At no point did I ask snipa to jump in. I have repeatedly stepped back when I saw you getting multiple responses. the reason why you are angry is because I asked you a question that you cant answer. Norlander then pointed it out and Snipa, who, as far as I know started this thread as pro-israeli is now questioning certain things. Also,

condemning the death of a child does not weaken your position, it strengthens it. neither does the killing of a child constitute a war crime. It is a simple principal of condemning the death of a child, any child. I think we should move on from this point. You were repeatedly offered the opportunity to say it and you refused. thats the end of it.

I'm moving on to other points.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 8 2026 11:26am

im smart enough to realize a pretty simple point that has and always will elude you (i hope, because if not you're even more lost than i thought). you can never at any time accomplish that goal if there are Gazan people remaining in Gaza. it's really that simple.

if the pre-war population was 2.2 million, and hypothetically of course, the post war population drops all the way down to 10,000 people, those people will have a number among them that become terrorists and dedicate their lives to striking Israel.

the only way to actually accomplish this goal is to either kill, ethnically cleanse, or imprison all of the people of Gaza. that's it. there is no other way. so if any of those 3 are your goals you're an utter monster. if they're not your goal, but you think the overarching goal is achievable, then you're delusional. its really that simple.

no one summoned me btw lol.

Your crowd analogy is a complete distortion of international law and military reality.
Firing a gun into a random crowd to hit one person is an indiscriminate attack. No one is defending that. A legally and factually accurate analogy is a terrorist standing inside a crowded room, actively firing rockets or heavy weapons into a neighboring city, while using those civilians as a human shield.
Under the Geneva Conventions (specifically Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 51 of Additional Protocol I), the presence of civilians does not immunize a military target from attack. The war crime is committed entirely by the force that embeds its military assets inside civilian infrastructure to exploit their safety.

International law explicitly states that a military must conduct a proportionality assessment: is the anticipated civilian risk excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated? When dealing with an enemy that embeds command centers, rocket launchers, and weapon caches inside apartments, schools, and hospitals, the civilian presence is tragic, but the target remains entirely lawful.
You are trying to argue that if a terrorist stands next to a child, he becomes entirely invincible and is permitted to murder as many Israelis as he wants without consequence. International law was explicitly written to prevent exactly that kind of genocidal loophole. It places the moral and legal responsibility for those tragic civilian deaths entirely on the terrorists using them as shields, not on the nation-state defending its citizens.





I am not angry at all, Ferida. I am simply refusing to let you and your echo chamber substitute emotional posturing for actual substance.
You say we should move on, and I agree, because you have completely run out of arguments.
You spent the last several posts demanding a specific, politically weaponized keyword, only to now backpedal and claim it's just a 'simple principle' that doesn't imply a war crime. You are trying to move on now because your linguistic trap failed, your partner's grotesque smears failed, and you still haven't answered the core question I asked you: Does international law treat unintended collateral damage during a military strike the same way it treats a terrorist executing a civilian?
I explicitly stated from the very beginning that the death of any child is an absolute, heartbreaking tragedy. I chose to use the precise moral and legal vocabulary of modern warfare, rather than submitting to a dishonest internet compliance test designed to create a false moral equivalence.
You can pretend this was an 'opportunity refused' to satisfy your narrative, but anyone reading this thread can see that when faced with hard historical data, the reality of Hamas strongholds in Judea and Samaria, and the actual mechanics of international law, you chose to hide behind a word-game.
Let's move on. The floor is still yours whenever you want to actually address the facts.






Your argument isn't 'smart,' ⁠thesnipa⁠ it’s just a textbook false dichotomy built on a complete ignorance of human history.
By your exact logic, the Allies should have never bothered fighting Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. After all, if any Germans or Japanese survived the war, wouldn't they just inevitably become terrorists and dedicate their lives to striking Washington and London forever?
History utterly dismantles your theory. The Allies didn't have to kill, ethnically cleanse, or permanently imprison every single German and Japanese citizen to win. They had to completely destroy the regime, dismantle its military capabilities, and remove its institutional capacity to radicalize the next generation. Ideologies aren't genetic; they are sustained by power structures, funding, and impunity. When you crush those structures, the ideology loses its teeth.
The goal in Gaza is the exact same: the complete removal of Hamas’s ability to govern, recruit, arm itself, and launch massacres.
You are trying to claim that because total deradicalization is difficult, Israel should just sit back, accept a genocidal terrorist state on its border, and wait for the next October 7th. That isn't pragmatism; it’s a suicide pact. No sovereign nation on earth would tolerate a permanent launchpad for slaughter on its border, and Israel isn't going to be the exception just because you think the alternative is too complicated.

the allies occupied, rebuilt, then financially bankrolled Germany and Japan for decades after the end of world war 2. i dont think even a fervent Zionist such as yourself would bother to pretend that the Israeli govt is planning to do anything close to that for Gaza after the war. we both know you'll just talk about how last time they destroyed the greenhouses, and eventually even if you do occupy you'll pull out just like in 2005 after the price tag becomes too much. i doubt you'd even make it to 10 years of occupation before the govt pulls out. then hamas starts to take root again and we get another attack some time later.

its funny tho that you simply cant stop yourself from falling into you NPC strawman script at the end. ive corrected your false assumptions a dozen or so times with my actual positions of what israel should have done, but you just fall back into strawmanning me. o well. im not the one who's grandkids will be conscripted into the army because "hamas is just 1 week away from having missiles", your entire bloodline is going to live an endless loop just as much as Gazans will.

Moving on, I am educating myself on the West Bank.

The West Bank, as Israel's own Supreme Court has consistently ruled, is an occupied territory under international law. This provides certain legal protections to the Palestinian people, including those enshrined in the Geneva Conventions. In recent years, however, successive Israeli governments have preferred the term "disputed territory"—a legal and political stance separate and distinct from occupation. While "disputed territory" is not recognized by the international community (or by Israel's own highest court) this is what Israel is using to slowly annex the West Bank. The legal argument is: Israel is not breaking the Geneva Conventions because the West Bank is a disputed territory, and not an occupied territory.

As I understand it, "occupied" suggests that a force has come in, taken a position, but that eventually it will leave. "Disputed," on the other hand, suggests that a force has come in, taken residence, and has no intention of leaving. In 2022, one year prior to the October 7th Hamas attack, the Government of Israel made an election pledge to "promote and develop settlement in all parts of the Land of Israel, including Judea and Samaria (the West Bank)." What the government said explicitly was that the West Bank is not a disputed territory — but rather, a part of Israel.

To reinforce this notion, in 2025 the Israeli government voted on annexing the West Bank. This was not a final decision — only a preliminary reading — but it was another step towards annexation.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 8 2026 12:48pm

You completely pivoted. You went from arguing that a regime's ideology cannot be dismantled without creating endless terrorism, to arguing about Israel's post-war political will. You abandoned your original premise because the historical examples of Germany and Japan utterly broke it.

As for your new point: you bring up the 2005 disengagement as a warning. You're accidentally agreeing with me. 2005 failed precisely because Israel left a vacuum that allowed a radical, armed entity to seize power and radicalize a generation. The lesson of 2005 isn't to leave Hamas intact; it's that you cannot allow a genocidal regime to hold sovereignty on your border.

No one claims the 'day after' is simple, but total regime dismantlement is the mandatory first step before any stable alternative can exist. Your alternative is to leave a rapid-firing launchpad on Israel's border and hope for the best. Talk about a guaranteed endless loop.

Before I answer, can you please quote the international law regarding disputed territories?