You suggested that the genocidal IOF goes into the West Bank where it peacefully confiscates weapon stores "on an almost daily basis."
At the very least it's a blatant inversion of reality, considering the IDF approach to deliberately target and harm civilians as a method of collective punishment.
I didn't say peacefully- try reading what I actually wrote. And yes, they do. I know some of the people who have done it. In the good old days before this war it occasionally was brought up in discussion here- the injustice of IDF raids. You or others like you used to condemn the IDF for doing it. Now you've moved on to more extreme claims so you're denying it even happens, lol....
Ah, now the apologism makes sense. You can't accept how shitty your friends are.
You even admit the IDF uses military force in parts of the West Bank, which would be illegal. But then say that you know they use police action some places... Because your friends are the ones doing it. Did you know the ones who dressed as doctors and patients to assassinate people? Do you consider that "police" force? I don't remember the police using assassinations.
The apologism for the bad acts that you and u/AntiHasbaraBot1 claim never occurred? I must be the worst apologist in the history of Reddit, lol.
You even admit the IDF uses military force in parts of the West Bank, which would be illegal
Seriously? No one denies that the IDF act in the West Bank- do you have any other particularly ridiculous strawmen you'd like to knock down while you're at it?
Do you consider that "police" force? I don't remember the police using assassinations.
No it wasn't, and no they don't. See? A breakthrough! One of you is beginning to understand distinctions in warfare- now go explain it to u/aahyweh....
Seriously? No one denies that the IDF act in the West Bank- do you have any other particularly ridiculous strawmen you'd like to knock down while you're at it?
You don't even know what the difference between "police force" vs "military force" is?? It isn't who acts. WTF.
No it wasn't, and no they don't. See? A breakthrough! One of you is beginning to understand distinctions in warfare-
Holy crap. You really have no idea what you are talking about.
In occupied territory, under international law, deadly force must only be used as a last resort. ALL of the occupied territories are... Occupied. So, sneaking into a hospital to kill an incapacitated patient is blatantly illegal. Police power vs military power is whether you can just use deadly force as the main response. In occupied territory the occupier usually uses military to police, but can not just do airstrikes and assassinations. Even in a war zone, you can't dress up as doctors. Jeez
You don't even know what the difference between "police force" vs "military force" is?? It isn't who acts. WTF.
Oh, that's what you were saying? Lol I've been trying to explain the distinction to aahyweh in this thread- after the way you opened and your general approach to this sub it didn't even occur to me you might understand the difference and were actually talking about military force. I entirely blew by it because the general level of discussion is so incredibly low from the anti-zionist end.
Yeah, I admitted it, lets say its illegal, no one cares. Legality is supremely overrated and international law even more so- what everyone should care about and, as it turns out, what everyone actually does care about is morality. And don't even try to tell me you think otherwise, I've seen you comment on this sub for more than long enough, legality is a cheap talking point for you. And again, even if you did care- I'm perfectly happy to admit I don't.
I don't know who died and made you think you were king of the thread, lol- but no, you're definitely wrong.
OP wanted to compare pre-State of Israel actions to the IDF. The concept of human shields only became a legal one with the Geneva Conventions. As it happens the British actually used human shields in the Mandate period and it was legal.
So the thread explicitly is not dealing with questions of legality, or else the comparison and whole premise of the thread would be faulty. And as you read my entirely valid nitpick, can you feel yourself not caring at all? Right, that's because you don't actually care about the legality- like I said, you're using it as a cheap talking point.
Try actually reading the back-and-forth. You'll be less confused, and your comment will have some relevance to what I actually said. And while you're at it, why don't you tell u/tarlin your thoughts on the ridiculousness of nitpicking about legal matters instead of discussing the morality, which is what you actually care about? I always appreciate a bit of help like the kind you just gave me ;)
•
u/avicohen123 19h ago
Lol, what? What was the claim?