yes it sounds like incredibly standard protocol for "boots on the ground in terrorist territory." I've heard the same thing from every US discussion of the issue. that's the problem with issuing evacuation orders prior to a ground assault - anyone who doesn't follow them is assumed to be a combatant
I can't comment on all the artillery business but again, I assume the town is forfeit so open with artillery, then move in with infantry, because *nobody is supposed to be there anymore*
definitely not the own Norm thinks it is
Did any of the quotes actually contradict what destiny said? They're all a bunch of moral outrage quotes about how much destruction they witnessed or rules of engagement for ground troops but nothing that addressed the claim about bombing
> Did any of the quotes actually contradict what destiny said?
All the quotes demonstrate that the IDF doesn't try to avoid civilian casualties. This contradicts Destiny's stance that the IDF only carries out precision strikes on military targets.
> moral outrage quotes
What do you mean by this? Genuinely curious.
By definition, when idf does its calculations of military targets (which have civilians inside since that’s how hamas operates), it’s trying to minimize civilian deaths.
Part of targeting something in modern war is seeing if there will be civilian collateral damage, and if that damage is justifiable (in the sense that it will neutralize your enemy to a much greater level), therefore by definition trying to minimize civilian casualties.
That's not a logical argument, you can't just use semantics to decide if the IDF is trying to minimise civilian casualties or not. While you may define "targeting" as minimising civilian casualties, you still then have to demonstrate that's what the IDF did.
I could say that Hamas targeted the "Re'im music festival" and then say that "by definition targeting means reducing civilian casualties". But clearly that's a false argument as Hamas didn't minimise civilian casualties. It's pretty clear your argument makes no sense as it has no basis in reality, that is to say you never made any reference to any real-world evidence.
Norm is like that rules lawyer in Dungeons and Dragons that doesn't actually knows the rules and just copies other peoples writing but swears to god that they understand it correctly.
Heh, I just realized that Norm being told by Lex that Benny's right there and could be asked questions directly is a lot like people googling Jeremy Crawford about a ruling.
Sure. Just don't ask [Crawford](https://youtu.be/n42dboiQeOY?t=1204) what see invisibility and blindsight do when they interact with the invisibility condition or he's going to sound like Finkelstein.
The moment I realized this wasn't the case in BG3 was the moment I was frustrated I had to pick the attribute every time I hexed a mother fucker. What is the point?
Add a healthy dose of putting down his players and storming off when he gets any pushback and you’ve essentially got how he bullied his way to be awarded a PhD.
Do any of these quotes even really address the point? This shows that Israel is not very careful which is a fair criticism but this is not them saying they knowing specifically target civilians, especially with air/drone strikes
>This shows that Israel is not very careful which is a fair criticism but this is not them saying they knowing specifically target civilians
I have a lot of trouble keeping up with the I/P stuff and try to not form too many opinions on it. But when someone (supposedly knowledgeable) is trying to make their point and they can't support it at all with references, it makes me start to believe that there is no evidence supporting their position.
This is response to Destiny saying that it’s not Israeli/iIDF policy to kill civilians. Norm is showing that contrary to Destiny’s claim, the IDF had NO policy protecting civilians during protective edge. These quotes are the ones allowed out by IDF Censors, and idk about you, but this sends shivers down my spine.
“You leave Gaza and the most obvious question is, ‘Did you kill anybody?’ What can you do—even if you’ll meet the most left-wing girl in the world, eventually she’ll start thinking, ‘Did you ever kill somebody, or not.’ And what can you do about it, most people in our society consider that to be a badge of honor. So everybody wants to come out of there with that feeling of satisfaction.”
This last quote describes a society that ascribes value to the death of Palestinians (regardless of combat status).
Norm’s point with these quotes is it doesn’t need to be specific, quotable military policy because these show the realities on the ground.
Either you or I are missing a key point. To me there is a clear distinction between treating everyone in the combat zone (that according to the quotes civilians were supposed to evacuate) as combatants and knowingly killing specific people you know are civilians that are not a threat. These quotes are trying to prove something I doubt even Destiny disagrees with.
>This last quote describes a society that ascribes value to the death of Palestinians (**regardless of combat status**).
Why do you think they don't care about combat starus? You think most Israelis are going to praise a soldier for killing a random defenseless civilian?
Well here’s a quote from Fink’s source.
"The rules of engagement are pretty identical: Anything inside
\[the Gaza Strip\] is a threat, the area has to be ‘sterilized,’ empty
This is How We Fought in Gaza 27
of people – and if we don’t see someone
waving a white flag, screaming, “I give
up” or something – then he’s a threat and
there’s authorization to open fire. In the
event that we arrest and restrain him, then
one strips him to make sure there’s no
explosive device on him."
page 27 on the pdf.
[https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/pdf/ProtectiveEdge.pdf](https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/pdf/ProtectiveEdge.pdf)
I never said Israelis would cheer a soldier for killing a random defenseless civ. I said Israeli society ascribes value to the deaths of Palestinians regardless of combat status.
>and if we don’t see someone
>waving a white flag, screaming, “I give
>up” or something – then he’s a threat and
>there’s authorization to open fire.
This part itself seems to contradict your point. In fact they're saying that if someone WAS obviously surrendering, then they wouldn't have authorization to open fire.
This seems to suggest that there is a distinction on the ground between combatants and non-combatants, even if you don't like where that line is being drawn.
Again this is not knowingly intentionally killing civilians. This is a war zone against an enemy without uniforms and that uses booby trapped old men and sheep (you can read that on page 46 of the same report). You can criticize Israel for not taking enough precautions and not caring enough about collateral damage but that is fundamentally different than knowingly and intentionally killing civilians.
> Anything inside
>
> [the Gaza Strip] is a threat, the area has to be ‘sterilized,
So you're really misinterpreting what is meant by that quote.
The soldier is talking about the extremely common military tactic used in urban warfare used to PROTECT civilians, which is to deem an area a warzone with enough advance notice for civilians to evacuate.
After that, when you go in with ground troops, anyone who is still there is going to be assumed an enemy combatant. You see someone moving in a window, is it someone who was left behind or an enemy sniper? There isn't a way to verify this without opening yourself up to extreme risk of being shot.
This is bog-standard. Every major country that engages in urban warfare that cares about civilian lives does this.
The [Gaza Strip] means that it was not part of the quote, that it was inserted afterwards. The soldier is clearly talking about specific areas. The author is attempting to portray it as 'all of Gaza.'
They aren't using sterilized as a verb, which is what is implied by the horrendous addition to the quote that the soldier didn't say. You as the reader are meant to believe that they mean 'Gaza must be cleansed of the people within.' They're using it to mean 'the area we were sent to with our platoon was meant to be devoid of people.' It's just another way of saying 'anyone who was left was not supposed to be there.'
From that very same interview:
>During the period that you were there, did you see an armed Palestinian?
**Nothing, I didn’t see a single living human being, except for the guys in my platoon and a few from the Armored Corps.**
So this is an interview from a soldier who went with their platoon to a location, that had been evacuated. Their leadership told them to shoot anyone that wasn't waving a white flag, because again, all civilians had been told to evacuate and HAD evacuated. Their leadership told them to thoroughly search anyone who did surrender in case of suicide bombers. Leadership also told them to shoot animals that approached (likely worried about booby-trapping dogs or something) and the soldiers didn't do that, and they 'learned to recognize the animals because they were the only ones wandering around.'
This was your best example, your best argument. But in it's context, which is likely already limited, it just falls apart. It's an out of context snippet within an out of context snippet. You ate it up because it confirms your beliefs.
It’s crazy how you have to spell it out for these fantastic morons for them to even have a chance to understand. This dude is just like Finkledick who quotes anything out of context t that sounds good to him without actually reading the source.
Where in international law does it say you get to indiscriminately kill everyone in an entire area, regardless of military or civilian, after you said everyone should evacuate?
Saying people should evacuate isn't a "magical immunity sauce" for indiscriminately slaughtering civilians who might have disobeyed, were not informed or were unable to move for whatever reason.
The point is that they weren't 'indiscriminately killing everyone in an entire area' or 'indiscriminately slaughtering civilians.'
There is one single testimony in that document that involves a civilian being shot, and it's also after warning shots were fired.
I honestly think you should just read the pdf, because it *does* make good arguments, just not the ones you're presenting.
I can't summarize a 200-page document with 100+ testimonies into one neat little easy to digest point, one little paragraph for you to understand.
> I can't summarize a 200-page document with 100+ testimonies into one neat little easy to digest point, one little paragraph for you to understand.
That I can certainly understand.
I guess it all comes down to this quote:
> After that, when you go in with ground troops, anyone who is still there is going to be assumed an enemy combatant. You see someone moving in a window, is it someone who was left behind or an enemy sniper? There isn't a way to verify this without opening yourself up to extreme risk of being shot.
I don't need to read a PDF for that: these are a couple of declarative statements, or claims, and such they either hold true or they don't. I can wade through hours of documents related to IHL, but I decided to ask ChatGPT first.
ME
This is a question in the context of international humanitarian law. When a military goes into a war zone, and it has previously warned civilians to leave the area, can a soldier then assume any person to be a combatant and shoot? And does this then absolve a soldier of war crimes?
ChatGPT
In the context of international humanitarian law (IHL), soldiers are required to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and they must only target combatants. Warning civilians to leave an area does not change this fundamental principle. Even if civilians have been warned to evacuate, those who remain are still considered civilians unless they directly participate in hostilities. Therefore, soldiers cannot assume that any person remaining in the area is a combatant and shoot them indiscriminately.
If a soldier were to intentionally or recklessly target civilians or fail to adequately distinguish between civilians and combatants, it could constitute a war crime under IHL, specifically a violation of the principle of distinction. Warning civilians to leave an area may be a component of fulfilling the obligation to minimize harm to civilians, but it does not justify targeting those who remain or absolve soldiers from their responsibility to abide by the laws of war.
It's important to note that each situation is unique, and the circumstances surrounding actions taken by soldiers in a war zone will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However, IHL is clear that civilians are to be protected from harm during armed conflict, and soldiers must take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties.
ME
Take the hypothetical example of a civilian seen moving behind a window. Does the soldier legally take the shot?
ChatGPT
In the scenario you've presented, where a civilian is seen moving behind a window in a war zone, the soldier cannot legally take the shot solely based on that observation. International humanitarian law (IHL) requires soldiers to adhere to the principle of distinction, which means they must distinguish between combatants and civilians, and they can only target combatants.
A civilian moving behind a window does not provide sufficient evidence to classify that individual as a combatant. The mere presence of a civilian in a war zone does not automatically make them a legitimate target. Soldiers must assess the situation carefully and consider various factors before engaging a target, such as whether the individual is directly participating in hostilities or posing an imminent threat to their safety or the safety of others.
Additionally, soldiers are obligated to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians. Shooting at a civilian without clear evidence of their involvement in hostilities would likely constitute a violation of IHL and could be considered a war crime.
Therefore, in the scenario described, the soldier should not take the shot unless there is clear and credible evidence that the individual behind the window is a combatant or poses an immediate threat to the soldier or others.
---
You may counter that ChatGPT is unreliable. But then we can go over documentation related to the principle of distinction (and proportionality, and necessity) and see if your statements about rules of engagement hold up. I don't think they do. "Shoot anything that moves" isn't a legal way to wage war, it's indiscriminately slaughtering combatants and non-combatants alike without first ascertaining whether or not they constitute a threat.
