Trucks waiting at Israeli checkpoints don’t unload themselves. You shift blame to UN funding gaps while ignoring the gates that remain closed. If aid convoys can’t move, the responsibility lies with the power controlling the border, not with the organization begging for passage.
Reality check! The trucks are on the Gaza side, Israel is no longer a factor. And if it's a funding gap why are they not saying something? No action, no statement, the only thing that makes sense is it's a manufactured shortage.
Acknowledging one atrocity doesn’t erase the dozens more documented by survivors, archives, and military logs. Treating Deir Yassin as a one-off excuses an entire pattern of collective violence that even Israeli veterans and U.N. reports have confirmed.
The point is your standard poster boy is nothing like what is claimed. And when the poster boys don't stand up to scrutiny in all probability the rest of it doesn't, either.
Dismissing every human rights report as “Hamas propaganda” is cynicism, not analysis. These organizations cross‐reference interviews, satellite imagery, medical records and still you brand it “nothing” to protect your narrative from inconvenient truths.
I've already shown you that this isn't true. You understood for about one post, then went right back to your faith.
The law doesn’t demand check-points at every alley—it demands extra precautions for minors, not treating them as free fire. Profiling every boy as a potential fighter abandons any claim to protect children; it simply codifies prejudice with a rifle.
Except that has nothing to do with reality. We are simply noting a pattern--the casualty figures show that people start as combatants at probably 16. Says nothing about any given individual, but means that you can't automatically figure anyone under 18 is a non-combatant. In the field it won't make any difference because the soldiers do not know the age of the person they're shooting at.
Almost nothing in a warzone arrives with a neatly stamped authenticity label—yet multiple independent teams have pieced together enough fragments, audio clues, geolocation data, and witness testimony to show a clear pattern: shots coming from positions only the IDF held. Dismissing every imperfect piece of evidence leaves you with zero insight—exactly what an unaccountable power wants.
Preaching your holy words doesn't make them true.
Ballistic matching in active combat is rare, yes—but you can still analyze fragment shape, crater depth, and entry angles to exclude certain weapon types. When those exclusions consistently point away from homemade rifles and toward military‐grade sniper rifles, that counts as evidence, even if it isn’t a lab-perfect fingerprint.
Which means nothing as nobody has said Hamas is using homemade rifles. Hamas has a mix of weapons, including those exactly the same as the IDF. Israel even supplied a batch as part of one of the fake peace deals, they were supposed to go to the police but actually went to Hamas.
“Rough” often still narrows suspects. Combine that with multiple camera angles, drone imagery, and signal intercepts, and you get a corridor of origin only the IDF occupied. Yes, it’s not pinpoint accuracy to the square meter—but it’s more than enough to show the shots didn’t come from scattered insurgents.
Except you don't. The angles aren't that precise and it's known there were combatants in some of the nearby buildings.
Identical calibers can come from wildly different barrels. Rifling marks, propellant residue, and cartridge dimensions vary by factory. Independent investigators routinely distinguish state‐issued ammo from trafficked batches. It’s never perfect, but pattern‐matching across dozens of incidents builds a credible case.
CSI is fiction.
And in this case Hamas delayed handing over the recovered bullet for examination--making it very likely it was a Hamas round. They're usually quick and cooperative when they think the evidence points to Israel.
One flawed study doesn’t erase the dozens of others—by B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch, UN fact-finders, even Israeli ex-soldiers in Breaking the Silence—all using different methods yet converging on the same conclusion. Tossing them one by one is a tactic to frustrate scrutiny, not a genuine critique of evidence.
It's not one flawed study. Every "study" that failed to notice the obvious problems has zero credibility. And the list of those that noticed the problem: <None>. (Israel pointed out the problem but do not at least publicly have a list of the dead.)
Modern infantry often embeds sniper teams within patrols—small, covert units that move, fire, and vanish. The lack of big‐scoped “sniper towers” doesn’t contradict witness accounts of precision shots from positions manned by trained marksmen. Denying the possibility outright is refusing to grapple with battlefield reality.
