Israel v Hamas

If it's wrong or incorrect feel free show the evidence. Happy to be proven wrong if that's the case that's why I asked the question.
The releasing of their information is a starting point for journalists to start their own investigation the journalists.

My initial guess is that it will align like previous Israeli claims:
- 10% verified false
- 80% unverifiable
- 10% who were caught on camera being terrorists

You can also expect a significant amount of stories about the 80% from Western journalists who once at a Holiday Inn Express with them declaring how there is no chance that their buddy Akmed was involved with Hamas despite all of his brothers, his father and every cousin being confirmed Hamas members.
 
The releasing of their information is a starting point for journalists to start their own investigation the journalists.

My initial guess is that it will align like previous Israeli claims:
- 10% verified false
- 80% unverifiable
- 10% who were caught on camera being terrorists

You can also expect a significant amount of stories about the 80% from Western journalists who once at a Holiday Inn Express with them declaring how there is no chance that their buddy Akmed was involved with Hamas despite all of his brothers, his father and every cousin being confirmed Hamas members.

Yes I think you are probably correct. And hopefully it will give a kick to real journalists to actually do their job and look into it.

But if the findings from the IDF are correct it brings into question a lot of the past reporting that has been published.

I am also open minded about it to someone disproving the claims. We shall see.
 
Yes I think you are probably correct. And hopefully it will give a kick to real journalists to actually do their job and look into it.

But if the findings from the IDF are correct it brings into question a lot of the past reporting that has been published.

I am also open minded about it to someone disproving the claims. We shall see.
It will also come quicker then it has in the past. The utility of AI when it comes to research makes it relatively easy to do a deep dive on them.

What has been shared so far: 118 were active in Hamas, 49 in PIJ, and others in smaller factions, with 17 allegedly involved in the October 7 attacks.

Just doing my own research on the topic before this came out, a significant number of the media members were killed by airstrikes. The strange part about that to me is that airstrikes are very deliberate and are not cheap, so they knew who they were going after and that it was worth $30,000 to kill them. fair number of them are also Al-Quds network who the Israelis designated as a terrorist organization back in 2018.
 
Last edited:
Why is there so much debate around the use of the word genocide?

It's simple , the jew hating pro Hamas side of the argument believe it gives them some kind of moral validation of their position.

It's the same idea that calling anyone concerned about migration a right wing nazi fascist makes them lesser in any debate.

Never going to change
 
Why is there so much debate around the use of the word genocide?

It's simple , the jew hating pro Hamas side of the argument believe it gives them some kind of moral validation of their position.

It's the same idea that calling anyone concerned about migration a right wing nazi fascist makes them lesser in any debate.

Never going to change
The issue with the debate around the word genocide is that there are multiple different definitions that exist for the word that vary greatly.

The most common legal definition of genocide comes from Article II of the UN 1948 Convention on Genocide.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  1. (a) Killing members of the group;
  2. (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  3. (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  4. (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  5. (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

If this is the definition that you judge Genocide by, then basically every armed conflict would meet at least one of these. While terrorist groups had existed for thousands of years, they were usually nation internal problems so organizations like Hamas were not really considered when they put it together.
 

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top