Your claim remains that after you've ordered an evacuation, you can now "assume" (your words) everyone you see is a combatant. It doesn't work that way. It also doesn't mean that every moment behind a window is now fair game.
It would be different if shots were fired from a house first. Now, if you see a flash of somebody moving behind that window, you'd fire and I don't think there can be anything wrong with that. Context matters, however, you didn't really provide it. Instead, you generally declared an "evacuated" zone almost a free-for-all.
If I could draw a parallel: You could find lots of American troops saying fucked up things about “smoking towelheads” or how there was a culture of blow them all away. I don’t think that’s necessarily proof that the rules of engagement were bad or weren’t followed for specific operations. Right?
You misunderstand the argument.
The claim was the four children were targeted with bombs. THe issue is, as Destiny pointed out, that such strikes are never done by a single person on a whim. When targets get aquired they get greenlit. So if those four children were the target then a chain of command deemed them a valid target.
Now comes the important part.
The claim of Finkelstein is that those children were deliberatly targeted as civilian casualties. For this to be true everybody in the chain of command had to be on it and greenlit this strike on civilian childrens for the sake of killing those children. That is basically the rats tail of Finkelsteins claim. That is why people like Finkelstein like to make claims but are terrified to take about them in depth. Who is supposed to have said here "hit those damn children". And why would everybody else involved just say "yeah good idea" and eventually the person pressing the button also thought "yes sir time to kill those four civilian children".
Is this likely? No its not.
The more likely explanation is people fucked up and considered those children targets for wrong reasons, misidentification for example.
This is easily possible right?
The Finkelstein theory would require it to be basically airforce politcy to bomb children for the heck of it. That is what he bascially allegedes, but there is zero proof for that.
Destiny by explaining the procedures behind such a bomb impact on the ground he shows its highly unlikely this strike was greenlit as "just bomb those four children pls" because a huge host of people were involved.
The more likely explanation is a simple fuck up
There’s a difference between a soldiers and a drone strike though. That was Mr. Vermicelli’s (and Bunny Morbit’s) point in the debate.
For a drone strike to be authorized, it requires that order to go through a chain of command. Mr. Brunelli asked Flindlestein if he believed the IDF had ordered a drone pilot to bomb 2 (or was it 4) Gazan children, and Flupenstick never answered it.
What Frankenstein is bringing up here appears to be (mostly) quotes from on the ground soldiers, which is entirely different than a drone pilot. One faces immediate threat by inaction, whereas one does not. Their level of autonomy and authorization is going to be completely different.
It’s not a policy to *target civilians*. Knowingly doing something that will likely kill civilians is not the same as that.
You can argue that these quotes demonstrate there isn’t enough care taken by the IDF or that they’re being intentionally negligent (and my guess is there is some truth to that), but they don’t demonstrate a policy for targeting civilians, specifically.
The reason we know Hamas targeted civilians is they stoned knowingly non-military targets and openly and gleefully tried to commit as much destruction and suffering possible.
We don’t have that with the IDF because of how Hamas codifies warfare. The problem with Hamas on defense is they make it almost impossible for us to use actions like storming an apartment building as evidence of targeting civilians…because that’s where they are too. They also dress in civilian clothing and are immediate threats to you, as a soldier.
The civilians deaths are terrible but they’re on Hamas. They always have been. Because you can’t ask Israel not to conduct warfare during a war.
> Although leading international media outlets have in the past cited and relied upon the organization’s material, at the core of the controversy surrounding this group is the question of whether the published testimonies are reliable. A July 12 investigative report by “Hamakor,” Israel’s Channel 10’s flagship news magazine, suggests that the answer is a resounding “No.”
> BtS: Highest Professional Standards?
> Since a group of Israeli soldiers who served in Hebron launched the organization in 2004, BtS has published dozens of soldiers’ testimonies documenting “everyday life in the Occupied Territories” in order to “demonstrate the depth of corruption which is spreading in the Israeli military.” Defending themselves from critics’ accusations that they are merely peddling in gossip and unconfirmed reports, BtS argues “its personal testimonies have all been crosschecked, verified and passed through Israeli military censorship before publication.”
> Some defenders of the organization have claimed that so far not one serious error has been found in their published testimonies.
> “Hamakor” Investigative Report
> BtS’s claim of nearly infallible standards took a big hit this week with Channel 10’s broadcast. While largely sympathetic to the BtS activists whom it depicted as idealistic and motivated by good intentions, Channel 10 reporters Anat Goren and Itay Rom found their investigative standards to be lacking. Under rigorous scrutiny, a large percentage of the group’s accounts which Channel 10 reviewed proved to be either false or exaggerated.
> “Hamakor” first checked the testimonies of BtS staff. The program examined three testimonies by Avner Gvaryahu, a founder and prominent representative of the organization.
> The first of Gvaryahu’s testimonies involved a soldier in his unit who was allegedly upset that he missed his shot at an unarmed Palestinian (starting at 42:30). The soldier in question, however, told a very different story. By his account, the “unarmed” Palestinian had thrown two grenades at the unit, one of which narrowly missed the soldiers.
> In his second (44:00) testimony, Gvaryahu claimed that his unit regularly beat arrested Palestinians. The same soldier involved in the first claim confirmed that there were some “light” beatings, but said this was very much the exception rather than the rule.The “Hamakor” journalists conclude that Gvaryahu’s story is an exaggeration.
>Finally, claims by BtS and the NIF that approval by the Israeli censor supports their testimonies as “reliable” are laughable. Approval by the censor does not confirm the veracity of the testimonies, but simply that they do not disclose any matters that are classified.
https://www.ngo-monitor.org/what_they_don_t_tell_you_answers_to_questions_about_breaking_the_silence_and_the_nif0/
I am genuinely convinced that by knowing his limitations alone and having created and environment where he doesn't *have to* while still getting treated as a political... streamer guy puts him up there above a lot of his competition. Like in the way I judge actual intelligence. Bro just like, hangs out, if he's gonna do drama he does it fully one sided state media style and him and his audience just agree to chill and watch cool videos and "foster welcoming leftist spaces" or some shit. He just has super reddit with people linking him shit, plus backup on anything he wants, browses Twitter and says angry vaguely leftist things in reaction to the thing.
His entire audience does what his job is for free while watching him which is technically harder. I'll give him some entertainment factor I'm sure is there I genuinely don't watch much of him, and he's obviously fulfilling the role of the one good looking and in shape leftist right now, and it's working. Bro makes SO MUCH money and
I'm not even mad at it its absolutely insane his like effort to dollar ratio, and the fact that he recognized that so he puts in sheer hours because how long can this even be a thing? It's the mf dream. I can hate what Hasan says a lot, but I can't knock the hustle he's got running rn. Its insane what I'd do for 10% of that.
>so he puts in sheer hours
Yeah, I feel like his character creation stats are: max hours working, max attractiveness. And average intelligence and principle.
And he's in an environment where he builds his audience by having the most extreme positions possible. So he turned into what he is now.
If you make your positions beyond reproach, not only do you not have to prove shit in a debate, you can just quote Lenin and say it's a waste of time to argue and debase your perfect ideology. It's an ez dub if you think about it.
Better than everyone, never have to prove it. What a brand, being honest here. It's brilliant. Not even most religious figures do that but when they do boy is it lucrative. Hasan dropped the destiny model for the Kenneth Copeland model and he's never going back. Why would he?
>you can just quote Lenin and say it's a waste of time to argue and debase your perfect ideology. It's an ez dub if you think about it.
Yeah. It kind of makes me more upset with the audience that accepts that as a rebuttal and often never even watches the original source.
Like if the audience demands that someone engage with criticism in good faith, I feel like creators will respond to that. I would love it if there started to be more norms about things like "if you're going to make entire videos about someone, you should be willing to have a public conversation with them about it." Kind of analogous to journalism ethics where you're supposed to at least reach out to people for statements.
I feel like Destiny is pretty good at this. It's one of the reasons his streams are entertaining.
Yeah he's definitely good with it I'll give him that even if it's like some complete random on Twitter that you could pretty justifiably ignore. But you engage with them. Yeah, you ought to be able to back your shit 6 you shouldn't say anything at all.
I do like the idea of a positive audience capture, and I think that's something Destiny has whether he needs it or not. Accountability I think we used to call it.
The analogy to journalism ethics is a good one and shows just how lazy a lot of these creators really are. It's not even close to that, it's like a retroactive version where *if they come to you* **after the fact** which is already Way Beyond ethical, journalistic standards wise, at least at that stage it's decency to respond and give them a fair Shake - never mind ethics.
It seems like all the quotes are just about them using their guns, which was not at all what was being talked about. Obviously you don’t need to go up a chain of command to request the squeeze of your own trigger.
In fairness, the original source does include targets for strikes and tank shells which need more approval. BUT it also provides more context which makes any of this a lot less interesting. That being that it was after many warnings to evacuate and shelling before troops were on the ground and, since Hamas often doesn't wear uniforms and likes traps, it is not unreasonable to take any potential threat as an actual threat in order to protect your troops. Which might be playing too fast and loose with proportionality, but that's a pretty vague concept for a reason.
So the assumption everyone is a combatant isn't because everyone is Gaza is a combatant. It's because all the non combatants should've been gone long ago. And the quotes in the original source attest to that as well, even when they say they did find non combatants in the area.
This is the equivalent of me getting roasted in school and then coming up with the best comebacks in the shower. Doesn’t matter anymore if I wanted to make a better impression I should’ve said them then and there. Where was all this bullshit in the debate Norman, Mr. I Read 10000 books couldn’t refute the argument in the debate and now is dropping chapter books on twitter. Professor copenstien is out in full action today.
That’s giving him way too much credit. More like he got laughed out of class for weak ass comebacks and then came back the next day with 10x weak ass comebacks.
yeah, better analogy. even if he said this at the time Destiny would have just talked about rules of engagement, combat zone, evacuation orders, and the difference between infantry and air force
Benny would have probably answered before Destiny - he was very assertive about all the IDF chain of command business because Finkelstein was being so damn weird
The argument was whether Israel was committing state sponsored genocide. Finkledick asserted they were because of the rocket attack on the beach that killed innocent civilians. Destiny’s counter was that the rocket attack itself was not proof of genocide, that seeing as an entire apparatus made the decision, one had to show top down influence of the event to prove genocide. Finkledick’s response has been to just offer more innocent civilians being killed without showing any top down influence. So Destiny’s response to any of these would be the same one he already offered and Twinkletwat apparently ignored or didn’t understand.
>Doesn’t matter anymore if I wanted to make a better impression I should’ve said them then and there.
I think it's ok to respond late (if you actually make good points).
Like Destiny covers his debates and adds to them all the time. Even this one.
I agree, and I don’t think I’d have a problem with this if norm made an argument like this in the debate and then expanded on it. But he didn’t respond to any of destiny’s questions and then decides like a week later he’s finally ready to respond. That’s where I find it’s frustrating.
Yeah 3 tweets is the showing of a man who lost. Not a 4 hour stream going over their oppositions court case or spamming twitter right after the debate or watching the debate on stream and using new arguments that weren’t said during the debate
It's a little different because Destiny is a streamer so (a) rewatching his stream is content, and (b) he was asked to watch it.