Except we have zero identification of any such sniper position. All we see is the hit.
If civilian deaths don’t factor into your moral ledger, whose do? Setting the bar at “better than someone else” means anything goes so long as the ratio looks decent. That’s not ethics—that’s arithmetic on graves.
The ratio looking good says Israel is observing proportionality. Neither of us has access to the sort of information needed to determine whether any given action was proper, but the overall numbers say the vast majority of actions must have been proper. If I roll 1000 dice and get a total of 2458 you can conclude what type of dice I was using.
Even if the UN stocks are physically inside Gaza, they arrived there only because Israel opened the crossings, vetted the convoys, and granted security clearances. When aid sits idle behind closed gates—or under military “coordination”—the state with control over borders and checkpoints bears responsibility for any holdup, not the NGOs grumbling about pay rates.
Dismissing Deir Yassin’s hundreds of documented victims because you downplay one “poster boy” is like throwing away a forensic report because one fingerprint smudged. Multiple archives—from the International Committee of the Red Cross to Israeli kibbutz survivors—corroborate mass killings. Ignoring that vast record doesn’t erase it; it only exposes your refusal to reckon with inconvenient facts.
Faith has nothing to do with cross-referenced satellite imagery, hospital morgue logs, and dozens of on-the-ground interviews that human rights organizations compile under neutrality mandates. Rejecting every report until one suits your narrative isn’t healthy debate—it’s cynical cherry-picking dressed up as realism.
International law isn’t a census; it imposes an extra layer of caution for juveniles precisely because armies can’t age-verify on the fly. If “pattern” excuses turning 16-year-olds into fair targets, every child in a combat zone becomes suspect. The law demands restraint, identification efforts, and evacuation corridors—not a free-fire pass based on statistical generalities.
These “holy words” are treaty obligations ratified by nearly every country, enforced by international courts and military manuals worldwide. Dismissing them as sermonizing doesn’t change their legal force—it merely reveals your preference for unrestrained power over binding principle.
When calibers overlap, investigators turn to rifling patterns, propellant residue and cartridge markings—details Hamas can’t easily tamper with once recovered by neutral experts. Yes, perfect chain-of-custody is hard in war, but recurring rifts in those patterns, matched against known military stockpiles, still build a reliable picture far beyond idle speculation.
Independent geolocation doesn’t rely on a single angle: analysts overlay multiple videos, drone footage, and GPS-tagged photos to map trajectories. If insurgents truly held those rooftops, you’d see their flags, their weapons or radio traffic—but every credible study finds the firing points coincide with clearly marked IDF positions.
Obstructing evidence is a tacit confession. A belligerent force that truly believed it wasn’t at fault would facilitate every forensic test. Delays and secrecy about chains of custody only deepen the suspicion that the weapon came from a side unwilling to see the truth exposed.
When dozens of organizations—B’Tselem, HRW, UN fact-finders, Israeli veterans’ groups—each use distinct methodologies yet converge on the same patterns, you don’t dismiss them case by case; you confront the overwhelming weight of consistent findings. Rejecting each in turn because you spot a minor discrepancy is not rigor. It’s intellectual self-defense.
“Seeing the hit” is precisely why investigations start: the angle, the echo, the victim’s wounds all point to origin. Victims describe flashes from concrete observation posts, journalists record the time and place. Lack of visible “sniper towers” doesn’t preclude concealed rooftop teams. Denying every piece of corroborating testimony until a gun is handed to you personally amounts to willful blindness.
Averaging dice rolls doesn’t tell you if one throw landed on snake eyes or boxcars—you still need to inspect each throw. Proportionality isn’t a statistical trick; it’s a legal inquiry into each target’s necessity versus foreseeable civilian harm. Claiming a good overall ratio clears every individual tragedy is exactly the moral evasion this law forbids.
NHC
