You’ve spent this entire thread doing two things: dismissing evidence and demanding proof from others you never hold yourself to. That’s not skepticism—it’s insulation. When every credible human rights organization, every UN body, every journalistic investigation, and even Israeli NGOs like B’Tselem all say the same thing—and your response is “none of them are credible”—you’re not uncovering bias. You’re choosing willful blindness.
Simple test: Nobody but Israel caught the bogus data. Some is blatantly wrong, little better than ^c^v while incrementing the ID number. That's an absolute red flag, their ID numbers have a check digit and sequential numbers can never happen. Anybody who was actually verifying the data would have caught it--but none did. Ergo, nobody is actually checking.
You say I haven’t offered solutions—yet every suggestion of ceasefires, humanitarian corridors, or international monitoring gets dismissed as “fantasy.” What you actually mean is: any response short of total domination is unacceptable. You confuse difficulty with impossibility, and impossibility with moral license. That’s not realism—it’s despair weaponized.
And once again you are throwing out random stuff.
The assertion before was about ceasefire guarantees. I asked how that was supposed to work. Now you simply say ceasefire--but that's actually a total victory for Hamas as they still have the hostages.
And I pointed out the reality of international monitoring. You did not address it.
You are falling into the standard leftist failure of taking it on faith that there is a good answer. You speak of difficulty--when there's no evidence of possibility. Of course you are not expected to know the solution--but when
nobody proposes a viable solution that says a lot. This is on the world stage, our previous government did not like Israel--why didn't they propose something better? (Hint: Israel rejected our ideas as killing too many civilians in Gaza.)
You’re not making an argument—you’re rehearsing a dodge. Over and over, you cling to the same circular shield: “Nobody caught this one anomaly, so everyone is lying.” That’s not a refutation of data. That’s a reflexive excuse to ignore it.
Let’s be absolutely clear: finding some duplicate or sequential ID entries doesn’t mean the entire dataset is fabricated. Errors in wartime reporting are common—not because of conspiracy, but because hospitals are bombed, communications are down, and people are burying children before logging stats. If your standard for legitimacy is zero error, then no war zone reporting will ever pass your test, and that’s precisely the point: you’ve set the bar so impossibly high that the only truth left is the one that serves your narrative. That’s not investigative rigor. That’s engineered doubt.
And your point about “check digits” in ID systems is utterly beside the point. You’re treating an administrative formatting glitch like it invalidates 35,000 corpses. It doesn’t. And pretending it does is a grotesque deflection from the actual human toll.
As for ceasefires and humanitarian solutions: yes, I’ve offered them, and no, you haven’t seriously engaged with any of them. You dismiss ceasefires because “Hamas still has hostages,” as if military occupation has ever been an effective rescue strategy. You scoff at UN monitoring because of what happened in Lebanon, ignoring that monitoring works when backed by teeth—as it has in dozens of other conflicts. And you scoff at international diplomacy without acknowledging that your own logic ensures nothing else can be tried.
You complain no one proposes viable solutions—then reject anything short of total war as unworkable. That’s not analysis. That’s ideological paralysis. Your whole worldview is a self-sealing loop: Israel is always right, every critic is compromised, and every solution is a fantasy. But the real fantasy is believing that infinite bombs will somehow bring finite peace.
You say past U.S. governments didn’t support better ideas. But that’s false: the Kerry peace framework, the Arab Peace Initiative, even internal Israeli proposals for demilitarized autonomy zones in Gaza were floated and shelved—not because they were too violent, but because they required restraint. You’re not interested in restraint. You’re interested in punishment with plausible deniability.
And let’s address the most telling line in your response: “Israel rejected our ideas as killing too many civilians.” That’s not a defense. That’s a confession. You just admitted that Israel chose the bloodier path. If that’s your gold standard, then stop pretending you care about minimizing harm. You care about victory, full stop. And your version of victory has no room for the civilians who happen to be in the way.
So no—you haven’t exposed bias. You’ve exposed the playbook: discredit the witnesses, redefine the law, deny the bodies, and claim the moral high ground while standing on the rubble. That’s not justice. That’s whitewash. And history has seen it before.
NHC