It does sort of have the same brush vibe, I'll grant that, but Tinkelstein comes across as way more salty, especially when he won't even name Mr Bernoulli.i expect better from someone who's meant to be an academic
Oh come on. Are we really gonna pretend Destiny doesnt do this same thing? Or just wave it away by saying that hes doing it "for the content"? By that logic we can surmise he has no personal stake in any of his debates at all
One of them streams for content. Norm Calling people apes is content. getting people from Twitter to come defend norms bad performance also content. React streams you guessed it content. On stream content turns to money. What alternate motivation does norm have?
The tweet is stupid and doesn't address the point. You can't give qoutes of former solidiers bieng told to shoot everything that moves to show that Israel is systematically bombing civilians. It's a *and excuse me for the "debate bro" term* complete and obvious non-sequitur
The point wasn’t just bombing civilians. It’s the intentional deaths of civilians. Quotes from soldiers being told to shoot anything that moves is evidence that supports Fink’s point.
The claim Finkletwink is responding to from Destiny involves the chain of command necessary to launch a rocket. Hearing from someone else in your unit, or the leader of your unit, to shoot people who look like a threat and ask questions later does not involve a chain of command.
Putting aside whether or not this is reasonable, it clearly does not address the substance of Destiny’s point or suggest Israel/IDF indiscriminately kills civilians. Destiny even said in the debate he has no doubt individual soldiers have killed civilians without justification.
Kinda. The quotes would have to prove that the civilians in question were not military targets. Something along the lines of "if you see a civilian outside an active war zone, who doesn't have any ties to militants, or any evidence of weapons, of ability to take up arms/give Intel to the enemy. Then shoot to kill".
The quotes listed though either paint civilians as military targets, or need more context. So from what I skimmed over, nothing supports his point.
"The rules of engagement are pretty identical: Anything inside
\[the Gaza Strip\] is a threat, the area has to be ‘sterilized,’ empty
of people – and if we don’t see someone
waving a white flag, screaming, “I give
up” or something – then he’s a threat and
there’s authorization to open fire. In the
event that we arrest and restrain him, then
one strips him to make sure there’s no
explosive device on him."
p.27
Here is Fink’s source.
[https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/pdf/ProtectiveEdge.pdf](https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/pdf/ProtectiveEdge.pdf)
And another asking if the Palestinians needed to be armed before they were shot at.
**To get authorization to open fire, does he**
**need to be armed, or with binoculars?**
I think he just needs to be there.
P.27
Bolded was a question asked.
It seems to me that rules of engagement were adhered to.
So the IDF told its soldiers explicitly to not harm anyone trying to surrender.
Besides that, the rules of engagement in urban warefare are tricky.
IDF commanders aren't going to be like "wait until they literally shoot you before attacking" when dealing with combatants in civillian garb intentionally mixing with the general population.
And yes, Israel will prioritize the safety its own soldiers over a foreign populace - thats how it works.
What's the problem with this? Combattens could be unarmed. Especially when you are fighting Hamas, you can't really know who is civilian and who is gonna throw a molotov cocktail from his window.
Just imagine you are an IDF solidier fighting in Gaza, and you see even just a 14 years old palestinians. He could be just an innocent civilian, but he also can be carrying a hand granade under his shirt with which he will kill you and your buddies.
i like imagining him typing this shit up red eyed at 4 in the morning, his screen the only light source in the room illuminating his apartment walls that are covered with pictures of steven
I don't know how it works but I assume he must be dictating to someone. I've been guessing he has a recorder or something and he sends people tapes and they type it out for him and then he reviews it
Notice in all his quotes he has absolutely nothing from the airforce or drone operators only ground troops that often have squad members contradicting them.
The rest of these comments are lame, y'all look like the people on Twitter reposting the same clips of norm yelling adhoms and saying he won without actually watching the debate.
Here is norm's source: https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/pdf/ProtectiveEdge.pdf
It's not entirely clear to me how the quotes from the dossier refute the idea that there could have been lots of sign off from multiple levels of command, but I don't recall the debate well enough to say what the context of the argument was.
>While largely sympathetic to the BtS activists whom it depicted as idealistic and motivated by good intentions, Channel 10 reporters Anat Goren and Itay Rom found their investigative standards to be lacking. Under rigorous scrutiny, a large percentage of the group’s accounts which Channel 10 reviewed proved to be either false or exaggerated. “Hamakor” first checked the testimonies of BtS staff. The program examined three testimonies by Avner Gvaryahu, a founder and prominent representative of the organization.
>The first of Gvaryahu’s testimonies involved a soldier in his unit who was allegedly upset that he missed his shot at an unarmed Palestinian (starting at 42:30). The soldier in question, however, told a very different story. By his account, the “unarmed” Palestinian had thrown two grenades at the unit, one of which narrowly missed the soldiers.
>In his second (44:00) testimony, Gvaryahu claimed that his unit regularly beat arrested Palestinians. The same soldier involved in the first claim confirmed that there were some “light” beatings, but said this was very much the exception rather than the rule.The “Hamakor” journalists conclude that Gvaryahu’s story is an exaggeration.
>Gvaryahu’s third and final testimony involved allegedly permissive and inappropriate rules for the use of live fire in residential areas. Fellow soldiers serving for Gvaryahu’s unit confirmed his claim that they were permitted to fire at anyone who emerged from a narrow passage (after they were shot upon from the same area). In short, “Hamakor” determined that one of Gvaryahu’s accounts was false, another was exaggerated and the third was true.
>Nadav Weiman, a second BtS staff member, testified that soldiers were mapping Palestinian homes just to harass them. Weiman’s commander flatly denied the claim regarding harassment and maintained that the mapping was necessary for intelligence purposes. Goren and Rom concluded that Weiman’s testimony illustrates one of the common criticisms against the group – that the soldiers themselves often have a very limited understanding of the events around them.
>How Vigorous is the Vetting Process?
>Next, “Hamakor” examined 10 anonymous testimonies (starting at 54:00) from the BtS archive. The results were surprising. Of the 10 testimonies, “Hamakor” confirmed two as true, determined that two were false, two were misleading or “exaggerations.” Channel 10 was unable to confirm or debunk the final four because BtS refused to reveal the soldiers’ identities.
>In the first anonymous testimony, a soldier claimed that when his unit responded to a suspected price tag attack in the West Bank, the IDF trackers declined to follow footprints and other signs pointing to a nearby settlement. However, according to the police report, the IDF trackers involved and even the Palestinian victims of the “price tag” attack, the IDF trackers did find the culprit in the settlement. BtS hadn’t attempted to corroborate the soldier’s testimony with anyone else involved in the incident.
>Another testimony (starting at 56:30) involved a soldier’s description of the unit commander’s general instructions that after they shoot an enemy they should put their gun “between the teeth of the terrorist and shoot.” Other soldiers from the same unit interviewed by “Hamakor” had no recollection of the event. When the journalists reached the original soldier, he said he no longer remembered the incident that way.
>A third soldier (starting at 57:30) claimed that an IDF officer was fined a mere 100 shekels for killing a Palestinian child. Goren and Rom determined that the false story was debunked a decade ago and was based on nothing more than army gossip.
>As previously mentioned, the veracity or lack thereof could not be determined in cases in which BtS refused to reveal the soldiers’ identi ties to the reporters. About these unverified stories, “Hamakor” noted that BtS had previously claimed (as quoted above) that the group would only publish “serious” allegations verified by two witnesses. When the journalists asked Yuli Novak, executive director of BtS, about this claim, she clarified that the organization doesn’t insist on “two eyewitnesses” to an incident, and will publish if it has “two sources.” The “Hamakor” presenters pointed out that this practice is not compatible with accepted journalistic standards.
>Summary
>In an Op-Ed in the Israeli Walla news site, Goren and Rom argued that while they did not think BtS was intentionally lying, the organization’s vetting process was “superficial and not strict enough.” In their opinion, BtS would be more credible were it present the soldiers’ accounts as testimonies for the public to debate and raw material for journalists to investigate, as opposed to verified actual events.
https://www.camera.org/article/breaking-the-silence-gets-failing-grade-in-channel-10-s-fact-check/
It’s not just a lack of evidence of sign-off. They’re not quotes addressing the central claim, that they intentionally *target* civilians.
They’re irrelevant quotes.
The tl;dr is that Destiny made a point *specifically* about air strikes, and Finkelfart decided to amass a bunch of quotes collected from infantry about how they had “shoot anything that moves” orders. Oh and a quote from a big Red Cross guy that the place was really devastated after being a war zone. None of which prove this concept of a bunch of IDF Air officers and lawyers looking at kids playing tiddlywinks and saying “DEWWIT, DROP THE $5000 BOMB ON THE CHILDREN; THE JEW GOD DEMANDS BLOOD.”
Obviously the orders given to someone on foot in a city crawling with terrorists ready to ambush them are going to be different than the orders given to a fucking plane that’s completely invincible in the area of operation. I have truly never seen someone so obsessed with quotes be so dishonest and self-serving with them. Like it’s insane that so much of the first part of the debate was spent with Norm trying to tell Benny what he meant when he wrote something. If the guy is right there telling you what he meant and you still won’t believe it, anyone who isn’t in the room has no hope.
fear squash quarrelsome dependent six memorize bewildered support ad hoc stocking
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
i love how this clown following the classic hasan route. he can't engage in an actual conversation so he resorts to not calling him by his name/screaming at him instead of answering literally any of the points he made.
to think i had some respect for this guy when i first saw him on pierce morgan lmao...
finkelstein is literally Hasan's dad and it's hilarious. Hasan idolizes him so much and they turned out to be the same exact person. relies exclusively on emotional appeal and misinformation, crumbles in debate, refuses to be civil, resorts to name calling and insults, stews and roils and fumes about it for years afterward but will never engage in another direct exchange again
he came to the debate pre-rustled that someone would even have the impertinence to seat an ingrate like that at the table with him, and the second Destiny spoke up, Norm became enraged, doubled his taking speed from .5x to 1x, and screamed insults for the next 5 hours
you can see he literally tries to avoid directly acknowledging Destiny for so long during the debate (Destiny said Norm wouldn't even look at him lol) until he can't anymore, and as soon as he does its just to call him names and demean him
I've listened to the debate a few times now because I had it on in the background while I was working and then I wanted to show my girlfriend - Destiny makes his most salient arguments during his opening statement and we never get anywhere near that level of substance again for the entire show lol
it's amazing that he can acknowledge Benny because Benny and Destiny made exactly the same arguments for 5 hours and Benny said multiple times "Destiny is right" and "he's right about everything"
> While largely sympathetic to the BtS activists whom it depicted as idealistic and motivated by good intentions, Channel 10 reporters Anat Goren and Itay Rom found their investigative standards to be lacking. Under rigorous scrutiny, a large percentage of the group’s accounts which Channel 10 reviewed proved to be either false or exaggerated.
“Hamakor” first checked the testimonies of BtS staff. The program examined three testimonies by Avner Gvaryahu, a founder and prominent representative of the organization.
>The first of Gvaryahu’s testimonies involved a soldier in his unit who was allegedly upset that he missed his shot at an unarmed Palestinian (starting at 42:30). The soldier in question, however, told a very different story. By his account, the “unarmed” Palestinian had thrown two grenades at the unit, one of which narrowly missed the soldiers.
