters. Specifically in relation to children, the Commission found, that it was foreseeable on many occasions that civilians, including children, would be present in the area targeted by the Israeli security forces (for example, in residential buildings, UNRWA schools, medical facilities and within designated safe zones) and that the Israeli security forces intended to target Palestinian civilians in Gaza, including children.

The Commission has found in previous reports that Israeli security forces have deliberately targeted and killed Palestinian medical personnel and aid workers in Gaza. Additionally, the Commission finds that the Israeli security forces intentionally shot at the first responders on 23 March 2025 and, due to the extensive duration of the gunfire, it is reasonable to find that the Israeli security forces had intended to kill the victims and knew that the victims were Palestinians.

---

---

Again, when military operators embed themselves with civilians, and disguise themselves as civilians, including as first responders, there will be some civilians who die, and there will be terrorists who die and are classified as civilians. War is hell. Again, when military operators use residences and schools and hospitals as storage for weapons, those places become legitimate military targets.

I don't trust the IDF to be perfect, no military is. However, I don't trust "the commission" you love to quote to be accurate in its assessment, either.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Ben Shapiro just dismantled the "genocide" argument masterfully

https://notthebee.com/takes/ben-shapiro-just-dismantled-the-genocide-argument-masterfully

On the idiotic accusation of genocide leveled at Israel:

Quote:

---

Is there any doubting that if given the same kind of advantages, Palestine's masters Hamas would not be so measured in their prosecution of the conflict? But leave speculation out of it, and the fact that Israel has sent its troops into dangerous urban combat rather than simply level buildings with civilians inside is all you need to know about these kinds of hyperbolic accusations.

---

Unfortunately, the antisemites and terrorist apologists won't accept the intelligence and logic of his arguments.

Bigotry is always irrational.

---

The type of argument that Shapiro's using is an old and easily recognizable one. It's called lying.

---

What particular facts did he assert that you believe are false?

Does Hamas not use "human shields?" They have a history of doing so according to just about everyone who has looked at it.

https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf

Does genocide not actually have a definition?

You don't have to think everything the IDF does is great to see that if they wanted to carry out a genocide in Gaza they would have used very different tactics. You can be an antisemitic Nazi and still concede that war and genocide are not the same thing.

---

Who are you calling an antisemitic Nazi?

---

No one. It is an example of how even someone who was an antisemitic Nazi might still be able to understand that not all war is genocide.

---

Well, the reason I use the term is precisely that it has been carefully defined, and the same authorities that defined it have documented it in the case of Gaza.

Shapiro's lie is that the IDF doesn't routinely level buildings with civilians inside. No one with any knowledge of their tactics can possibly believe that.

---

Civilians do die in wars independent of genocide. War, as said by someone who knew, is hell. However, a force committing genocide does not sent text messages, phone calls or voicemails, or drop leaflets, or engage in "roof knocking," in advance of attacks. Additionally, a force as powerful as the IDF would have no problem killing a hell of a lot more people if they were committing genocide.

Sometimes politics rather than clear analysis comes in to play in determining whether something is or is not genocide.

---

This has been thoroughly addressed, not only by the UN but also by Israeli human rights groups. Such warnings are ineffective when there's no safe place to go, no safe passage to get there, and you're being attacked every step of the way. The main purpose of the warnings wasn't to save lives but rather to help depopulate the cities and move more Palestinians into refugee camps (where the IDF didn't hesitate to bomb them again). Even if some lives were spared, at least temporarily, it doesn't excuse attacks on those who failed to evacuate.

Bottom line, there's a difference between issuing evacuation orders before entering urban combat according to accepted rules of war and issuing evacuation orders before engaging in indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Shapiro would have you believe Israel only does the former, but he knows that isn't true.

---

In war, we people die, including civilians. This does not make their deaths "genocide." When Hamas sticks rocket launchers in neighborhoods, and store weapons under schools and hospitals, and put tunnels in densely populated areas and booby trap houses or apartments those locations become legitimate military targets and tend to make those deaths greater. The situation is a lot more complex than your simplistic "look at the Jews committing genocide" can explain.

Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, by the way, is what Hamas has been doing for a quarter century, yet I have not seen you on here condemning their attempt at genocide. The only reason that many thousand of Israeli citizens have not been blown to bits is that the IDF has managed to mitigate the attacks somewhat.

---

We're talking about the actions of an extremist Likud Party government that's increasingly seen as illegitimate by the rest of the world. So let's leave "the Jews" out of it.

Civilians die in war. That doesn't give Israel the right to kill them on purpose.

Quote:

---

The Commission reiterates its findings that (i) the Israeli security forces had intentionally killed Palestinian civilians in Gaza by using wide-impact munitions that caused high numbers of deaths and (ii) the actions were conducted with the knowledge that they would cause the deaths of Palestinian civilians. In its previous report, the Commission found that the conduct of the Israeli security forces constitutes the war crime of wilful killing where the attacks led to the deaths of Palestinian civilians. Having concluded in its previous reports that the crime against humanity of murder and the war crime of wilful killing have been committed, the Commission analysed the scale of the killings and concluded that the killings of Palestinian civilians were conducted in a large-scale manner over a significant period of time and widespread geographical area. The victims of the bombing were not singled out or targeted as individual civilians. On the contrary, victims were targeted collectively due to their identity as Palestinians. The Commission therefore concluded that the Israeli authorities have committed the crime against humanity of extermination in the Gaza Strip by killing Palestinian civilians. While the number of victims is not relevant for an act to constitute an act of genocide, the Commission notes that the number of victims may be taken into consideration to establish genocidal intent, discussed below.

In its previous report the Commission has found that the Israeli security forces intended to target and attack Palestinian civilians, including children, women, persons with disabilities and older persons, during their evacuation, within the designated safe zones and in shelters. Specifically in relation to children, the Commission found, that it was foreseeable on many occasions that civilians, including children, would be present in the area targeted by the Israeli security forces (for example, in residential buildings, UNRWA schools, medical facilities and within designated safe zones) and that the Israeli security forces intended to target Palestinian civilians in Gaza, including children.

The Commission has found in previous reports that Israeli security forces have deliberately targeted and killed Palestinian medical personnel and aid workers in Gaza. Additionally, the Commission finds that the Israeli security forces intentionally shot at the first responders on 23 March 2025 and, due to the extensive duration of the gunfire, it is reasonable to find that the Israeli security forces had intended to kill the victims and knew that the victims were Palestinians.

---

---

Again, when military operators embed themselves with civilians, and disguise themselves as civilians, including as first responders, there will be some civilians who die, and there will be terrorists who die and are classified as civilians. War is hell. Again, when military operators use residences and schools and hospitals as storage for weapons, those places become legitimate military targets.

I don't trust the IDF to be perfect, no military is. However, I don't trust "the commission" you love to quote to be accurate in its assessment, either.

---

And there it is.

Again, we're talking about intentional targeting of civilians, not just collateral damage.

The only ones intentionally targeting civilians were your Hamas terrorist buddies.

historian said:

---

Depends on how you interpret the incomprehensible gibberish Biden routinely spewed

Even when comprehensible on a few occasions, Biden regularly said a lot of crazy things. Does anyone remember his Hitler speech?

---

Is that the one where he said "they're eating the covfefe!"
?

That's one of countless examples. The Hitler speech was one of his more radical rants. They had his teleprompter humming! IIRC, that one had less gibberish but it was scarier because of the paranoid fantasies and extreme projection.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Again, when military operators embed themselves with civilians, and disguise themselves as civilians, including as first responders, there will be some civilians who die, and there will be terrorists who die and are classified as civilians. War is hell. Again, when military operators use residences and schools and hospitals as storage for weapons, those places become legitimate military targets.

---

Do you also apply this standard to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, or just Hamas? Consistency is important.

.... definitely some PHDs on this board.....

- el UF

D!

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating breakfast bar }

Go Bears!!

Beat The 'Hawks!!!

Viva Javelina!!!!

quash said:

---

historian said:

---

Depends on how you interpret the incomprehensible gibberish Biden routinely spewed

Even when comprehensible on a few occasions, Biden regularly said a lot of crazy things. Does anyone remember his Hitler speech?

---

Is that the one where he said "they're eating the covfefe!"
?

---

pure geenyus!!!

- el UF

D!

{ sipping covfefe }

{ gnoshing opportunity }

Viva Trumpata!!

Wear Mauve!!!

Suelten los perros economicas, amigos!!!!

