Nivsch

Ok after asking it to summarize the findings I have to admit that the foreign resources agreed that Israel lied in most of the cases but still 11 of them are highly controversial.

Many of those points are partially true or controversial. I asked Chat Gpt about those points, and while it is obvious that Israel lied in part of the details (I am not going to deny that Israel lies sometimes) it's important to check the things in a fair and nuanced way and not to get dragged into demonization which will infect and skew the whole research. I deliberately asked it to exclude Israel's claims on them, which means that both sides of the argument here are only from foreign perspectives. This is what it answered me. I add here now only couple of them to not overload the page. Ambulance Workers Agreement that Israel lied: Human rights organizations such as "Palestinian Center for Human Rights" and "Physicians for Human Rights" argue that Israel's accusations against ambulance workers were unsubstantiated and part of collateral damage, not intentional strikes. Claims that Israel told the truth or the truth lies somewhere in between: Some international actors believe there may have been misidentifications during combat, but the claims against ambulance workers are not conclusively supported. Shifa Hospital Agreement that Israel lied: International medical organizations and human rights groups argue that Shifa Hospital was a purely medical facility, and there was no evidence of Hamas using it for military purposes. Claims that Israel told the truth or the truth lies somewhere in between: Some believe that although Hamas may have used certain facilities in Gaza, there is no conclusive evidence to confirm the claim that Hamas was operating within Shifa. Flour Massacre Agreement that Israel lied: The claim of a flour massacre is widely regarded as a fabrication, and there are no solid sources backing it up. Claims that Israel told the truth or the truth lies somewhere in between: The claim is considered a rumor without credible evidence, and it is widely dismissed. Accusations Against Hospitals in Gaza for Hamas Activities Agreement that Israel lied: Health organizations like "International Committee of the Red Cross" and "Doctors Without Borders" state that Gaza's hospitals were purely medical institutions and were not used by Hamas for military purposes. Claims that Israel told the truth or the truth lies somewhere in between: Some analysts believe that while there may have been some military activity, there is no clear evidence that Gaza's hospitals were complicit in any Hamas operations. Killing Women and Children with White Flags Agreement that Israel lied: Many human rights groups, including the "Palestinian Center for Human Rights," report no verifiable evidence of Israel intentionally killing civilians waving white flags, calling these claims false or misleading. Claims that Israel told the truth or the truth lies somewhere in between: Some reports acknowledge tragic events involving civilians with white flags but argue that full details remain unclear. Gaza Universities Agreement that Israel lied: Educational organizations, including "UNESCO" and various humanitarian bodies, argue that Gaza's universities were destroyed without justification and that they were not involved in any military activity. Claims that Israel told the truth or the truth lies somewhere in between: There is no consensus, but some argue that universities may have been damaged due to their proximity to military operations rather than intentional targeting. Attacks on Ahli and Indonesian Hospitals Agreement that Israel lied: Many humanitarian organizations, including the "International Red Cross," state that these hospitals were civilian targets and there was no military justification for the attacks. Claims that Israel told the truth or the truth lies somewhere in between: Some recognize the strategic military context but argue that the attacks on hospitals were unjustified and disproportionately harmed civilians. Killing Women in Church Shelters Agreement that Israel lied: Reports from humanitarian organizations dismiss any intention by Israel to target women sheltering in churches, calling these claims unfounded. Claims that Israel told the truth or the truth lies somewhere in between: Some reports acknowledge that churches were affected, but there is no clear evidence that the targeting of civilians in churches was intentional. Hostages Returning Pregnant Agreement that Israel lied: No verifiable evidence has been provided to support the claim that hostages returned pregnant due to Hamas. Claims that Israel told the truth or the truth lies somewhere in between: Some sources acknowledge that reports may have been exaggerated but believe certain claims could have a basis. Destroying Every Single Gazan University Agreement that Israel lied: There is no evidence to substantiate the claim that every university in Gaza was destroyed on purpose, and many organizations argue that the destruction was largely due to military operations. Claims that Israel told the truth or the truth lies somewhere in between: Some believe that the universities were hit by collateral damage during military operations rather than intentionally targeted.

@Raze This war isn't legitimate at this point and lost public support here too. This is Netanyahu's way to stall and survive at the expense of Hostages, soldiers and Palestinians lives.

@gambler The fact that this person is unreliable doesn’t cancel out what happened. Are mass killing, burning people alive in their homes, murdering people in front of their families not outrageous enough already? What’s the point of these shameless attempts to downplay what happened on Oct7? I think all this is doing is making your side shoot itself in the foot. This strategy doesn’t make your side's position be more respected but it does the opposite. Of course rape occurred. Even if it exaggerated in some Israeli reports, hamas’s actions were barbaric, medieval, and far from anything resembling legitimate “resistance" and nothing you say will change that.