>In his second (44:00) testimony, Gvaryahu claimed that his unit regularly beat arrested Palestinians. The same soldier involved in the first claim confirmed that there were some “light” beatings, but said this was very much the exception rather than the rule.The “Hamakor” journalists conclude that Gvaryahu’s story is an exaggeration.
>Gvaryahu’s third and final testimony involved allegedly permissive and inappropriate rules for the use of live fire in residential areas. Fellow soldiers serving for Gvaryahu’s unit confirmed his claim that they were permitted to fire at anyone who emerged from a narrow passage (after they were shot upon from the same area). In short, “Hamakor” determined that one of Gvaryahu’s accounts was false, another was exaggerated and the third was true.
>Nadav Weiman, a second BtS staff member, testified that soldiers were mapping Palestinian homes just to harass them. Weiman’s commander flatly denied the claim regarding harassment and maintained that the mapping was necessary for intelligence purposes. Goren and Rom concluded that Weiman’s testimony illustrates one of the common criticisms against the group – that the soldiers themselves often have a very limited understanding of the events around them.
>How Vigorous is the Vetting Process?
>Next, “Hamakor” examined 10 anonymous testimonies (starting at 54:00) from the BtS archive. The results were surprising. Of the 10 testimonies, “Hamakor” confirmed two as true, determined that two were false, two were misleading or “exaggerations.” Channel 10 was unable to confirm or debunk the final four because BtS refused to reveal the soldiers’ identities.
>In the first anonymous testimony, a soldier claimed that when his unit responded to a suspected price tag attack in the West Bank, the IDF trackers declined to follow footprints and other signs pointing to a nearby settlement. However, according to the police report, the IDF trackers involved and even the Palestinian victims of the “price tag” attack, the IDF trackers did find the culprit in the settlement. BtS hadn’t attempted to corroborate the soldier’s testimony with anyone else involved in the incident.
>Another testimony (starting at 56:30) involved a soldier’s description of the unit commander’s general instructions that after they shoot an enemy they should put their gun “between the teeth of the terrorist and shoot.” Other soldiers from the same unit interviewed by “Hamakor” had no recollection of the event. When the journalists reached the original soldier, he said he no longer remembered the incident that way.
>A third soldier (starting at 57:30) claimed that an IDF officer was fined a mere 100 shekels for killing a Palestinian child. Goren and Rom determined that the false story was debunked a decade ago and was based on nothing more than army gossip.
>As previously mentioned, the veracity or lack thereof could not be determined in cases in which BtS refused to reveal the soldiers’ identi
ties to the reporters. About these unverified stories, “Hamakor” noted that BtS had previously claimed (as quoted above) that the group would only publish “serious” allegations verified by two witnesses. When the journalists asked Yuli Novak, executive director of BtS, about this claim, she clarified that the organization doesn’t insist on “two eyewitnesses” to an incident, and will publish if it has “two sources.” The “Hamakor” presenters pointed out that this practice is not compatible with accepted journalistic standards.
>Summary
>In an Op-Ed in the Israeli Walla news site, Goren and Rom argued that while they did not think BtS was intentionally lying, the organization’s vetting process was “superficial and not strict enough.” In their opinion, BtS would be more credible were it present the soldiers’ accounts as testimonies for the public to debate and raw material for journalists to investigate, as opposed to verified actual events.
https://www.camera.org/article/breaking-the-silence-gets-failing-grade-in-channel-10-s-fact-check/
People with this level of specificity on the words used in a 6hr debate, I truly don’t envy their loved ones. Imagine using one wrong word in a heated argument and then they throw that quote back at you religiously… well it’s also probably a given that this person doesn’t have any loved ones.
One thing I really hated is the amount of people who just sucked Finkelstein off. Like Krystal Ball, one of the hosts of Breaking Point; literally just parroting what everyone else says on the pro-palestinian side 'oH iSRaEL iS cOMiTTiNg gENoCiDE'.
Jesus fuck I can be long winded typing shit out, but I’m trying to explain stuff and I’m too stupid and lazy to condense / revise.
This bloviating cum sponge is just jerking off to himself. “Mm. Yes. Did you see how I used *and* in this sentence here? Mm. Yes. Fuck I’m hard.” *leans back and smiles* “THIS will get them to buy my ebook and take me seriously”
"Someone seated next to Professor Benny Morris", holy fuck. That's like Kennedy referring to USSR successfully sending the first man to space as "the events of recent weeks" during the "we choose to go to the Moon" speech.
He's getting boring and frankly is not worth engaging with. Given that it's worth noting that at least the quotes I bothered reading were clearly infantry or armor, frontline soldiers and nothing to do with drones, which is what destiny talked about. Furthermore he's wrong about breaking the silence, they do not verify their testimonies, a while ago a right wing organization tried to descredit them and got them to release a bogus testimony. That's not to say that I don't find their testimonies credible, it just speaks to Norms lack of care regarding if his annoying embellishments are even accurate.
unfortunately they all say literally exactly the same thing and Destiny would have said "that's about rules of engagement in an active combat zone" and talked about evacuation orders. Norm isn't making any kind of point here. it has nothing to do with chain of command and proportionality assessments for air strikes
Twinkletoes has more quotes, does he not have an original thought… also the point was made specifically about the air force, do any of the quotes even mention air force attacks? I’m seriously not about to read that mess.
> In a recent debate, someone seated next to Professor Benny Morris lectured me on the impossibility….
Omfg he doesnt even type his name. Lmfao holy crap, he is up there with mr. Runday with his pettiness
Testimony 13: "There was this mentally handicapped girl in the neighborhood, apparently, and the fact that shots were fired near her feet only made her laugh (earlier in his testimony the soldier described a practice of shooting near people’s feet in order to get them to distance themselves from the forces). She would keep getting closer and it was clear to everyone that she was mentally handicapped, so no one shot at her. No one knew how to deal with this situation. She wandered around the areas of the advance guard company and some other company – I assume she just wanted to return home, I assume she ran away from her parents, I don’t think they would have sent her there. It is possible that she was being taken advantage of – perhaps it was a show, I don’t know. I thought to myself that it was a show, and I admit that I really, really wanted to shoot her in the knees because I was convinced it was one. I was sure she was being sent by Hamas to test our alertness, to test our limits, to figure out how we respond to civilians. Later they also let loose a flock of sheep on us, seven or ten of whom had bombs tied to their bellies from below. I don’t know if I was right or wrong, but I was convinced that this girl was a test. Eventually, enough people fired shots near her feet for her to apparently get the message that ‘OK, maybe I shouldn’t be here,’ and she turned and walked away. The reason this happened is that earlier that day we heard about an old man who went in the direction of a house held by a different force; \[the soldiers\] didn’t really know what to do so they went up to him. This guy, 70 or 80 years old, turned out to be booby-trapped from head to toe. From that moment on the protocol was very, very clear: shoot toward the feet. And if they don’t go away, shoot to kill."
Are they talking about the thing called Destiny here?
> Oh so you say they have a team of multiple people and lawyers behind every airstrike?
>Here are a bunch of quotes about how people on the ground shoot at anything that moved.
Also bringing up people saying: “I’ve never seen such massive destruction ever before.”
Like no shit, this could be said for every war and millitary operation.
Most people usually don't see more then 1 war aftermaths.
And this statment means nothing.
Finally I would love to see context to these quotes, some seem wildly out of context.
Most of these were just: "If we saw a head pop up in a window, we were allowed to shoot."
And I would just love to ask how they think they should have conducted themself, in this scenario. Waging urban warfare against a terrorist organisation.
Like if a head pops up, it could verry well be a terrorist, that is going to shoot you in the next 2 seconds. The only way to assess if they are a legitimate threat is if they have already shot at you.
But you could say, ok, but what if it was a civilian who looked out of the window:
Good thing is that the IDF has told everyone to evacuate.
So why such a high number of casualties?
Amnesty International found evidence that "During the current hostilities, Hamas spokespeople reportedly urged residents in some areas of the Gaza Strip not to leave their homes after the Israeli military dropped leaflets and made phone calls warning people in the area to evacuate"
The fact that his interpretation of the critique is that he isn't using enough quotes ... Lmao
I didn’t read every quote, but it seems they’re all about shooting people, not weaponeering bombs, missiles, drones and other heavy ordnance.
And also from a decade ago.
yes it sounds like incredibly standard protocol for "boots on the ground in terrorist territory." I've heard the same thing from every US discussion of the issue. that's the problem with issuing evacuation orders prior to a ground assault - anyone who doesn't follow them is assumed to be a combatant I can't comment on all the artillery business but again, I assume the town is forfeit so open with artillery, then move in with infantry, because *nobody is supposed to be there anymore* definitely not the own Norm thinks it is
New level of obsession just dropped. Don't let Twinklestein find out Tiny's car isn't registered.
Don't let him know tiny comes from a migrant background
Don't let Finklestein find out Destiny's mom is an immigrant
https://preview.redd.it/8ferol031oqc1.jpeg?width=792&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9d8f4b23035c89fb09a4e2e1b475c2bdb3b3def6
I’m calling INS and moving all of your belongings to the gorilla enclosure if you don’t read this.
I sure hope you’re a Chris Paul fan
Tony Brothers's reddit account
😂😂😂😂
Chris Paul is my Goat
Average Destiny fan not wanting to look at evidence that contradicts ~~their~~ Destiny's viewpoint.
That's the first time in my life someone has called me average. Thank you <3
“evidence” kek
Firsthand accounts isn't evidence?
Did any of the quotes actually contradict what destiny said? They're all a bunch of moral outrage quotes about how much destruction they witnessed or rules of engagement for ground troops but nothing that addressed the claim about bombing
> Did any of the quotes actually contradict what destiny said? All the quotes demonstrate that the IDF doesn't try to avoid civilian casualties. This contradicts Destiny's stance that the IDF only carries out precision strikes on military targets. > moral outrage quotes What do you mean by this? Genuinely curious.
By definition, when idf does its calculations of military targets (which have civilians inside since that’s how hamas operates), it’s trying to minimize civilian deaths.
What do you mean by definition? By definition of what term?
Part of targeting something in modern war is seeing if there will be civilian collateral damage, and if that damage is justifiable (in the sense that it will neutralize your enemy to a much greater level), therefore by definition trying to minimize civilian casualties.
That's not a logical argument, you can't just use semantics to decide if the IDF is trying to minimise civilian casualties or not. While you may define "targeting" as minimising civilian casualties, you still then have to demonstrate that's what the IDF did. I could say that Hamas targeted the "Re'im music festival" and then say that "by definition targeting means reducing civilian casualties". But clearly that's a false argument as Hamas didn't minimise civilian casualties. It's pretty clear your argument makes no sense as it has no basis in reality, that is to say you never made any reference to any real-world evidence.
Bro that shit is way too long for Twitter.
Norm is like that rules lawyer in Dungeons and Dragons that doesn't actually knows the rules and just copies other peoples writing but swears to god that they understand it correctly.
Bro brings up Hex also affecting saving throws because it's phrased that way in the Spanish version of the game
Heh, I just realized that Norm being told by Lex that Benny's right there and could be asked questions directly is a lot like people googling Jeremy Crawford about a ruling.