Alejarse de Franica y pronto, citoyens!!!!!

Realitybites said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Again, when military operators embed themselves with civilians, and disguise themselves as civilians, including as first responders, there will be some civilians who die, and there will be terrorists who die and are classified as civilians. War is hell. Again, when military operators use residences and schools and hospitals as storage for weapons, those places become legitimate military targets.

---

Do you also apply this standard to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, or just Hamas? Consistency is important.

---

It's not a "standard," these are just observations about reality. Civilians die in war. More will die when operatives embed themselves with civilians and disguise themselves as a civilians.

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Ben Shapiro just dismantled the "genocide" argument masterfully

https://notthebee.com/takes/ben-shapiro-just-dismantled-the-genocide-argument-masterfully

On the idiotic accusation of genocide leveled at Israel:

Quote:

---

Is there any doubting that if given the same kind of advantages, Palestine's masters Hamas would not be so measured in their prosecution of the conflict? But leave speculation out of it, and the fact that Israel has sent its troops into dangerous urban combat rather than simply level buildings with civilians inside is all you need to know about these kinds of hyperbolic accusations.

---

Unfortunately, the antisemites and terrorist apologists won't accept the intelligence and logic of his arguments.

Bigotry is always irrational.

---

The type of argument that Shapiro's using is an old and easily recognizable one. It's called lying.

---

What particular facts did he assert that you believe are false?

Does Hamas not use "human shields?" They have a history of doing so according to just about everyone who has looked at it.

https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf

Does genocide not actually have a definition?

You don't have to think everything the IDF does is great to see that if they wanted to carry out a genocide in Gaza they would have used very different tactics. You can be an antisemitic Nazi and still concede that war and genocide are not the same thing.

---

Who are you calling an antisemitic Nazi?

---

No one. It is an example of how even someone who was an antisemitic Nazi might still be able to understand that not all war is genocide.

---

Well, the reason I use the term is precisely that it has been carefully defined, and the same authorities that defined it have documented it in the case of Gaza.

Shapiro's lie is that the IDF doesn't routinely level buildings with civilians inside. No one with any knowledge of their tactics can possibly believe that.

---

Civilians do die in wars independent of genocide. War, as said by someone who knew, is hell. However, a force committing genocide does not sent text messages, phone calls or voicemails, or drop leaflets, or engage in "roof knocking," in advance of attacks. Additionally, a force as powerful as the IDF would have no problem killing a hell of a lot more people if they were committing genocide.

Sometimes politics rather than clear analysis comes in to play in determining whether something is or is not genocide.

---

This has been thoroughly addressed, not only by the UN but also by Israeli human rights groups. Such warnings are ineffective when there's no safe place to go, no safe passage to get there, and you're being attacked every step of the way. The main purpose of the warnings wasn't to save lives but rather to help depopulate the cities and move more Palestinians into refugee camps (where the IDF didn't hesitate to bomb them again). Even if some lives were spared, at least temporarily, it doesn't excuse attacks on those who failed to evacuate.

Bottom line, there's a difference between issuing evacuation orders before entering urban combat according to accepted rules of war and issuing evacuation orders before engaging in indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Shapiro would have you believe Israel only does the former, but he knows that isn't true.

---

Evacuation orders are just that. You choose to stay in the war zone after being alerted to an attack, you either become a combatant or you have been coerced into staying by your local leaders. It does not fit the definition of genocide that you want it to so badly.

Realitybites said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Again, when military operators embed themselves with civilians, and disguise themselves as civilians, including as first responders, there will be some civilians who die, and there will be terrorists who die and are classified as civilians. War is hell. Again, when military operators use residences and schools and hospitals as storage for weapons, those places become legitimate military targets.

---

Do you also apply this standard to the Armed Forces of Ukraine, or just Hamas? Consistency is important.

---

You mean those armed forces dropping missiles and drones on apartment buildings in Kyiv with no warning?

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Ben Shapiro just dismantled the "genocide" argument masterfully

https://notthebee.com/takes/ben-shapiro-just-dismantled-the-genocide-argument-masterfully

On the idiotic accusation of genocide leveled at Israel:

Quote:

---

Is there any doubting that if given the same kind of advantages, Palestine's masters Hamas would not be so measured in their prosecution of the conflict? But leave speculation out of it, and the fact that Israel has sent its troops into dangerous urban combat rather than simply level buildings with civilians inside is all you need to know about these kinds of hyperbolic accusations.

---

Unfortunately, the antisemites and terrorist apologists won't accept the intelligence and logic of his arguments.

Bigotry is always irrational.

---

The type of argument that Shapiro's using is an old and easily recognizable one. It's called lying.

---

What particular facts did he assert that you believe are false?

Does Hamas not use "human shields?" They have a history of doing so according to just about everyone who has looked at it.

https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf

Does genocide not actually have a definition?

You don't have to think everything the IDF does is great to see that if they wanted to carry out a genocide in Gaza they would have used very different tactics. You can be an antisemitic Nazi and still concede that war and genocide are not the same thing.

---

Who are you calling an antisemitic Nazi?

---

No one. It is an example of how even someone who was an antisemitic Nazi might still be able to understand that not all war is genocide.

---

Well, the reason I use the term is precisely that it has been carefully defined, and the same authorities that defined it have documented it in the case of Gaza.

Shapiro's lie is that the IDF doesn't routinely level buildings with civilians inside. No one with any knowledge of their tactics can possibly believe that.

---

Civilians do die in wars independent of genocide. War, as said by someone who knew, is hell. However, a force committing genocide does not sent text messages, phone calls or voicemails, or drop leaflets, or engage in "roof knocking," in advance of attacks. Additionally, a force as powerful as the IDF would have no problem killing a hell of a lot more people if they were committing genocide.

Sometimes politics rather than clear analysis comes in to play in determining whether something is or is not genocide.

---

This has been thoroughly addressed, not only by the UN but also by Israeli human rights groups. Such warnings are ineffective when there's no safe place to go, no safe passage to get there, and you're being attacked every step of the way. The main purpose of the warnings wasn't to save lives but rather to help depopulate the cities and move more Palestinians into refugee camps (where the IDF didn't hesitate to bomb them again). Even if some lives were spared, at least temporarily, it doesn't excuse attacks on those who failed to evacuate.

Bottom line, there's a difference between issuing evacuation orders before entering urban combat according to accepted rules of war and issuing evacuation orders before engaging in indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Shapiro would have you believe Israel only does the former, but he knows that isn't true.

---

Evacuation orders are just that. You choose to stay in the war zone after being alerted to an attack, you either become a combatant or you have been coerced into staying by your local leaders. It does not fit the definition of genocide that you want it to so badly.

---

"In its previous report the Commission has found that the Israeli security forces intended to target and attack Palestinian civilians, including children, women, persons with disabilities and older persons, during their evacuation, within the designated safe zones and in shelters."

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Ben Shapiro just dismantled the "genocide" argument masterfully

https://notthebee.com/takes/ben-shapiro-just-dismantled-the-genocide-argument-masterfully

On the idiotic accusation of genocide leveled at Israel:

Quote:

---

Is there any doubting that if given the same kind of advantages, Palestine's masters Hamas would not be so measured in their prosecution of the conflict? But leave speculation out of it, and the fact that Israel has sent its troops into dangerous urban combat rather than simply level buildings with civilians inside is all you need to know about these kinds of hyperbolic accusations.

---

Unfortunately, the antisemites and terrorist apologists won't accept the intelligence and logic of his arguments.

Bigotry is always irrational.

---

The type of argument that Shapiro's using is an old and easily recognizable one. It's called lying.

---

What particular facts did he assert that you believe are false?

Does Hamas not use "human shields?" They have a history of doing so according to just about everyone who has looked at it.

https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf

Does genocide not actually have a definition?

You don't have to think everything the IDF does is great to see that if they wanted to carry out a genocide in Gaza they would have used very different tactics. You can be an antisemitic Nazi and still concede that war and genocide are not the same thing.

---

Who are you calling an antisemitic Nazi?

---

No one. It is an example of how even someone who was an antisemitic Nazi might still be able to understand that not all war is genocide.

---

Well, the reason I use the term is precisely that it has been carefully defined, and the same authorities that defined it have documented it in the case of Gaza.

Shapiro's lie is that the IDF doesn't routinely level buildings with civilians inside. No one with any knowledge of their tactics can possibly believe that.