Great

@Anton Rogachevski Please give an example.

@oldhandle Perhaps I’m underestimating the feelings of Americans who feel deeply threatened by the recent changes in how society relates to science such as the rise of the anti-vaxxer movement and by Trump’s actions. But from my perspective, the American system seems far more resilient and robust compared to what is happening in my own country, Israel, where the head of the system can theoretically stay in power indefinitely and continue deepening his toxic policies. In contrast the crisis in the US seems (to me at least) much more temporary especially if we consider the tendency of the political pendulum to swing with each election. There’s a high chance the next president will be moderate again. I understand from the comments here that it's not so simple, and that the damage Trump has done may take a long time to repair, which is a valid concern. There may be other important aspects I’m missing, so if anyone here would like to explain their concerns more deeply, I would be happy to hear.

I can understand this. This is one thing. Take into account also that if you zoom out to the macro middle eastern scale you will see why Israel had reasons to be paranoid and overcompensate on this. The aggression of IDF has an origin of legitimate survival impulses, even if this behaviour creates new problems of course. Notice the difficulty to defend such a narrow corridor which was central Israel before 1967. What doesnt mean Israel has to conquer the whole West Bank, but at least the most Western strip (even 10%) of this mountainy area might be important to settle. I wrote my position in more details here:

Can you add me a source for that? I am not familiar enough in the dynamics right after the Six days war.

The more terror that happens, the more IDF operations will needed and the more it fuels the extreme views and the emotions of revenge what will worsen the situation to everyone. The more IDF operations the more terror too.

@Raze This is a loop because every terror attack makes IDF more aggressive to ensure defense what worsen Palestinian conditions and increases terror. The Right wing takes advantage on every such cycle and uses it as an excuse and justification for its policy.

@Raze Nazism is a totally another league in another universe I don't agree with those kind of comparisons.

The Right wing policy is indeed very bad and unfair.

Expelling Palestinians from A or B weren't common I don't accept this. They have happened sometimes yes, but you have to understand the context of terror attacks on Israelis that lead to this event. You can't talk about IDF operations in the West Bank without taking into account the security concerns of the Israelis because both are intertwined all the time. With that being said, again, the fair solution is only a Two State solution but the conditions to such solution right now are far from ripe.

The way you generalize some Israeli religious or right wing sectors or the Israeli government onto 'Israel' is also unacceptable to me, but I try to relate to the content and not to attack you personally and make false assumptions about you, because it would not be fair to do. The choice is yours.

@gambler Seems you again extrapolate my messages towards imaginary directions your mind is inventing. If you want to do a discussion without personal attacks you are invited to.

@Raze Yeah our current government is just recently really "burning bridges" in that sense though it wasn't the case regulary. No doubt, this government is the worst both Israelis and Palestinians have suffered under in recent times. If you see the inner cold war inside Israel you will get a clue to the corruption of this government what necessarily radiates also externally.

You really have assumptions and projections on me that I have never said or thought and not even close.

My impression is based on division of the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C. In Area A which is under full Palestinian Authority control Palestinians live with more autonomy and less direct Israeli military presence, although the Israeli army can conduct limited operations targeting terrorists who have murdered Israelis, as was the case after the terror attack in Jaffa a couple of months ago (though I don’t know at this point in which area he lived). Area B is more complicated, with Palestinian civil control but occasional Israeli military presence. This limits full freedom, but still allows for relatively independent daily life in many places, due to the Palestinian civil control, which seems quite logical to me.

Usually when people don't agree they try to comment to the content of the message. Just for you to know.

There is no argument that the situation is distorted and unhealthy and in friction zones, there is an oppressive policy and actions. Nevertheless in most of the West Bank surface area Palestinians still live a decently independent and relatively free lives, though not entirely due to the checkpoints between major areas. Do you think minorities in other neighboring countries do better? Mostly worse. Although this is true that Israel as a democracy is expected to behave better, and that Palestinians deserve a real independent state, but exaggerations won't help advance the discussion anywhere.

@Raze What do you mean by civil society?

But why? They know that by 2029 Trump is out, so it is all quite reversible.

I work in weather forecasting in a meteorology company, and from this year I started helping people with mental health challenges through formal training in LiCBT ACT but in my own way, based on my personal experience, while I also try to guide them towards gradually discovering their own healing paths.

@zazen Israel gets overall (not particulary about the current operation in Gaza but in general) bipartisan support which is way beyond only the Evangelicals. I can agree that both Evangelicals and Smotrich and Ben Gvir voters have those lines of thinking you mentioned. Maybe the more right wing sector in the Likud (Bibi's party) too.