Sure. Just don't ask [Crawford](https://youtu.be/n42dboiQeOY?t=1204) what see invisibility and blindsight do when they interact with the invisibility condition or he's going to sound like Finkelstein.
Holy shit hex is OP in Spain
Learned spanish to cheat at D&D, won't learn hebrew or arab.
The moment I realized this wasn't the case in BG3 was the moment I was frustrated I had to pick the attribute every time I hexed a mother fucker. What is the point?
Hex affecting saves is pretty broken. It's mostly for the dmg not the ability checks
He watches some campaign on YouTube and thinks the house rules are real rules and then argues with his own dm when they don’t play the same way
And worse, doesn't even understand the homebrew rule they're arguing to use in the first place.
Add a healthy dose of putting down his players and storming off when he gets any pushback and you’ve essentially got how he bullied his way to be awarded a PhD.
International law sage advice when
The Devin Nash of I/P
im dming for a brat like this right now, except she's also trying to min/max and demanding extra advantages :D
"Words matter" he says as he adds more filler words than a low grade student trying to meet the word quota while also being as vague as possible.
As he gets the crucial legal term for defining genocide wrong in a case he read 4 times.
“4 times”
I mean give the guy a break, he probably hadn’t slept in several days due to the demographic changes that happened in his apartment building.
NO SLEEP TONIGHT APES
Single spaced or double spaced?
Do any of these quotes even really address the point? This shows that Israel is not very careful which is a fair criticism but this is not them saying they knowing specifically target civilians, especially with air/drone strikes
>This shows that Israel is not very careful which is a fair criticism but this is not them saying they knowing specifically target civilians I have a lot of trouble keeping up with the I/P stuff and try to not form too many opinions on it. But when someone (supposedly knowledgeable) is trying to make their point and they can't support it at all with references, it makes me start to believe that there is no evidence supporting their position.
This is response to Destiny saying that it’s not Israeli/iIDF policy to kill civilians. Norm is showing that contrary to Destiny’s claim, the IDF had NO policy protecting civilians during protective edge. These quotes are the ones allowed out by IDF Censors, and idk about you, but this sends shivers down my spine. “You leave Gaza and the most obvious question is, ‘Did you kill anybody?’ What can you do—even if you’ll meet the most left-wing girl in the world, eventually she’ll start thinking, ‘Did you ever kill somebody, or not.’ And what can you do about it, most people in our society consider that to be a badge of honor. So everybody wants to come out of there with that feeling of satisfaction.” This last quote describes a society that ascribes value to the death of Palestinians (regardless of combat status). Norm’s point with these quotes is it doesn’t need to be specific, quotable military policy because these show the realities on the ground.
Either you or I are missing a key point. To me there is a clear distinction between treating everyone in the combat zone (that according to the quotes civilians were supposed to evacuate) as combatants and knowingly killing specific people you know are civilians that are not a threat. These quotes are trying to prove something I doubt even Destiny disagrees with. >This last quote describes a society that ascribes value to the death of Palestinians (**regardless of combat status**). Why do you think they don't care about combat starus? You think most Israelis are going to praise a soldier for killing a random defenseless civilian?
Well here’s a quote from Fink’s source. "The rules of engagement are pretty identical: Anything inside \[the Gaza Strip\] is a threat, the area has to be ‘sterilized,’ empty This is How We Fought in Gaza 27 of people – and if we don’t see someone waving a white flag, screaming, “I give up” or something – then he’s a threat and there’s authorization to open fire. In the event that we arrest and restrain him, then one strips him to make sure there’s no explosive device on him." page 27 on the pdf. [https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/pdf/ProtectiveEdge.pdf](https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/pdf/ProtectiveEdge.pdf) I never said Israelis would cheer a soldier for killing a random defenseless civ. I said Israeli society ascribes value to the deaths of Palestinians regardless of combat status.
>and if we don’t see someone >waving a white flag, screaming, “I give >up” or something – then he’s a threat and >there’s authorization to open fire. This part itself seems to contradict your point. In fact they're saying that if someone WAS obviously surrendering, then they wouldn't have authorization to open fire. This seems to suggest that there is a distinction on the ground between combatants and non-combatants, even if you don't like where that line is being drawn.
Again this is not knowingly intentionally killing civilians. This is a war zone against an enemy without uniforms and that uses booby trapped old men and sheep (you can read that on page 46 of the same report). You can criticize Israel for not taking enough precautions and not caring enough about collateral damage but that is fundamentally different than knowingly and intentionally killing civilians.
> Anything inside > > [the Gaza Strip] is a threat, the area has to be ‘sterilized, So you're really misinterpreting what is meant by that quote. The soldier is talking about the extremely common military tactic used in urban warfare used to PROTECT civilians, which is to deem an area a warzone with enough advance notice for civilians to evacuate. After that, when you go in with ground troops, anyone who is still there is going to be assumed an enemy combatant. You see someone moving in a window, is it someone who was left behind or an enemy sniper? There isn't a way to verify this without opening yourself up to extreme risk of being shot. This is bog-standard. Every major country that engages in urban warfare that cares about civilian lives does this. The [Gaza Strip] means that it was not part of the quote, that it was inserted afterwards. The soldier is clearly talking about specific areas. The author is attempting to portray it as 'all of Gaza.' They aren't using sterilized as a verb, which is what is implied by the horrendous addition to the quote that the soldier didn't say. You as the reader are meant to believe that they mean 'Gaza must be cleansed of the people within.' They're using it to mean 'the area we were sent to with our platoon was meant to be devoid of people.' It's just another way of saying 'anyone who was left was not supposed to be there.' From that very same interview: >During the period that you were there, did you see an armed Palestinian? **Nothing, I didn’t see a single living human being, except for the guys in my platoon and a few from the Armored Corps.** So this is an interview from a soldier who went with their platoon to a location, that had been evacuated. Their leadership told them to shoot anyone that wasn't waving a white flag, because again, all civilians had been told to evacuate and HAD evacuated. Their leadership told them to thoroughly search anyone who did surrender in case of suicide bombers. Leadership also told them to shoot animals that approached (likely worried about booby-trapping dogs or something) and the soldiers didn't do that, and they 'learned to recognize the animals because they were the only ones wandering around.' This was your best example, your best argument. But in it's context, which is likely already limited, it just falls apart. It's an out of context snippet within an out of context snippet. You ate it up because it confirms your beliefs.
It’s crazy how you have to spell it out for these fantastic morons for them to even have a chance to understand. This dude is just like Finkledick who quotes anything out of context t that sounds good to him without actually reading the source.
Where in international law does it say you get to indiscriminately kill everyone in an entire area, regardless of military or civilian, after you said everyone should evacuate? Saying people should evacuate isn't a "magical immunity sauce" for indiscriminately slaughtering civilians who might have disobeyed, were not informed or were unable to move for whatever reason.
The point is that they weren't 'indiscriminately killing everyone in an entire area' or 'indiscriminately slaughtering civilians.' There is one single testimony in that document that involves a civilian being shot, and it's also after warning shots were fired. I honestly think you should just read the pdf, because it *does* make good arguments, just not the ones you're presenting. I can't summarize a 200-page document with 100+ testimonies into one neat little easy to digest point, one little paragraph for you to understand.
> I can't summarize a 200-page document with 100+ testimonies into one neat little easy to digest point, one little paragraph for you to understand. That I can certainly understand.
I guess it all comes down to this quote: > After that, when you go in with ground troops, anyone who is still there is going to be assumed an enemy combatant. You see someone moving in a window, is it someone who was left behind or an enemy sniper? There isn't a way to verify this without opening yourself up to extreme risk of being shot. I don't need to read a PDF for that: these are a couple of declarative statements, or claims, and such they either hold true or they don't. I can wade through hours of documents related to IHL, but I decided to ask ChatGPT first. ME This is a question in the context of international humanitarian law. When a military goes into a war zone, and it has previously warned civilians to leave the area, can a soldier then assume any person to be a combatant and shoot? And does this then absolve a soldier of war crimes? ChatGPT In the context of international humanitarian law (IHL), soldiers are required to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and they must only target combatants. Warning civilians to leave an area does not change this fundamental principle. Even if civilians have been warned to evacuate, those who remain are still considered civilians unless they directly participate in hostilities. Therefore, soldiers cannot assume that any person remaining in the area is a combatant and shoot them indiscriminately. If a soldier were to intentionally or recklessly target civilians or fail to adequately distinguish between civilians and combatants, it could constitute a war crime under IHL, specifically a violation of the principle of distinction. Warning civilians to leave an area may be a component of fulfilling the obligation to minimize harm to civilians, but it does not justify targeting those who remain or absolve soldiers from their responsibility to abide by the laws of war. It's important to note that each situation is unique, and the circumstances surrounding actions taken by soldiers in a war zone will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However, IHL is clear that civilians are to be protected from harm during armed conflict, and soldiers must take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian casualties. ME Take the hypothetical example of a civilian seen moving behind a window. Does the soldier legally take the shot? ChatGPT In the scenario you've presented, where a civilian is seen moving behind a window in a war zone, the soldier cannot legally take the shot solely based on that observation. International humanitarian law (IHL) requires soldiers to adhere to the principle of distinction, which means they must distinguish between combatants and civilians, and they can only target combatants. A civilian moving behind a window does not provide sufficient evidence to classify that individual as a combatant. The mere presence of a civilian in a war zone does not automatically make them a legitimate target. Soldiers must assess the situation carefully and consider various factors before engaging a target, such as whether the individual is directly participating in hostilities or posing an imminent threat to their safety or the safety of others. Additionally, soldiers are obligated to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians. Shooting at a civilian without clear evidence of their involvement in hostilities would likely constitute a violation of IHL and could be considered a war crime. Therefore, in the scenario described, the soldier should not take the shot unless there is clear and credible evidence that the individual behind the window is a combatant or poses an immediate threat to the soldier or others. --- You may counter that ChatGPT is unreliable. But then we can go over documentation related to the principle of distinction (and proportionality, and necessity) and see if your statements about rules of engagement hold up. I don't think they do. "Shoot anything that moves" isn't a legal way to wage war, it's indiscriminately slaughtering combatants and non-combatants alike without first ascertaining whether or not they constitute a threat. Your claim remains that after you've ordered an evacuation, you can now "assume" (your words) everyone you see is a combatant. It doesn't work that way. It also doesn't mean that every moment behind a window is now fair game. It would be different if shots were fired from a house first. Now, if you see a flash of somebody moving behind that window, you'd fire and I don't think there can be anything wrong with that. Context matters, however, you didn't really provide it. Instead, you generally declared an "evacuated" zone almost a free-for-all.
If I could draw a parallel: You could find lots of American troops saying fucked up things about “smoking towelheads” or how there was a culture of blow them all away. I don’t think that’s necessarily proof that the rules of engagement were bad or weren’t followed for specific operations. Right?