---

Civilians do die in wars independent of genocide. War, as said by someone who knew, is hell. However, a force committing genocide does not sent text messages, phone calls or voicemails, or drop leaflets, or engage in "roof knocking," in advance of attacks. Additionally, a force as powerful as the IDF would have no problem killing a hell of a lot more people if they were committing genocide.

Sometimes politics rather than clear analysis comes in to play in determining whether something is or is not genocide.

---

This has been thoroughly addressed, not only by the UN but also by Israeli human rights groups. Such warnings are ineffective when there's no safe place to go, no safe passage to get there, and you're being attacked every step of the way. The main purpose of the warnings wasn't to save lives but rather to help depopulate the cities and move more Palestinians into refugee camps (where the IDF didn't hesitate to bomb them again). Even if some lives were spared, at least temporarily, it doesn't excuse attacks on those who failed to evacuate.

Bottom line, there's a difference between issuing evacuation orders before entering urban combat according to accepted rules of war and issuing evacuation orders before engaging in indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Shapiro would have you believe Israel only does the former, but he knows that isn't true.

---

Evacuation orders are just that. You choose to stay in the war zone after being alerted to an attack, you either become a combatant or you have been coerced into staying by your local leaders. It does not fit the definition of genocide that you want it to so badly.

---

"In its previous report the Commission has found that the Israeli security forces intended to target and attack Palestinian civilians, including children, women, persons with disabilities and older persons, during their evacuation, within the designated safe zones and in shelters."

---

Apparently it was so pervasive that a high percentage of the Palestinian population died. But wait…

And can you link the report you are quoting so we can read the whole thing for ourselves?
Not a summation, but the actual report with names signed to it.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Ben Shapiro just dismantled the "genocide" argument masterfully

https://notthebee.com/takes/ben-shapiro-just-dismantled-the-genocide-argument-masterfully

On the idiotic accusation of genocide leveled at Israel:

Quote:

---

Is there any doubting that if given the same kind of advantages, Palestine's masters Hamas would not be so measured in their prosecution of the conflict? But leave speculation out of it, and the fact that Israel has sent its troops into dangerous urban combat rather than simply level buildings with civilians inside is all you need to know about these kinds of hyperbolic accusations.

---

Unfortunately, the antisemites and terrorist apologists won't accept the intelligence and logic of his arguments.

Bigotry is always irrational.

---

The type of argument that Shapiro's using is an old and easily recognizable one. It's called lying.

---

What particular facts did he assert that you believe are false?

Does Hamas not use "human shields?" They have a history of doing so according to just about everyone who has looked at it.

https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf

Does genocide not actually have a definition?

You don't have to think everything the IDF does is great to see that if they wanted to carry out a genocide in Gaza they would have used very different tactics. You can be an antisemitic Nazi and still concede that war and genocide are not the same thing.

---

Who are you calling an antisemitic Nazi?

---

No one. It is an example of how even someone who was an antisemitic Nazi might still be able to understand that not all war is genocide.

---

Well, the reason I use the term is precisely that it has been carefully defined, and the same authorities that defined it have documented it in the case of Gaza.

Shapiro's lie is that the IDF doesn't routinely level buildings with civilians inside. No one with any knowledge of their tactics can possibly believe that.

---

Civilians do die in wars independent of genocide. War, as said by someone who knew, is hell. However, a force committing genocide does not sent text messages, phone calls or voicemails, or drop leaflets, or engage in "roof knocking," in advance of attacks. Additionally, a force as powerful as the IDF would have no problem killing a hell of a lot more people if they were committing genocide.

Sometimes politics rather than clear analysis comes in to play in determining whether something is or is not genocide.

---

This has been thoroughly addressed, not only by the UN but also by Israeli human rights groups. Such warnings are ineffective when there's no safe place to go, no safe passage to get there, and you're being attacked every step of the way. The main purpose of the warnings wasn't to save lives but rather to help depopulate the cities and move more Palestinians into refugee camps (where the IDF didn't hesitate to bomb them again). Even if some lives were spared, at least temporarily, it doesn't excuse attacks on those who failed to evacuate.

Bottom line, there's a difference between issuing evacuation orders before entering urban combat according to accepted rules of war and issuing evacuation orders before engaging in indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Shapiro would have you believe Israel only does the former, but he knows that isn't true.

---

Evacuation orders are just that. You choose to stay in the war zone after being alerted to an attack, you either become a combatant or you have been coerced into staying by your local leaders. It does not fit the definition of genocide that you want it to so badly.

---

"In its previous report the Commission has found that the Israeli security forces intended to target and attack Palestinian civilians, including children, women, persons with disabilities and older persons, during their evacuation, within the designated safe zones and in shelters."

---

Apparently it was so pervasive that a high percentage of the Palestinian population died. But wait…

And can you link the report you are quoting so we can read the whole thing for ourselves?
Not a summation, but the actual report with names signed to it.

---

At least 5 percent as of 2025. I would argue 10 percent or more by now.

https://www.mpg.de/25778228/gaza-study-reveals-unprecedented-losses-of-life-and-life-expectancy

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Ben Shapiro just dismantled the "genocide" argument masterfully

https://notthebee.com/takes/ben-shapiro-just-dismantled-the-genocide-argument-masterfully

On the idiotic accusation of genocide leveled at Israel:

Quote:

---

Is there any doubting that if given the same kind of advantages, Palestine's masters Hamas would not be so measured in their prosecution of the conflict? But leave speculation out of it, and the fact that Israel has sent its troops into dangerous urban combat rather than simply level buildings with civilians inside is all you need to know about these kinds of hyperbolic accusations.

---

Unfortunately, the antisemites and terrorist apologists won't accept the intelligence and logic of his arguments.

Bigotry is always irrational.

---

The type of argument that Shapiro's using is an old and easily recognizable one. It's called lying.

---

What particular facts did he assert that you believe are false?

Does Hamas not use "human shields?" They have a history of doing so according to just about everyone who has looked at it.

https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf

Does genocide not actually have a definition?

You don't have to think everything the IDF does is great to see that if they wanted to carry out a genocide in Gaza they would have used very different tactics. You can be an antisemitic Nazi and still concede that war and genocide are not the same thing.

---

Who are you calling an antisemitic Nazi?

---

No one. It is an example of how even someone who was an antisemitic Nazi might still be able to understand that not all war is genocide.

---

Well, the reason I use the term is precisely that it has been carefully defined, and the same authorities that defined it have documented it in the case of Gaza.

Shapiro's lie is that the IDF doesn't routinely level buildings with civilians inside. No one with any knowledge of their tactics can possibly believe that.

---

Civilians do die in wars independent of genocide. War, as said by someone who knew, is hell. However, a force committing genocide does not sent text messages, phone calls or voicemails, or drop leaflets, or engage in "roof knocking," in advance of attacks. Additionally, a force as powerful as the IDF would have no problem killing a hell of a lot more people if they were committing genocide.

Sometimes politics rather than clear analysis comes in to play in determining whether something is or is not genocide.

---

This has been thoroughly addressed, not only by the UN but also by Israeli human rights groups. Such warnings are ineffective when there's no safe place to go, no safe passage to get there, and you're being attacked every step of the way. The main purpose of the warnings wasn't to save lives but rather to help depopulate the cities and move more Palestinians into refugee camps (where the IDF didn't hesitate to bomb them again). Even if some lives were spared, at least temporarily, it doesn't excuse attacks on those who failed to evacuate.

Bottom line, there's a difference between issuing evacuation orders before entering urban combat according to accepted rules of war and issuing evacuation orders before engaging in indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Shapiro would have you believe Israel only does the former, but he knows that isn't true.

---

Evacuation orders are just that. You choose to stay in the war zone after being alerted to an attack, you either become a combatant or you have been coerced into staying by your local leaders. It does not fit the definition of genocide that you want it to so badly.

---

"In its previous report the Commission has found that the Israeli security forces intended to target and attack Palestinian civilians, including children, women, persons with disabilities and older persons, during their evacuation, within the designated safe zones and in shelters."

---

Apparently it was so pervasive that a high percentage of the Palestinian population died. But wait…

And can you link the report you are quoting so we can read the whole thing for ourselves?
Not a summation, but the actual report with names signed to it.

---

At least 5 percent as of 2025. I would argue 10 percent or more by now.

https://www.mpg.de/25778228/gaza-study-reveals-unprecedented-losses-of-life-and-life-expectancy

---

Your article is more about a study of Gaza life expectancy using models in place of unattainable hard data. It protects itself by stating,
". As genocide is a very specific legal term, certain additional criteria must be met for it to be applicable. This was not the focus of this study."

If we use the higher educated guess through modeling of 100,000 deaths - the Gaza authorities don't even claim that many and most of their claimed population loss is by displacement even as their numbers don't add up well - that is still less than 5 percent of the best guess of 2.13 million living in the Gaza Strip presently. The study the article is about won't claim an Israeli genocide and even speaks to the problem of the legal definition of the term. The deaths are attributed to conflict, which means it must include Hamas purges along with the collateral loss from the conflict being mostly in the Gaza Strip. Gaza even now still has the highest birth rate among Palestinian controlled areas, even with all the reported loss of food security, hospital care, child education, and housing.

The reports that support any talk of genocide by Israel are relying heavily on stats from the Palestinian Central Bureau.

https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/en/post-details/?postId=23319

We don't call him Hamas Harry aka Sam Losery for nothing

Dude only cares about one "genocide" but ignores the others

Maybe because it is a political talking point for the lunatic left?

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Ben Shapiro just dismantled the "genocide" argument masterfully

https://notthebee.com/takes/ben-shapiro-just-dismantled-the-genocide-argument-masterfully

On the idiotic accusation of genocide leveled at Israel:

Quote:

---

Is there any doubting that if given the same kind of advantages, Palestine's masters Hamas would not be so measured in their prosecution of the conflict? But leave speculation out of it, and the fact that Israel has sent its troops into dangerous urban combat rather than simply level buildings with civilians inside is all you need to know about these kinds of hyperbolic accusations.

---

Unfortunately, the antisemites and terrorist apologists won't accept the intelligence and logic of his arguments.

Bigotry is always irrational.

---

The type of argument that Shapiro's using is an old and easily recognizable one. It's called lying.

---

What particular facts did he assert that you believe are false?

Does Hamas not use "human shields?" They have a history of doing so according to just about everyone who has looked at it.

https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf

Does genocide not actually have a definition?

You don't have to think everything the IDF does is great to see that if they wanted to carry out a genocide in Gaza they would have used very different tactics. You can be an antisemitic Nazi and still concede that war and genocide are not the same thing.

---

Who are you calling an antisemitic Nazi?

---

No one. It is an example of how even someone who was an antisemitic Nazi might still be able to understand that not all war is genocide.

---

Well, the reason I use the term is precisely that it has been carefully defined, and the same authorities that defined it have documented it in the case of Gaza.

Shapiro's lie is that the IDF doesn't routinely level buildings with civilians inside. No one with any knowledge of their tactics can possibly believe that.

---

Civilians do die in wars independent of genocide. War, as said by someone who knew, is hell. However, a force committing genocide does not sent text messages, phone calls or voicemails, or drop leaflets, or engage in "roof knocking," in advance of attacks. Additionally, a force as powerful as the IDF would have no problem killing a hell of a lot more people if they were committing genocide.

Sometimes politics rather than clear analysis comes in to play in determining whether something is or is not genocide.

---

This has been thoroughly addressed, not only by the UN but also by Israeli human rights groups. Such warnings are ineffective when there's no safe place to go, no safe passage to get there, and you're being attacked every step of the way. The main purpose of the warnings wasn't to save lives but rather to help depopulate the cities and move more Palestinians into refugee camps (where the IDF didn't hesitate to bomb them again). Even if some lives were spared, at least temporarily, it doesn't excuse attacks on those who failed to evacuate.

Bottom line, there's a difference between issuing evacuation orders before entering urban combat according to accepted rules of war and issuing evacuation orders before engaging in indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Shapiro would have you believe Israel only does the former, but he knows that isn't true.

---

Evacuation orders are just that. You choose to stay in the war zone after being alerted to an attack, you either become a combatant or you have been coerced into staying by your local leaders. It does not fit the definition of genocide that you want it to so badly.

---

"In its previous report the Commission has found that the Israeli security forces intended to target and attack Palestinian civilians, including children, women, persons with disabilities and older persons, during their evacuation, within the designated safe zones and in shelters."

---

Apparently it was so pervasive that a high percentage of the Palestinian population died. But wait…

And can you link the report you are quoting so we can read the whole thing for ourselves?
Not a summation, but the actual report with names signed to it.

---

At least 5 percent as of 2025. I would argue 10 percent or more by now.

https://www.mpg.de/25778228/gaza-study-reveals-unprecedented-losses-of-life-and-life-expectancy

---

Your article is more about a study of Gaza life expectancy using models in place of unattainable hard data. It protects itself by stating,
". As genocide is a very specific legal term, certain additional criteria must be met for it to be applicable. This was not the focus of this study."

If we use the higher educated guess through modeling of 100,000 deaths - the Gaza authorities don't even claim that many and most of their claimed population loss is by displacement even as their numbers don't add up well - that is still less than 5 percent of the best guess of 2.13 million living in the Gaza Strip presently. The study the article is about won't claim an Israeli genocide and even speaks to the problem of the legal definition of the term. The deaths are attributed to conflict, which means it must include Hamas purges along with the collateral loss from the conflict being mostly in the Gaza Strip. Gaza even now still has the highest birth rate among Palestinian controlled areas, even with all the reported loss of food security, hospital care, child education, and housing.

The reports that support any talk of genocide by Israel are relying heavily on stats from the Palestinian Central Bureau.

https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/en/post-details/?postId=23319

---

There are high ranking Israeli officials in their government who were elected by vast swaths of the Israeli population who post about genociding the Palestinians out of Gaza all the time... the only thing holding them back is American public opinion and the fact that they have completely lost the support of ALL Americans under 40

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Ben Shapiro just dismantled the "genocide" argument masterfully

https://notthebee.com/takes/ben-shapiro-just-dismantled-the-genocide-argument-masterfully

On the idiotic accusation of genocide leveled at Israel:

Quote:

---

Is there any doubting that if given the same kind of advantages, Palestine's masters Hamas would not be so measured in their prosecution of the conflict? But leave speculation out of it, and the fact that Israel has sent its troops into dangerous urban combat rather than simply level buildings with civilians inside is all you need to know about these kinds of hyperbolic accusations.

---

Unfortunately, the antisemites and terrorist apologists won't accept the intelligence and logic of his arguments.

Bigotry is always irrational.

---

The type of argument that Shapiro's using is an old and easily recognizable one. It's called lying.

---

What particular facts did he assert that you believe are false?

Does Hamas not use "human shields?" They have a history of doing so according to just about everyone who has looked at it.

https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf

Does genocide not actually have a definition?

You don't have to think everything the IDF does is great to see that if they wanted to carry out a genocide in Gaza they would have used very different tactics. You can be an antisemitic Nazi and still concede that war and genocide are not the same thing.

---

Who are you calling an antisemitic Nazi?

---

No one. It is an example of how even someone who was an antisemitic Nazi might still be able to understand that not all war is genocide.

---

Well, the reason I use the term is precisely that it has been carefully defined, and the same authorities that defined it have documented it in the case of Gaza.

Shapiro's lie is that the IDF doesn't routinely level buildings with civilians inside. No one with any knowledge of their tactics can possibly believe that.

---

Civilians do die in wars independent of genocide. War, as said by someone who knew, is hell. However, a force committing genocide does not sent text messages, phone calls or voicemails, or drop leaflets, or engage in "roof knocking," in advance of attacks. Additionally, a force as powerful as the IDF would have no problem killing a hell of a lot more people if they were committing genocide.

Sometimes politics rather than clear analysis comes in to play in determining whether something is or is not genocide.

---

This has been thoroughly addressed, not only by the UN but also by Israeli human rights groups. Such warnings are ineffective when there's no safe place to go, no safe passage to get there, and you're being attacked every step of the way. The main purpose of the warnings wasn't to save lives but rather to help depopulate the cities and move more Palestinians into refugee camps (where the IDF didn't hesitate to bomb them again). Even if some lives were spared, at least temporarily, it doesn't excuse attacks on those who failed to evacuate.

Bottom line, there's a difference between issuing evacuation orders before entering urban combat according to accepted rules of war and issuing evacuation orders before engaging in indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Shapiro would have you believe Israel only does the former, but he knows that isn't true.

---

Evacuation orders are just that. You choose to stay in the war zone after being alerted to an attack, you either become a combatant or you have been coerced into staying by your local leaders. It does not fit the definition of genocide that you want it to so badly.

---

"In its previous report the Commission has found that the Israeli security forces intended to target and attack Palestinian civilians, including children, women, persons with disabilities and older persons, during their evacuation, within the designated safe zones and in shelters."