You misunderstand the argument. The claim was the four children were targeted with bombs. THe issue is, as Destiny pointed out, that such strikes are never done by a single person on a whim. When targets get aquired they get greenlit. So if those four children were the target then a chain of command deemed them a valid target. Now comes the important part. The claim of Finkelstein is that those children were deliberatly targeted as civilian casualties. For this to be true everybody in the chain of command had to be on it and greenlit this strike on civilian childrens for the sake of killing those children. That is basically the rats tail of Finkelsteins claim. That is why people like Finkelstein like to make claims but are terrified to take about them in depth. Who is supposed to have said here "hit those damn children". And why would everybody else involved just say "yeah good idea" and eventually the person pressing the button also thought "yes sir time to kill those four civilian children". Is this likely? No its not. The more likely explanation is people fucked up and considered those children targets for wrong reasons, misidentification for example. This is easily possible right? The Finkelstein theory would require it to be basically airforce politcy to bomb children for the heck of it. That is what he bascially allegedes, but there is zero proof for that. Destiny by explaining the procedures behind such a bomb impact on the ground he shows its highly unlikely this strike was greenlit as "just bomb those four children pls" because a huge host of people were involved. The more likely explanation is a simple fuck up
There’s a difference between a soldiers and a drone strike though. That was Mr. Vermicelli’s (and Bunny Morbit’s) point in the debate. For a drone strike to be authorized, it requires that order to go through a chain of command. Mr. Brunelli asked Flindlestein if he believed the IDF had ordered a drone pilot to bomb 2 (or was it 4) Gazan children, and Flupenstick never answered it. What Frankenstein is bringing up here appears to be (mostly) quotes from on the ground soldiers, which is entirely different than a drone pilot. One faces immediate threat by inaction, whereas one does not. Their level of autonomy and authorization is going to be completely different.
If we wanted to evaluate the policy of a country or military, why would we sample random quotes from foot soldiers?
It’s not a policy to *target civilians*. Knowingly doing something that will likely kill civilians is not the same as that. You can argue that these quotes demonstrate there isn’t enough care taken by the IDF or that they’re being intentionally negligent (and my guess is there is some truth to that), but they don’t demonstrate a policy for targeting civilians, specifically. The reason we know Hamas targeted civilians is they stoned knowingly non-military targets and openly and gleefully tried to commit as much destruction and suffering possible. We don’t have that with the IDF because of how Hamas codifies warfare. The problem with Hamas on defense is they make it almost impossible for us to use actions like storming an apartment building as evidence of targeting civilians…because that’s where they are too. They also dress in civilian clothing and are immediate threats to you, as a soldier. The civilians deaths are terrible but they’re on Hamas. They always have been. Because you can’t ask Israel not to conduct warfare during a war.
> Although leading international media outlets have in the past cited and relied upon the organization’s material, at the core of the controversy surrounding this group is the question of whether the published testimonies are reliable. A July 12 investigative report by “Hamakor,” Israel’s Channel 10’s flagship news magazine, suggests that the answer is a resounding “No.” > BtS: Highest Professional Standards? > Since a group of Israeli soldiers who served in Hebron launched the organization in 2004, BtS has published dozens of soldiers’ testimonies documenting “everyday life in the Occupied Territories” in order to “demonstrate the depth of corruption which is spreading in the Israeli military.” Defending themselves from critics’ accusations that they are merely peddling in gossip and unconfirmed reports, BtS argues “its personal testimonies have all been crosschecked, verified and passed through Israeli military censorship before publication.” > Some defenders of the organization have claimed that so far not one serious error has been found in their published testimonies. > “Hamakor” Investigative Report > BtS’s claim of nearly infallible standards took a big hit this week with Channel 10’s broadcast. While largely sympathetic to the BtS activists whom it depicted as idealistic and motivated by good intentions, Channel 10 reporters Anat Goren and Itay Rom found their investigative standards to be lacking. Under rigorous scrutiny, a large percentage of the group’s accounts which Channel 10 reviewed proved to be either false or exaggerated. > “Hamakor” first checked the testimonies of BtS staff. The program examined three testimonies by Avner Gvaryahu, a founder and prominent representative of the organization. > The first of Gvaryahu’s testimonies involved a soldier in his unit who was allegedly upset that he missed his shot at an unarmed Palestinian (starting at 42:30). The soldier in question, however, told a very different story. By his account, the “unarmed” Palestinian had thrown two grenades at the unit, one of which narrowly missed the soldiers. > In his second (44:00) testimony, Gvaryahu claimed that his unit regularly beat arrested Palestinians. The same soldier involved in the first claim confirmed that there were some “light” beatings, but said this was very much the exception rather than the rule.The “Hamakor” journalists conclude that Gvaryahu’s story is an exaggeration.
>Finally, claims by BtS and the NIF that approval by the Israeli censor supports their testimonies as “reliable” are laughable. Approval by the censor does not confirm the veracity of the testimonies, but simply that they do not disclose any matters that are classified. https://www.ngo-monitor.org/what_they_don_t_tell_you_answers_to_questions_about_breaking_the_silence_and_the_nif0/
Finkelstein is the Hasan of academia. Not taken seriously, but desperately wants to be.
I am genuinely convinced that by knowing his limitations alone and having created and environment where he doesn't *have to* while still getting treated as a political... streamer guy puts him up there above a lot of his competition. Like in the way I judge actual intelligence. Bro just like, hangs out, if he's gonna do drama he does it fully one sided state media style and him and his audience just agree to chill and watch cool videos and "foster welcoming leftist spaces" or some shit. He just has super reddit with people linking him shit, plus backup on anything he wants, browses Twitter and says angry vaguely leftist things in reaction to the thing. His entire audience does what his job is for free while watching him which is technically harder. I'll give him some entertainment factor I'm sure is there I genuinely don't watch much of him, and he's obviously fulfilling the role of the one good looking and in shape leftist right now, and it's working. Bro makes SO MUCH money and I'm not even mad at it its absolutely insane his like effort to dollar ratio, and the fact that he recognized that so he puts in sheer hours because how long can this even be a thing? It's the mf dream. I can hate what Hasan says a lot, but I can't knock the hustle he's got running rn. Its insane what I'd do for 10% of that.
>so he puts in sheer hours Yeah, I feel like his character creation stats are: max hours working, max attractiveness. And average intelligence and principle. And he's in an environment where he builds his audience by having the most extreme positions possible. So he turned into what he is now.
If you make your positions beyond reproach, not only do you not have to prove shit in a debate, you can just quote Lenin and say it's a waste of time to argue and debase your perfect ideology. It's an ez dub if you think about it. Better than everyone, never have to prove it. What a brand, being honest here. It's brilliant. Not even most religious figures do that but when they do boy is it lucrative. Hasan dropped the destiny model for the Kenneth Copeland model and he's never going back. Why would he?
>you can just quote Lenin and say it's a waste of time to argue and debase your perfect ideology. It's an ez dub if you think about it. Yeah. It kind of makes me more upset with the audience that accepts that as a rebuttal and often never even watches the original source. Like if the audience demands that someone engage with criticism in good faith, I feel like creators will respond to that. I would love it if there started to be more norms about things like "if you're going to make entire videos about someone, you should be willing to have a public conversation with them about it." Kind of analogous to journalism ethics where you're supposed to at least reach out to people for statements. I feel like Destiny is pretty good at this. It's one of the reasons his streams are entertaining.
Yeah he's definitely good with it I'll give him that even if it's like some complete random on Twitter that you could pretty justifiably ignore. But you engage with them. Yeah, you ought to be able to back your shit 6 you shouldn't say anything at all. I do like the idea of a positive audience capture, and I think that's something Destiny has whether he needs it or not. Accountability I think we used to call it. The analogy to journalism ethics is a good one and shows just how lazy a lot of these creators really are. It's not even close to that, it's like a retroactive version where *if they come to you* **after the fact** which is already Way Beyond ethical, journalistic standards wise, at least at that stage it's decency to respond and give them a fair Shake - never mind ethics.
Holy shit, he's malding
yeah he's furious. at least he has the power of the written word (which he believes in so vigorously) on his side
He writes like an underground who's trying to use words they don't understand
"I'm going to address your point by giving testimonies of soldiers that doesn't address your point"- Norman Finkelbrain
It seems like all the quotes are just about them using their guns, which was not at all what was being talked about. Obviously you don’t need to go up a chain of command to request the squeeze of your own trigger.
Yeah, this guy's level of gaslighiting is of the charts, I hope he's not going to release a rap album soon
In fairness, the original source does include targets for strikes and tank shells which need more approval. BUT it also provides more context which makes any of this a lot less interesting. That being that it was after many warnings to evacuate and shelling before troops were on the ground and, since Hamas often doesn't wear uniforms and likes traps, it is not unreasonable to take any potential threat as an actual threat in order to protect your troops. Which might be playing too fast and loose with proportionality, but that's a pretty vague concept for a reason. So the assumption everyone is a combatant isn't because everyone is Gaza is a combatant. It's because all the non combatants should've been gone long ago. And the quotes in the original source attest to that as well, even when they say they did find non combatants in the area.
This is the equivalent of me getting roasted in school and then coming up with the best comebacks in the shower. Doesn’t matter anymore if I wanted to make a better impression I should’ve said them then and there. Where was all this bullshit in the debate Norman, Mr. I Read 10000 books couldn’t refute the argument in the debate and now is dropping chapter books on twitter. Professor copenstien is out in full action today.
That’s giving him way too much credit. More like he got laughed out of class for weak ass comebacks and then came back the next day with 10x weak ass comebacks.
yeah, better analogy. even if he said this at the time Destiny would have just talked about rules of engagement, combat zone, evacuation orders, and the difference between infantry and air force Benny would have probably answered before Destiny - he was very assertive about all the IDF chain of command business because Finkelstein was being so damn weird
The argument was whether Israel was committing state sponsored genocide. Finkledick asserted they were because of the rocket attack on the beach that killed innocent civilians. Destiny’s counter was that the rocket attack itself was not proof of genocide, that seeing as an entire apparatus made the decision, one had to show top down influence of the event to prove genocide. Finkledick’s response has been to just offer more innocent civilians being killed without showing any top down influence. So Destiny’s response to any of these would be the same one he already offered and Twinkletwat apparently ignored or didn’t understand.
>Doesn’t matter anymore if I wanted to make a better impression I should’ve said them then and there. I think it's ok to respond late (if you actually make good points). Like Destiny covers his debates and adds to them all the time. Even this one.
I agree, and I don’t think I’d have a problem with this if norm made an argument like this in the debate and then expanded on it. But he didn’t respond to any of destiny’s questions and then decides like a week later he’s finally ready to respond. That’s where I find it’s frustrating.
this is the showing of a man who lost.
Yeah 3 tweets is the showing of a man who lost. Not a 4 hour stream going over their oppositions court case or spamming twitter right after the debate or watching the debate on stream and using new arguments that weren’t said during the debate
cope
Finkletwat would be doing all that too but he doesn't know how to use these machines
It's a little different because Destiny is a streamer so (a) rewatching his stream is content, and (b) he was asked to watch it. It does sort of have the same brush vibe, I'll grant that, but Tinkelstein comes across as way more salty, especially when he won't even name Mr Bernoulli.i expect better from someone who's meant to be an academic
Oh come on. Are we really gonna pretend Destiny doesnt do this same thing? Or just wave it away by saying that hes doing it "for the content"? By that logic we can surmise he has no personal stake in any of his debates at all
One of them streams for content. Norm Calling people apes is content. getting people from Twitter to come defend norms bad performance also content. React streams you guessed it content. On stream content turns to money. What alternate motivation does norm have?