---

Apparently it was so pervasive that a high percentage of the Palestinian population died. But wait…

And can you link the report you are quoting so we can read the whole thing for ourselves?
Not a summation, but the actual report with names signed to it.

---

At least 5 percent as of 2025. I would argue 10 percent or more by now.

https://www.mpg.de/25778228/gaza-study-reveals-unprecedented-losses-of-life-and-life-expectancy

---

Your article is more about a study of Gaza life expectancy using models in place of unattainable hard data. It protects itself by stating,
". As genocide is a very specific legal term, certain additional criteria must be met for it to be applicable. This was not the focus of this study."

If we use the higher educated guess through modeling of 100,000 deaths - the Gaza authorities don't even claim that many and most of their claimed population loss is by displacement even as their numbers don't add up well - that is still less than 5 percent of the best guess of 2.13 million living in the Gaza Strip presently. The study the article is about won't claim an Israeli genocide and even speaks to the problem of the legal definition of the term. The deaths are attributed to conflict, which means it must include Hamas purges along with the collateral loss from the conflict being mostly in the Gaza Strip. Gaza even now still has the highest birth rate among Palestinian controlled areas, even with all the reported loss of food security, hospital care, child education, and housing.

The reports that support any talk of genocide by Israel are relying heavily on stats from the Palestinian Central Bureau.

https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/en/post-details/?postId=23319

---

There are many articles about the genocide. This one is about depopulation, in response to your point above. It's worth mentioning even though it's not strictly relevant (genocide is defined by actions and intent, not necessarily results).

Genocide deniers object to the casualty estimates mainly on two grounds -- either they rely too heavily on numbers from the Gaza Ministry of Health, or they don't rely on them heavily enough. You've managed to incorporate both complaints into your post, so I'll address them one at a time.

The widely cited number of 75K was first released about 16 months into the war. Since then the ability of health authorities to keep accurate records has greatly diminished as a result of Israeli attacks, so even those reports are long out of date (which begs the question, if they were making up numbers all along, why they didn't just keep doing so). We also know that the rate of civilian casualties in Gaza is astronomically high compared to other wars, so the argument that the deaths consist largely of Hamas militants is not plausible.

In the absence of complete data, we're left with a combination of available records, scientific models, and ongoing recovery efforts (for example, a funeral for 75 newly recovered victims was held a few days ago). This is what is to be expected if you're trying to get the best estimate possible under the circumstances. Finally, it should be noted that the figures in the article are not the highest educated guess. On the contrary, they represent a minimum based on available evidence.

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Ben Shapiro just dismantled the "genocide" argument masterfully

https://notthebee.com/takes/ben-shapiro-just-dismantled-the-genocide-argument-masterfully

On the idiotic accusation of genocide leveled at Israel:

Quote:

---

Is there any doubting that if given the same kind of advantages, Palestine's masters Hamas would not be so measured in their prosecution of the conflict? But leave speculation out of it, and the fact that Israel has sent its troops into dangerous urban combat rather than simply level buildings with civilians inside is all you need to know about these kinds of hyperbolic accusations.

---

Unfortunately, the antisemites and terrorist apologists won't accept the intelligence and logic of his arguments.

Bigotry is always irrational.

---

The type of argument that Shapiro's using is an old and easily recognizable one. It's called lying.

---

What particular facts did he assert that you believe are false?

Does Hamas not use "human shields?" They have a history of doing so according to just about everyone who has looked at it.

https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf

Does genocide not actually have a definition?

You don't have to think everything the IDF does is great to see that if they wanted to carry out a genocide in Gaza they would have used very different tactics. You can be an antisemitic Nazi and still concede that war and genocide are not the same thing.

---

Who are you calling an antisemitic Nazi?

---

No one. It is an example of how even someone who was an antisemitic Nazi might still be able to understand that not all war is genocide.

---

Well, the reason I use the term is precisely that it has been carefully defined, and the same authorities that defined it have documented it in the case of Gaza.

Shapiro's lie is that the IDF doesn't routinely level buildings with civilians inside. No one with any knowledge of their tactics can possibly believe that.

---

Civilians do die in wars independent of genocide. War, as said by someone who knew, is hell. However, a force committing genocide does not sent text messages, phone calls or voicemails, or drop leaflets, or engage in "roof knocking," in advance of attacks. Additionally, a force as powerful as the IDF would have no problem killing a hell of a lot more people if they were committing genocide.

Sometimes politics rather than clear analysis comes in to play in determining whether something is or is not genocide.

---

This has been thoroughly addressed, not only by the UN but also by Israeli human rights groups. Such warnings are ineffective when there's no safe place to go, no safe passage to get there, and you're being attacked every step of the way. The main purpose of the warnings wasn't to save lives but rather to help depopulate the cities and move more Palestinians into refugee camps (where the IDF didn't hesitate to bomb them again). Even if some lives were spared, at least temporarily, it doesn't excuse attacks on those who failed to evacuate.

Bottom line, there's a difference between issuing evacuation orders before entering urban combat according to accepted rules of war and issuing evacuation orders before engaging in indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Shapiro would have you believe Israel only does the former, but he knows that isn't true.

---

Evacuation orders are just that. You choose to stay in the war zone after being alerted to an attack, you either become a combatant or you have been coerced into staying by your local leaders. It does not fit the definition of genocide that you want it to so badly.

---

"In its previous report the Commission has found that the Israeli security forces intended to target and attack Palestinian civilians, including children, women, persons with disabilities and older persons, during their evacuation, within the designated safe zones and in shelters."

---

Apparently it was so pervasive that a high percentage of the Palestinian population died. But wait…

And can you link the report you are quoting so we can read the whole thing for ourselves?
Not a summation, but the actual report with names signed to it.

---

At least 5 percent as of 2025. I would argue 10 percent or more by now.

https://www.mpg.de/25778228/gaza-study-reveals-unprecedented-losses-of-life-and-life-expectancy

---

Your article is more about a study of Gaza life expectancy using models in place of unattainable hard data. It protects itself by stating,
". As genocide is a very specific legal term, certain additional criteria must be met for it to be applicable. This was not the focus of this study."

If we use the higher educated guess through modeling of 100,000 deaths - the Gaza authorities don't even claim that many and most of their claimed population loss is by displacement even as their numbers don't add up well - that is still less than 5 percent of the best guess of 2.13 million living in the Gaza Strip presently. The study the article is about won't claim an Israeli genocide and even speaks to the problem of the legal definition of the term. The deaths are attributed to conflict, which means it must include Hamas purges along with the collateral loss from the conflict being mostly in the Gaza Strip. Gaza even now still has the highest birth rate among Palestinian controlled areas, even with all the reported loss of food security, hospital care, child education, and housing.

The reports that support any talk of genocide by Israel are relying heavily on stats from the Palestinian Central Bureau.

https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/en/post-details/?postId=23319

---

There are many articles about the genocide. This one is about depopulation, in response to your point above. It's worth mentioning even though it's not strictly relevant (genocide is defined by actions and intent, not necessarily results).

Genocide deniers object to the casualty estimates mainly on two grounds -- either they rely too heavily on numbers from the Gaza Ministry of Health, or they don't rely on them heavily enough. You've managed to incorporate both complaints into your post, so I'll address them one at a time.

1) The widely cited number of 75K was first released about 16 months into the war. Since then the ability of health authorities to keep accurate records has greatly diminished as a result of Israeli attacks, so even those reports are long out of date (which begs the question, if they were making up numbers all along, why they didn't just keep doing so). 2) We also know that the rate of civilian casualties in Gaza is astronomically high compared to other wars, so the argument that the deaths consist largely of Hamas militants is not plausible.

In the absence of complete data, we're left with a combination of available records, scientific models, and ongoing recovery efforts (for example, a funeral for 75 newly recovered victims was held a few days ago). This is what is to be expected if you're trying to get the best estimate possible under the circumstances. Finally, it should be noted that the figures in the article are not the highest educated guess. On the contrary, they represent a minimum based on available evidence.

---

1) The point is the widely cited numbers came from one side in the conflict, the Palestinian Central Bureau. Their reports read like a full on propaganda peace, but somehow their numbers - which don't match up with the current population numbers - are taken as plausible. History says Palestinian stats are overblown. History also says how much Hamas likes to put civilians in harms way to influence world opinion in their favor. People who swallow these numbers are enabling a weird sort of genocide that you aren't talking about.

2) This is not even close to true. Especially for urban war. Yet you still swallow it.

You are confusing two entirely different arguments.
Questioning the reliability of casualty figures reported by a party to the conflict does not mean denying that Palestinians have suffered enormous losses. Of course people have diedfar too many. Their deaths matter regardless of whether the final number turns out to be 20,000, 40,000, or something else.

But acknowledging Palestinian suffering does not require treating every number coming out of Gaza as unquestionable fact. Hamas operates from within an extraordinarily dense civilian environment and has a well-documented interest in shaping international opinion. Your argument doesn't make every Palestinian casualty fabricated, Scrutinize the numbers, sure, but 10,000; or 20,000; or 40,000 deaths is too many is it not?
And the urban-warfare argument cuts both ways. Urban warfare is extraordinarily dangerous for civilians, but that fact alone doesn't establish who was responsible for each death or prove that every reported casualty was a civilian. Combatants, civilians, deaths from secondary causes, and incomplete identification all matter when assessing casualty statistics.
So no, I am not minimizing Palestinian losses. I am saying that human suffering should not be turned into a political numbers game where one side's unverified figures become unquestionable simply because they support the preferred narrative.

If you want to argue that Palestinian civilian deaths are horrific, I'm with you. If you want to argue that Hamas has contributed to putting civilians in extreme danger, that deserves discussion too. But neither argument requires pretending we know more about the precise casualty numbers than the evidence actually allows.

Palestinian civilian death are horrific, so are Israeli civilian deaths. Responsibility for both sets of deaths are 100% on the hands of Hamas who started this war, has always routinely targets civilians (especially on October 7), and uses their own civilians as human shields. Not to mention their outright murders of Gaza's civilians.

The only real genocide anyone can honestly talk about is the efforts of Hamas (& other terrorists) to kill all Jews.

historian said:

---

Palestinian civilian death are horrific, so are Israeli civilian deaths. Responsibility for both sets of deaths are 100% on the hands of Hamas who started this war, has always routinely targets civilians (especially on October 7), and uses their own civilians as human shields. Not to mention their outright murders of Gaza's civilians.

The only real genocide anyone can honestly talk about is the efforts of Hamas (& other terrorists) to kill all Jews.

---

"Hamas started the war" does not make Hamas responsible for every subsequent civilian death.
Hamas bears enormous responsibility for October 7 and for deliberately attacking Israeli civilians. But once a war begins, each side remains responsible for how it conducts military operations. If the IDF unlawfully kills civilians, Hamas does not become morally or legally responsible for that particular act simply because Hamas started the conflict.

You can believe all of these things simultaneously:

• Hamas committed horrific atrocities on October 7.
• Hamas deliberately attacks civilians.
• Hamas endangers Palestinian civilians by operating among them.
• Hamas bears major responsibility for creating the circumstances of the war.
• Israel nevertheless has responsibility for how it conducts the war.
• Palestinian civilians can be innocent victims of both Hamas and Israeli military actions.

In one sense, Hamas starting the war does make them responsible for all the subsequent outcomes if only because none of it would have happened.

Beyond that, read the rest of my post. I gave other reasons for their responsibility. And it is all very well documented and factual.

Israel deserves much credit for their extreme efforts to avoid civilian casualties. That is also well documented. But people who rely on terrorist propaganda to describe the events never give them the credit they deserve. Why is this?

Bigotry is always irrational.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Ben Shapiro just dismantled the "genocide" argument masterfully

https://notthebee.com/takes/ben-shapiro-just-dismantled-the-genocide-argument-masterfully

On the idiotic accusation of genocide leveled at Israel:

Quote:

---

Is there any doubting that if given the same kind of advantages, Palestine's masters Hamas would not be so measured in their prosecution of the conflict? But leave speculation out of it, and the fact that Israel has sent its troops into dangerous urban combat rather than simply level buildings with civilians inside is all you need to know about these kinds of hyperbolic accusations.

---

Unfortunately, the antisemites and terrorist apologists won't accept the intelligence and logic of his arguments.

Bigotry is always irrational.

---

The type of argument that Shapiro's using is an old and easily recognizable one. It's called lying.

---

What particular facts did he assert that you believe are false?

Does Hamas not use "human shields?" They have a history of doing so according to just about everyone who has looked at it.

https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf

Does genocide not actually have a definition?

You don't have to think everything the IDF does is great to see that if they wanted to carry out a genocide in Gaza they would have used very different tactics. You can be an antisemitic Nazi and still concede that war and genocide are not the same thing.

---

Who are you calling an antisemitic Nazi?

---

No one. It is an example of how even someone who was an antisemitic Nazi might still be able to understand that not all war is genocide.

---

Well, the reason I use the term is precisely that it has been carefully defined, and the same authorities that defined it have documented it in the case of Gaza.

Shapiro's lie is that the IDF doesn't routinely level buildings with civilians inside. No one with any knowledge of their tactics can possibly believe that.

---

Civilians do die in wars independent of genocide. War, as said by someone who knew, is hell. However, a force committing genocide does not sent text messages, phone calls or voicemails, or drop leaflets, or engage in "roof knocking," in advance of attacks. Additionally, a force as powerful as the IDF would have no problem killing a hell of a lot more people if they were committing genocide.

Sometimes politics rather than clear analysis comes in to play in determining whether something is or is not genocide.

---

This has been thoroughly addressed, not only by the UN but also by Israeli human rights groups. Such warnings are ineffective when there's no safe place to go, no safe passage to get there, and you're being attacked every step of the way. The main purpose of the warnings wasn't to save lives but rather to help depopulate the cities and move more Palestinians into refugee camps (where the IDF didn't hesitate to bomb them again). Even if some lives were spared, at least temporarily, it doesn't excuse attacks on those who failed to evacuate.

Bottom line, there's a difference between issuing evacuation orders before entering urban combat according to accepted rules of war and issuing evacuation orders before engaging in indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Shapiro would have you believe Israel only does the former, but he knows that isn't true.

---

Evacuation orders are just that. You choose to stay in the war zone after being alerted to an attack, you either become a combatant or you have been coerced into staying by your local leaders. It does not fit the definition of genocide that you want it to so badly.

---

"In its previous report the Commission has found that the Israeli security forces intended to target and attack Palestinian civilians, including children, women, persons with disabilities and older persons, during their evacuation, within the designated safe zones and in shelters."

---

Apparently it was so pervasive that a high percentage of the Palestinian population died. But wait…

And can you link the report you are quoting so we can read the whole thing for ourselves?
Not a summation, but the actual report with names signed to it.

---

At least 5 percent as of 2025. I would argue 10 percent or more by now.

https://www.mpg.de/25778228/gaza-study-reveals-unprecedented-losses-of-life-and-life-expectancy

---

Your article is more about a study of Gaza life expectancy using models in place of unattainable hard data. It protects itself by stating,
". As genocide is a very specific legal term, certain additional criteria must be met for it to be applicable. This was not the focus of this study."

If we use the higher educated guess through modeling of 100,000 deaths - the Gaza authorities don't even claim that many and most of their claimed population loss is by displacement even as their numbers don't add up well - that is still less than 5 percent of the best guess of 2.13 million living in the Gaza Strip presently. The study the article is about won't claim an Israeli genocide and even speaks to the problem of the legal definition of the term. The deaths are attributed to conflict, which means it must include Hamas purges along with the collateral loss from the conflict being mostly in the Gaza Strip. Gaza even now still has the highest birth rate among Palestinian controlled areas, even with all the reported loss of food security, hospital care, child education, and housing.

The reports that support any talk of genocide by Israel are relying heavily on stats from the Palestinian Central Bureau.

https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/en/post-details/?postId=23319

---

There are many articles about the genocide. This one is about depopulation, in response to your point above. It's worth mentioning even though it's not strictly relevant (genocide is defined by actions and intent, not necessarily results).

Genocide deniers object to the casualty estimates mainly on two grounds -- either they rely too heavily on numbers from the Gaza Ministry of Health, or they don't rely on them heavily enough. You've managed to incorporate both complaints into your post, so I'll address them one at a time.

1) The widely cited number of 75K was first released about 16 months into the war. Since then the ability of health authorities to keep accurate records has greatly diminished as a result of Israeli attacks, so even those reports are long out of date (which begs the question, if they were making up numbers all along, why they didn't just keep doing so). 2) We also know that the rate of civilian casualties in Gaza is astronomically high compared to other wars, so the argument that the deaths consist largely of Hamas militants is not plausible.