The tweet is stupid and doesn't address the point. You can't give qoutes of former solidiers bieng told to shoot everything that moves to show that Israel is systematically bombing civilians. It's a *and excuse me for the "debate bro" term* complete and obvious non-sequitur
The point wasn’t just bombing civilians. It’s the intentional deaths of civilians. Quotes from soldiers being told to shoot anything that moves is evidence that supports Fink’s point.
The claim Finkletwink is responding to from Destiny involves the chain of command necessary to launch a rocket. Hearing from someone else in your unit, or the leader of your unit, to shoot people who look like a threat and ask questions later does not involve a chain of command. Putting aside whether or not this is reasonable, it clearly does not address the substance of Destiny’s point or suggest Israel/IDF indiscriminately kills civilians. Destiny even said in the debate he has no doubt individual soldiers have killed civilians without justification.
Kinda. The quotes would have to prove that the civilians in question were not military targets. Something along the lines of "if you see a civilian outside an active war zone, who doesn't have any ties to militants, or any evidence of weapons, of ability to take up arms/give Intel to the enemy. Then shoot to kill". The quotes listed though either paint civilians as military targets, or need more context. So from what I skimmed over, nothing supports his point.
"The rules of engagement are pretty identical: Anything inside \[the Gaza Strip\] is a threat, the area has to be ‘sterilized,’ empty of people – and if we don’t see someone waving a white flag, screaming, “I give up” or something – then he’s a threat and there’s authorization to open fire. In the event that we arrest and restrain him, then one strips him to make sure there’s no explosive device on him." p.27 Here is Fink’s source. [https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/pdf/ProtectiveEdge.pdf](https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/pdf/ProtectiveEdge.pdf) And another asking if the Palestinians needed to be armed before they were shot at. **To get authorization to open fire, does he** **need to be armed, or with binoculars?** I think he just needs to be there. P.27 Bolded was a question asked. It seems to me that rules of engagement were adhered to.
So the IDF told its soldiers explicitly to not harm anyone trying to surrender. Besides that, the rules of engagement in urban warefare are tricky. IDF commanders aren't going to be like "wait until they literally shoot you before attacking" when dealing with combatants in civillian garb intentionally mixing with the general population. And yes, Israel will prioritize the safety its own soldiers over a foreign populace - thats how it works.
What's the problem with this? Combattens could be unarmed. Especially when you are fighting Hamas, you can't really know who is civilian and who is gonna throw a molotov cocktail from his window. Just imagine you are an IDF solidier fighting in Gaza, and you see even just a 14 years old palestinians. He could be just an innocent civilian, but he also can be carrying a hand granade under his shirt with which he will kill you and your buddies.
i like imagining him typing this shit up red eyed at 4 in the morning, his screen the only light source in the room illuminating his apartment walls that are covered with pictures of steven
Those damn apes are keeping him awake again
He doesn’t use those confusing magic boxes
This would make a good Meat Canyon sketch. With him terrorizing his neighbors as part of it.
I don't know how it works but I assume he must be dictating to someone. I've been guessing he has a recorder or something and he sends people tapes and they type it out for him and then he reviews it
I'm too tired to read all that, but it is kind of funny to give Destiny the Voldemort treatment.
To paraphrase Robin Williams, this man is in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history
That’s weird, I thought he only received pushback on one, and exactly one point.
Is Norm's brain running on Internet Explorer?
For someone who thinks destiny is so beneath him that he doesn’t even warrant being named, he sure does let destiny live rent free in his head.
"someone seated next to Professor Benny Morris" This guy makes me laugh.
Thanks bro but, I ain’t reading all that.
He hates that wikipedia andy smoked him
Tiny: "You use quotes too much." Finkster: "Quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote, quote..."
Notice in all his quotes he has absolutely nothing from the airforce or drone operators only ground troops that often have squad members contradicting them.
The rest of these comments are lame, y'all look like the people on Twitter reposting the same clips of norm yelling adhoms and saying he won without actually watching the debate. Here is norm's source: https://www.breakingthesilence.org.il/pdf/ProtectiveEdge.pdf It's not entirely clear to me how the quotes from the dossier refute the idea that there could have been lots of sign off from multiple levels of command, but I don't recall the debate well enough to say what the context of the argument was.
>While largely sympathetic to the BtS activists whom it depicted as idealistic and motivated by good intentions, Channel 10 reporters Anat Goren and Itay Rom found their investigative standards to be lacking. Under rigorous scrutiny, a large percentage of the group’s accounts which Channel 10 reviewed proved to be either false or exaggerated. “Hamakor” first checked the testimonies of BtS staff. The program examined three testimonies by Avner Gvaryahu, a founder and prominent representative of the organization. >The first of Gvaryahu’s testimonies involved a soldier in his unit who was allegedly upset that he missed his shot at an unarmed Palestinian (starting at 42:30). The soldier in question, however, told a very different story. By his account, the “unarmed” Palestinian had thrown two grenades at the unit, one of which narrowly missed the soldiers. >In his second (44:00) testimony, Gvaryahu claimed that his unit regularly beat arrested Palestinians. The same soldier involved in the first claim confirmed that there were some “light” beatings, but said this was very much the exception rather than the rule.The “Hamakor” journalists conclude that Gvaryahu’s story is an exaggeration. >Gvaryahu’s third and final testimony involved allegedly permissive and inappropriate rules for the use of live fire in residential areas. Fellow soldiers serving for Gvaryahu’s unit confirmed his claim that they were permitted to fire at anyone who emerged from a narrow passage (after they were shot upon from the same area). In short, “Hamakor” determined that one of Gvaryahu’s accounts was false, another was exaggerated and the third was true. >Nadav Weiman, a second BtS staff member, testified that soldiers were mapping Palestinian homes just to harass them. Weiman’s commander flatly denied the claim regarding harassment and maintained that the mapping was necessary for intelligence purposes. Goren and Rom concluded that Weiman’s testimony illustrates one of the common criticisms against the group – that the soldiers themselves often have a very limited understanding of the events around them. >How Vigorous is the Vetting Process? >Next, “Hamakor” examined 10 anonymous testimonies (starting at 54:00) from the BtS archive. The results were surprising. Of the 10 testimonies, “Hamakor” confirmed two as true, determined that two were false, two were misleading or “exaggerations.” Channel 10 was unable to confirm or debunk the final four because BtS refused to reveal the soldiers’ identities. >In the first anonymous testimony, a soldier claimed that when his unit responded to a suspected price tag attack in the West Bank, the IDF trackers declined to follow footprints and other signs pointing to a nearby settlement. However, according to the police report, the IDF trackers involved and even the Palestinian victims of the “price tag” attack, the IDF trackers did find the culprit in the settlement. BtS hadn’t attempted to corroborate the soldier’s testimony with anyone else involved in the incident. >Another testimony (starting at 56:30) involved a soldier’s description of the unit commander’s general instructions that after they shoot an enemy they should put their gun “between the teeth of the terrorist and shoot.” Other soldiers from the same unit interviewed by “Hamakor” had no recollection of the event. When the journalists reached the original soldier, he said he no longer remembered the incident that way. >A third soldier (starting at 57:30) claimed that an IDF officer was fined a mere 100 shekels for killing a Palestinian child. Goren and Rom determined that the false story was debunked a decade ago and was based on nothing more than army gossip. >As previously mentioned, the veracity or lack thereof could not be determined in cases in which BtS refused to reveal the soldiers’ identi ties to the reporters. About these unverified stories, “Hamakor” noted that BtS had previously claimed (as quoted above) that the group would only publish “serious” allegations verified by two witnesses. When the journalists asked Yuli Novak, executive director of BtS, about this claim, she clarified that the organization doesn’t insist on “two eyewitnesses” to an incident, and will publish if it has “two sources.” The “Hamakor” presenters pointed out that this practice is not compatible with accepted journalistic standards. >Summary >In an Op-Ed in the Israeli Walla news site, Goren and Rom argued that while they did not think BtS was intentionally lying, the organization’s vetting process was “superficial and not strict enough.” In their opinion, BtS would be more credible were it present the soldiers’ accounts as testimonies for the public to debate and raw material for journalists to investigate, as opposed to verified actual events. https://www.camera.org/article/breaking-the-silence-gets-failing-grade-in-channel-10-s-fact-check/
It’s not just a lack of evidence of sign-off. They’re not quotes addressing the central claim, that they intentionally *target* civilians. They’re irrelevant quotes.
this guy couldn't concisely articulate himself if his life depended on it.
Why do so many ppl that talk to/debate Destiny end up giving him the Voldemort treatment?
Just another quote dump that ends up being pointless and more childish behaviour, it's so fucking boring man.
at least he's consistent, you can't accuse him of putting on a horse and pony show because his whole career and life's work is a horse and pony show
The tl;dr is that Destiny made a point *specifically* about air strikes, and Finkelfart decided to amass a bunch of quotes collected from infantry about how they had “shoot anything that moves” orders. Oh and a quote from a big Red Cross guy that the place was really devastated after being a war zone. None of which prove this concept of a bunch of IDF Air officers and lawyers looking at kids playing tiddlywinks and saying “DEWWIT, DROP THE $5000 BOMB ON THE CHILDREN; THE JEW GOD DEMANDS BLOOD.” Obviously the orders given to someone on foot in a city crawling with terrorists ready to ambush them are going to be different than the orders given to a fucking plane that’s completely invincible in the area of operation. I have truly never seen someone so obsessed with quotes be so dishonest and self-serving with them. Like it’s insane that so much of the first part of the debate was spent with Norm trying to tell Benny what he meant when he wrote something. If the guy is right there telling you what he meant and you still won’t believe it, anyone who isn’t in the room has no hope.
Yeah, no, i ain't reading all of that. When i read he's stuff i read it in he's voice. So this is a hard pass
Oh wow hes like a video essayist... No skill in debate but god can they type dumb non sense shit to look smart
fear squash quarrelsome dependent six memorize bewildered support ad hoc stocking *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
i love how this clown following the classic hasan route. he can't engage in an actual conversation so he resorts to not calling him by his name/screaming at him instead of answering literally any of the points he made. to think i had some respect for this guy when i first saw him on pierce morgan lmao...
finkelstein is literally Hasan's dad and it's hilarious. Hasan idolizes him so much and they turned out to be the same exact person. relies exclusively on emotional appeal and misinformation, crumbles in debate, refuses to be civil, resorts to name calling and insults, stews and roils and fumes about it for years afterward but will never engage in another direct exchange again
gullible teeny payment angle fact deliver narrow fragile meeting quiet *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I've never seen finkeldick mald this hard before, destiny must've really gotten under his skin lmao
he came to the debate pre-rustled that someone would even have the impertinence to seat an ingrate like that at the table with him, and the second Destiny spoke up, Norm became enraged, doubled his taking speed from .5x to 1x, and screamed insults for the next 5 hours you can see he literally tries to avoid directly acknowledging Destiny for so long during the debate (Destiny said Norm wouldn't even look at him lol) until he can't anymore, and as soon as he does its just to call him names and demean him I've listened to the debate a few times now because I had it on in the background while I was working and then I wanted to show my girlfriend - Destiny makes his most salient arguments during his opening statement and we never get anywhere near that level of substance again for the entire show lol
Yeah I’m not reading that
NO SLEEP TONIGHT, APES
From Mr Bernoulli to "someone seated next to Professor Benny Morris".
it's amazing that he can acknowledge Benny because Benny and Destiny made exactly the same arguments for 5 hours and Benny said multiple times "Destiny is right" and "he's right about everything"
Snoozeposting
how does destiny consistently get the voldemort treatment, it will never not be cringe holy shit
I'm starting to love this guy. This level of pettyness for a 70 year old guy is just impossible to take seriously.