In the absence of complete data, we're left with a combination of available records, scientific models, and ongoing recovery efforts (for example, a funeral for 75 newly recovered victims was held a few days ago). This is what is to be expected if you're trying to get the best estimate possible under the circumstances. Finally, it should be noted that the figures in the article are not the highest educated guess. On the contrary, they represent a minimum based on available evidence.

---

1) The point is the widely cited numbers came from one side in the conflict, the Palestinian Central Bureau. Their reports read like a full on propaganda peace, but somehow their numbers - which don't match up with the current population numbers - are taken as plausible. History says Palestinian stats are overblown. History also says how much Hamas likes to put civilians in harms way to influence world opinion in their favor. People who swallow these numbers are enabling a weird sort of genocide that you aren't talking about.

2) This is not even close to true. Especially for urban war. Yet you still swallow it.

---

From the above link:

Quote:

---

By almost every metric, the harm to civilians from the first month of the Israeli campaign in Gaza is incomparable with any 21st century air campaign. It is by far the most intense, destructive, and fatal conflict for civilians that Airwars has ever documented. Key findings include:

• At least 5,139 civilians were killed in Gaza in 25 days in October 2023. This is nearly four times more civilians reported killed in a single month than in any conflict Airwars has documented since it was established in 2014.
• In October 2023 alone, Airwars documented at least 65 incidents in which a minimum of 20 civilians were killed in a particular incident. This is nearly triple the number of such high-fatality incidents that Airwars has documented within any comparable timeframe.
• Over the course of 25 days, Airwars recorded a minimum of 1,900 children killed by Israeli military action in Gaza. This is nearly seven times higher than even the most deadly month for children previously recorded by Airwars.
• Families were killed together in unprecedented numbers, and in their homes. More than nine out of ten women and children were killed in residential buildings. In more than 95 percent of all cases where a woman was killed, at least one child was also killed.
• On average, when civilians were killed alongside family members, at least 15 family members were killed. This is higher than any other conflict documented by Airwars.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You are confusing two entirely different arguments.
Questioning the reliability of casualty figures reported by a party to the conflict does not mean denying that Palestinians have suffered enormous losses. Of course people have diedfar too many. Their deaths matter regardless of whether the final number turns out to be 20,000, 40,000, or something else.

But acknowledging Palestinian suffering does not require treating every number coming out of Gaza as unquestionable fact. Hamas operates from within an extraordinarily dense civilian environment and has a well-documented interest in shaping international opinion. Your argument doesn't make every Palestinian casualty fabricated, Scrutinize the numbers, sure, but 10,000; or 20,000; or 40,000 deaths is too many is it not?
And the urban-warfare argument cuts both ways. Urban warfare is extraordinarily dangerous for civilians, but that fact alone doesn't establish who was responsible for each death or prove that every reported casualty was a civilian. Combatants, civilians, deaths from secondary causes, and incomplete identification all matter when assessing casualty statistics.
So no, I am not minimizing Palestinian losses. I am saying that human suffering should not be turned into a political numbers game where one side's unverified figures become unquestionable simply because they support the preferred narrative.

If you want to argue that Palestinian civilian deaths are horrific, I'm with you. If you want to argue that Hamas has contributed to putting civilians in extreme danger, that deserves discussion too. But neither argument requires pretending we know more about the precise casualty numbers than the evidence actually allows.

---

You are fully confused.

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Ben Shapiro just dismantled the "genocide" argument masterfully

https://notthebee.com/takes/ben-shapiro-just-dismantled-the-genocide-argument-masterfully

On the idiotic accusation of genocide leveled at Israel:

Quote:

---

Is there any doubting that if given the same kind of advantages, Palestine's masters Hamas would not be so measured in their prosecution of the conflict? But leave speculation out of it, and the fact that Israel has sent its troops into dangerous urban combat rather than simply level buildings with civilians inside is all you need to know about these kinds of hyperbolic accusations.

---

Unfortunately, the antisemites and terrorist apologists won't accept the intelligence and logic of his arguments.

Bigotry is always irrational.

---

The type of argument that Shapiro's using is an old and easily recognizable one. It's called lying.

---

What particular facts did he assert that you believe are false?

Does Hamas not use "human shields?" They have a history of doing so according to just about everyone who has looked at it.

https://stratcomcoe.org/cuploads/pfiles/hamas_human_shields.pdf

Does genocide not actually have a definition?

You don't have to think everything the IDF does is great to see that if they wanted to carry out a genocide in Gaza they would have used very different tactics. You can be an antisemitic Nazi and still concede that war and genocide are not the same thing.

---

Who are you calling an antisemitic Nazi?

---

No one. It is an example of how even someone who was an antisemitic Nazi might still be able to understand that not all war is genocide.

---

Well, the reason I use the term is precisely that it has been carefully defined, and the same authorities that defined it have documented it in the case of Gaza.

Shapiro's lie is that the IDF doesn't routinely level buildings with civilians inside. No one with any knowledge of their tactics can possibly believe that.

---

Civilians do die in wars independent of genocide. War, as said by someone who knew, is hell. However, a force committing genocide does not sent text messages, phone calls or voicemails, or drop leaflets, or engage in "roof knocking," in advance of attacks. Additionally, a force as powerful as the IDF would have no problem killing a hell of a lot more people if they were committing genocide.

Sometimes politics rather than clear analysis comes in to play in determining whether something is or is not genocide.

---

This has been thoroughly addressed, not only by the UN but also by Israeli human rights groups. Such warnings are ineffective when there's no safe place to go, no safe passage to get there, and you're being attacked every step of the way. The main purpose of the warnings wasn't to save lives but rather to help depopulate the cities and move more Palestinians into refugee camps (where the IDF didn't hesitate to bomb them again). Even if some lives were spared, at least temporarily, it doesn't excuse attacks on those who failed to evacuate.

Bottom line, there's a difference between issuing evacuation orders before entering urban combat according to accepted rules of war and issuing evacuation orders before engaging in indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Shapiro would have you believe Israel only does the former, but he knows that isn't true.

---

Evacuation orders are just that. You choose to stay in the war zone after being alerted to an attack, you either become a combatant or you have been coerced into staying by your local leaders. It does not fit the definition of genocide that you want it to so badly.

---

"In its previous report the Commission has found that the Israeli security forces intended to target and attack Palestinian civilians, including children, women, persons with disabilities and older persons, during their evacuation, within the designated safe zones and in shelters."

---

Apparently it was so pervasive that a high percentage of the Palestinian population died. But wait…

And can you link the report you are quoting so we can read the whole thing for ourselves?
Not a summation, but the actual report with names signed to it.

---

At least 5 percent as of 2025. I would argue 10 percent or more by now.

https://www.mpg.de/25778228/gaza-study-reveals-unprecedented-losses-of-life-and-life-expectancy

---

Your article is more about a study of Gaza life expectancy using models in place of unattainable hard data. It protects itself by stating,
". As genocide is a very specific legal term, certain additional criteria must be met for it to be applicable. This was not the focus of this study."

If we use the higher educated guess through modeling of 100,000 deaths - the Gaza authorities don't even claim that many and most of their claimed population loss is by displacement even as their numbers don't add up well - that is still less than 5 percent of the best guess of 2.13 million living in the Gaza Strip presently. The study the article is about won't claim an Israeli genocide and even speaks to the problem of the legal definition of the term. The deaths are attributed to conflict, which means it must include Hamas purges along with the collateral loss from the conflict being mostly in the Gaza Strip. Gaza even now still has the highest birth rate among Palestinian controlled areas, even with all the reported loss of food security, hospital care, child education, and housing.

The reports that support any talk of genocide by Israel are relying heavily on stats from the Palestinian Central Bureau.

https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/en/post-details/?postId=23319

---

There are many articles about the genocide. This one is about depopulation, in response to your point above. It's worth mentioning even though it's not strictly relevant (genocide is defined by actions and intent, not necessarily results).

Genocide deniers object to the casualty estimates mainly on two grounds -- either they rely too heavily on numbers from the Gaza Ministry of Health, or they don't rely on them heavily enough. You've managed to incorporate both complaints into your post, so I'll address them one at a time.

1) The widely cited number of 75K was first released about 16 months into the war. Since then the ability of health authorities to keep accurate records has greatly diminished as a result of Israeli attacks, so even those reports are long out of date (which begs the question, if they were making up numbers all along, why they didn't just keep doing so). 2) We also know that the rate of civilian casualties in Gaza is astronomically high compared to other wars, so the argument that the deaths consist largely of Hamas militants is not plausible.