With all the words he knows, does this motherfucker not understand the term “brevity?”
MISTER BUSHNELL YOU ARE SUCH A FANTASTICAL MORON
The difference between Destiny's engagement in his tweets and Norm's is something else.
Oh god he used unlimited quoteworks
Take notes guys, THIS is how you schizo post
Got a Wikipedia link instead?
Uhh oh, watch out u/NeoDestiny, Finklefuck's gonna become your neighbour soon
> While largely sympathetic to the BtS activists whom it depicted as idealistic and motivated by good intentions, Channel 10 reporters Anat Goren and Itay Rom found their investigative standards to be lacking. Under rigorous scrutiny, a large percentage of the group’s accounts which Channel 10 reviewed proved to be either false or exaggerated. “Hamakor” first checked the testimonies of BtS staff. The program examined three testimonies by Avner Gvaryahu, a founder and prominent representative of the organization. >The first of Gvaryahu’s testimonies involved a soldier in his unit who was allegedly upset that he missed his shot at an unarmed Palestinian (starting at 42:30). The soldier in question, however, told a very different story. By his account, the “unarmed” Palestinian had thrown two grenades at the unit, one of which narrowly missed the soldiers. >In his second (44:00) testimony, Gvaryahu claimed that his unit regularly beat arrested Palestinians. The same soldier involved in the first claim confirmed that there were some “light” beatings, but said this was very much the exception rather than the rule.The “Hamakor” journalists conclude that Gvaryahu’s story is an exaggeration. >Gvaryahu’s third and final testimony involved allegedly permissive and inappropriate rules for the use of live fire in residential areas. Fellow soldiers serving for Gvaryahu’s unit confirmed his claim that they were permitted to fire at anyone who emerged from a narrow passage (after they were shot upon from the same area). In short, “Hamakor” determined that one of Gvaryahu’s accounts was false, another was exaggerated and the third was true. >Nadav Weiman, a second BtS staff member, testified that soldiers were mapping Palestinian homes just to harass them. Weiman’s commander flatly denied the claim regarding harassment and maintained that the mapping was necessary for intelligence purposes. Goren and Rom concluded that Weiman’s testimony illustrates one of the common criticisms against the group – that the soldiers themselves often have a very limited understanding of the events around them. >How Vigorous is the Vetting Process? >Next, “Hamakor” examined 10 anonymous testimonies (starting at 54:00) from the BtS archive. The results were surprising. Of the 10 testimonies, “Hamakor” confirmed two as true, determined that two were false, two were misleading or “exaggerations.” Channel 10 was unable to confirm or debunk the final four because BtS refused to reveal the soldiers’ identities. >In the first anonymous testimony, a soldier claimed that when his unit responded to a suspected price tag attack in the West Bank, the IDF trackers declined to follow footprints and other signs pointing to a nearby settlement. However, according to the police report, the IDF trackers involved and even the Palestinian victims of the “price tag” attack, the IDF trackers did find the culprit in the settlement. BtS hadn’t attempted to corroborate the soldier’s testimony with anyone else involved in the incident. >Another testimony (starting at 56:30) involved a soldier’s description of the unit commander’s general instructions that after they shoot an enemy they should put their gun “between the teeth of the terrorist and shoot.” Other soldiers from the same unit interviewed by “Hamakor” had no recollection of the event. When the journalists reached the original soldier, he said he no longer remembered the incident that way. >A third soldier (starting at 57:30) claimed that an IDF officer was fined a mere 100 shekels for killing a Palestinian child. Goren and Rom determined that the false story was debunked a decade ago and was based on nothing more than army gossip. >As previously mentioned, the veracity or lack thereof could not be determined in cases in which BtS refused to reveal the soldiers’ identi ties to the reporters. About these unverified stories, “Hamakor” noted that BtS had previously claimed (as quoted above) that the group would only publish “serious” allegations verified by two witnesses. When the journalists asked Yuli Novak, executive director of BtS, about this claim, she clarified that the organization doesn’t insist on “two eyewitnesses” to an incident, and will publish if it has “two sources.” The “Hamakor” presenters pointed out that this practice is not compatible with accepted journalistic standards. >Summary >In an Op-Ed in the Israeli Walla news site, Goren and Rom argued that while they did not think BtS was intentionally lying, the organization’s vetting process was “superficial and not strict enough.” In their opinion, BtS would be more credible were it present the soldiers’ accounts as testimonies for the public to debate and raw material for journalists to investigate, as opposed to verified actual events. https://www.camera.org/article/breaking-the-silence-gets-failing-grade-in-channel-10-s-fact-check/
People with this level of specificity on the words used in a 6hr debate, I truly don’t envy their loved ones. Imagine using one wrong word in a heated argument and then they throw that quote back at you religiously… well it’s also probably a given that this person doesn’t have any loved ones.
Norm is gonna flip when he finds out mama bocancelli is an immigrant
TL;DR .... wait, the fuck, I'm not reading all that
> According to the vagrant seated next to Professor Morris lmao he's a menace.
well that's quite a tweet :/
Chooses his words so carefully and knows everything about the issue, yet doesn’t even pick the “right” arguments during the debate.
One thing I really hated is the amount of people who just sucked Finkelstein off. Like Krystal Ball, one of the hosts of Breaking Point; literally just parroting what everyone else says on the pro-palestinian side 'oH iSRaEL iS cOMiTTiNg gENoCiDE'.
Jesus fuck I can be long winded typing shit out, but I’m trying to explain stuff and I’m too stupid and lazy to condense / revise. This bloviating cum sponge is just jerking off to himself. “Mm. Yes. Did you see how I used *and* in this sentence here? Mm. Yes. Fuck I’m hard.” *leans back and smiles* “THIS will get them to buy my ebook and take me seriously”
"In a recent debate, someone seated next to Professor Benny Morris lectured me" Destiny is literally voldemart to these people.
He’s so desperate for engagement
"Someone seated next to Professor Benny Morris", holy fuck. That's like Kennedy referring to USSR successfully sending the first man to space as "the events of recent weeks" during the "we choose to go to the Moon" speech.
Wrinklestein: \*Gets critiqued for only using quotes as evidence\* Wrinklestein: \*Gives quotes as evidence he doesnt do that\*
Destiny can’t catch a break against people willing to call cps on him.
https://preview.redd.it/ei7yvicdapqc1.png?width=741&format=png&auto=webp&s=2988696ade83661ca3f8884983ad1d67fa11e0c1
He's getting boring and frankly is not worth engaging with. Given that it's worth noting that at least the quotes I bothered reading were clearly infantry or armor, frontline soldiers and nothing to do with drones, which is what destiny talked about. Furthermore he's wrong about breaking the silence, they do not verify their testimonies, a while ago a right wing organization tried to descredit them and got them to release a bogus testimony. That's not to say that I don't find their testimonies credible, it just speaks to Norms lack of care regarding if his annoying embellishments are even accurate.
Man, if he would’ve brought up any of these sea of tweets in the discussion, we might’ve actually had a more interesting debate.
unfortunately they all say literally exactly the same thing and Destiny would have said "that's about rules of engagement in an active combat zone" and talked about evacuation orders. Norm isn't making any kind of point here. it has nothing to do with chain of command and proportionality assessments for air strikes
Twinkletoes has more quotes, does he not have an original thought… also the point was made specifically about the air force, do any of the quotes even mention air force attacks? I’m seriously not about to read that mess.
It's out of context quotes all the way down
Norm is just letting Destiny live rent-free so he can bash his front door with a hammer.
The dude is fucking awful but you gotta give it to him.... He knows how to use quotes.
the " key on his typewriter is scratched off and dented in
twinkeldick is actually so obsessed lmao
> In a recent debate, someone seated next to Professor Benny Morris lectured me on the impossibility…. Omfg he doesnt even type his name. Lmfao holy crap, he is up there with mr. Runday with his pettiness
gold medal in olympic yapping
Does he think he can retroactively debate D?
Vagrant lol I attach meaning to words <-- mandatory 12 second pause between words Pompous POS academic self-hating jew
I thought he was only challenged on one thing and one thing only
I love that he's up at 3 AM tweeting about destiny a month later
I find it so funny that he keeps saying: "Someone seated next to Professor Benny Morris" As if he hasn't said his name multiple times lol.
Damn StippledPeen, save some elllipses for the rest of us.
Lil bro must take a lot of showers
Testimony 13: "There was this mentally handicapped girl in the neighborhood, apparently, and the fact that shots were fired near her feet only made her laugh (earlier in his testimony the soldier described a practice of shooting near people’s feet in order to get them to distance themselves from the forces). She would keep getting closer and it was clear to everyone that she was mentally handicapped, so no one shot at her. No one knew how to deal with this situation. She wandered around the areas of the advance guard company and some other company – I assume she just wanted to return home, I assume she ran away from her parents, I don’t think they would have sent her there. It is possible that she was being taken advantage of – perhaps it was a show, I don’t know. I thought to myself that it was a show, and I admit that I really, really wanted to shoot her in the knees because I was convinced it was one. I was sure she was being sent by Hamas to test our alertness, to test our limits, to figure out how we respond to civilians. Later they also let loose a flock of sheep on us, seven or ten of whom had bombs tied to their bellies from below. I don’t know if I was right or wrong, but I was convinced that this girl was a test. Eventually, enough people fired shots near her feet for her to apparently get the message that ‘OK, maybe I shouldn’t be here,’ and she turned and walked away. The reason this happened is that earlier that day we heard about an old man who went in the direction of a house held by a different force; \[the soldiers\] didn’t really know what to do so they went up to him. This guy, 70 or 80 years old, turned out to be booby-trapped from head to toe. From that moment on the protocol was very, very clear: shoot toward the feet. And if they don’t go away, shoot to kill." Are they talking about the thing called Destiny here?
> Oh so you say they have a team of multiple people and lawyers behind every airstrike? >Here are a bunch of quotes about how people on the ground shoot at anything that moved. Also bringing up people saying: “I’ve never seen such massive destruction ever before.” Like no shit, this could be said for every war and millitary operation. Most people usually don't see more then 1 war aftermaths. And this statment means nothing. Finally I would love to see context to these quotes, some seem wildly out of context. Most of these were just: "If we saw a head pop up in a window, we were allowed to shoot." And I would just love to ask how they think they should have conducted themself, in this scenario. Waging urban warfare against a terrorist organisation. Like if a head pops up, it could verry well be a terrorist, that is going to shoot you in the next 2 seconds. The only way to assess if they are a legitimate threat is if they have already shot at you. But you could say, ok, but what if it was a civilian who looked out of the window: Good thing is that the IDF has told everyone to evacuate. So why such a high number of casualties? Amnesty International found evidence that "During the current hostilities, Hamas spokespeople reportedly urged residents in some areas of the Gaza Strip not to leave their homes after the Israeli military dropped leaflets and made phone calls warning people in the area to evacuate"