In the absence of complete data, we're left with a combination of available records, scientific models, and ongoing recovery efforts (for example, a funeral for 75 newly recovered victims was held a few days ago). This is what is to be expected if you're trying to get the best estimate possible under the circumstances. Finally, it should be noted that the figures in the article are not the highest educated guess. On the contrary, they represent a minimum based on available evidence.

---

1) The point is the widely cited numbers came from one side in the conflict, the Palestinian Central Bureau. Their reports read like a full on propaganda peace, but somehow their numbers - which don't match up with the current population numbers - are taken as plausible. History says Palestinian stats are overblown. History also says how much Hamas likes to put civilians in harms way to influence world opinion in their favor. People who swallow these numbers are enabling a weird sort of genocide that you aren't talking about.

2) This is not even close to true. Especially for urban war. Yet you still swallow it.

---

From the above link:

Quote:

---

By almost every metric, the harm to civilians from the first month of the Israeli campaign in Gaza is incomparable with any 21st century air campaign. It is by far the most intense, destructive, and fatal conflict for civilians that Airwars has ever documented. Key findings include:

• At least 5,139 civilians were killed in Gaza in 25 days in October 2023. This is nearly four times more civilians reported killed in a single month than in any conflict Airwars has documented since it was established in 2014.
• In October 2023 alone, Airwars documented at least 65 incidents in which a minimum of 20 civilians were killed in a particular incident. This is nearly triple the number of such high-fatality incidents that Airwars has documented within any comparable timeframe.
• Over the course of 25 days, Airwars recorded a minimum of 1,900 children killed by Israeli military action in Gaza. This is nearly seven times higher than even the most deadly month for children previously recorded by Airwars.
• Families were killed together in unprecedented numbers, and in their homes. More than nine out of ten women and children were killed in residential buildings. In more than 95 percent of all cases where a woman was killed, at least one child was also killed.
• On average, when civilians were killed alongside family members, at least 15 family members were killed. This is higher than any other conflict documented by Airwars.

---

---

You do realize that limiting the numbers comparisons to 21st century (all 23 years of it at the time) and to air campaigns is trying to fit the Gaza conflict into a bottle that no other 21st century conflict has been in. It is ridiculous. It takes gymnastics like this to try and prove a point that just isn't there.

If you include the last 60 to 80 years of conflicts, then the Gaza campaign really pales. The conflicts in Africa have been much, much worse for civilian deaths per capita. Just try to name a conflict that has been in an area of such population density as in Gaza. There hasn't been.
And there hasn't been a combatant quite like Hamas that works as hard to purposely raise the amount of civilian casualties by forcing them to stay in the way or setting up weapons and bunkers right under or over them.

J.R. is now a Thai guy, and a Palestine pal.

Oldbear83 said:

---

J.R. is now a Thai guy, and a Palestine pal.

---

No, no room for Izzy settlements and violence here. Go back to Izzy. There are rules here we all choose to abide by. That is the way it should be. It's called Thai LAND for a reason. They do not follow the rules the rest of us non-Thais do. Glad they got shut down on visas and are being deported if illegal land procurement and companies that are a front. which they mostly are. oh and I do not like my tax dollars to Izzy.

J.R. said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

J.R. is now a Thai guy, and a Palestine pal.

---

No, no room for Izzy settlements and violence here. Go back to Izzy. There are rules here we all choose to abide by. That is the way it should be. It's called Thai LAND for a reason. They do not follow the rules the rest of us non-Thais do. Glad they got shut down on visas and are being deported if illegal land procurement and companies that are a front. which they mostly are. oh and I do not like my tax dollars to Izzy.

---

The hubris of this current generation of Israelis is off the charts... they really believe they are God's Chosen people and everyone else is beneath them or worse is born to serve them...

lmao the double standard by regressives is UNMATCHED

We say that about somalis, and indians, and now we are racist

You regressives are complete hypocrite imbeciles

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You are confusing two entirely different arguments.
Questioning the reliability of casualty figures reported by a party to the conflict does not mean denying that Palestinians have suffered enormous losses. Of course people have diedfar too many. Their deaths matter regardless of whether the final number turns out to be 20,000, 40,000, or something else.

But acknowledging Palestinian suffering does not require treating every number coming out of Gaza as unquestionable fact. Hamas operates from within an extraordinarily dense civilian environment and has a well-documented interest in shaping international opinion. Your argument doesn't make every Palestinian casualty fabricated, Scrutinize the numbers, sure, but 10,000; or 20,000; or 40,000 deaths is too many is it not?
And the urban-warfare argument cuts both ways. Urban warfare is extraordinarily dangerous for civilians, but that fact alone doesn't establish who was responsible for each death or prove that every reported casualty was a civilian. Combatants, civilians, deaths from secondary causes, and incomplete identification all matter when assessing casualty statistics.
So no, I am not minimizing Palestinian losses. I am saying that human suffering should not be turned into a political numbers game where one side's unverified figures become unquestionable simply because they support the preferred narrative.

If you want to argue that Palestinian civilian deaths are horrific, I'm with you. If you want to argue that Hamas has contributed to putting civilians in extreme danger, that deserves discussion too. But neither argument requires pretending we know more about the precise casualty numbers than the evidence actually allows.

---

You are fully confused.

---

Now you here is an intelligent answer. Still mg

Waco1947 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You are confusing two entirely different arguments.
Questioning the reliability of casualty figures reported by a party to the conflict does not mean denying that Palestinians have suffered enormous losses. Of course people have diedfar too many. Their deaths matter regardless of whether the final number turns out to be 20,000, 40,000, or something else.

But acknowledging Palestinian suffering does not require treating every number coming out of Gaza as unquestionable fact. Hamas operates from within an extraordinarily dense civilian environment and has a well-documented interest in shaping international opinion. Your argument doesn't make every Palestinian casualty fabricated, Scrutinize the numbers, sure, but 10,000; or 20,000; or 40,000 deaths is too many is it not?
And the urban-warfare argument cuts both ways. Urban warfare is extraordinarily dangerous for civilians, but that fact alone doesn't establish who was responsible for each death or prove that every reported casualty was a civilian. Combatants, civilians, deaths from secondary causes, and incomplete identification all matter when assessing casualty statistics.
So no, I am not minimizing Palestinian losses. I am saying that human suffering should not be turned into a political numbers game where one side's unverified figures become unquestionable simply because they support the preferred narrative.

If you want to argue that Palestinian civilian deaths are horrific, I'm with you. If you want to argue that Hamas has contributed to putting civilians in extreme danger, that deserves discussion too. But neither argument requires pretending we know more about the precise casualty numbers than the evidence actually allows.

---

You are fully confused.

---

Now you here is an intelligent answer. Still mg

---

You need to revise your posts so another person can actually make sense of them. Then I would have something to work with. As it stands you are all over the map and not really making sense.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

You are confusing two entirely different arguments.
Questioning the reliability of casualty figures reported by a party to the conflict does not mean denying that Palestinians have suffered enormous losses. Of course people have diedfar too many. Their deaths matter regardless of whether the final number turns out to be 20,000, 40,000, or something else.

But acknowledging Palestinian suffering does not require treating every number coming out of Gaza as unquestionable fact. Hamas operates from within an extraordinarily dense civilian environment and has a well-documented interest in shaping international opinion. Your argument doesn't make every Palestinian casualty fabricated, Scrutinize the numbers, sure, but 10,000; or 20,000; or 40,000 deaths is too many is it not?
And the urban-warfare argument cuts both ways. Urban warfare is extraordinarily dangerous for civilians, but that fact alone doesn't establish who was responsible for each death or prove that every reported casualty was a civilian. Combatants, civilians, deaths from secondary causes, and incomplete identification all matter when assessing casualty statistics.
So no, I am not minimizing Palestinian losses. I am saying that human suffering should not be turned into a political numbers game where one side's unverified figures become unquestionable simply because they support the preferred narrative.

If you want to argue that Palestinian civilian deaths are horrific, I'm with you. If you want to argue that Hamas has contributed to putting civilians in extreme danger, that deserves discussion too. But neither argument requires pretending we know more about the precise casualty numbers than the evidence actually allows.

---

You are fully confused.

---

Now you here is an intelligent answer. Still mg

---

You need to revise your posts so another person can actually make sense of them. Then I would have something to work with. As it stands you are all over the map and not really making sense.

---

It would also be helpful for Waco to follow standard rule of English grammar.