ozimoron

ok, you got me. A military commander with command responsibility, can be liable for the war crimes or other crimes of his subordinates, over whom he has effective command and control, even though he has not directly participated in the crime or encouraged it in any shape or form https://www.clothfairchambers.com/img/upload/news-28.pdf

No, I just don't care to get dragged off topic

no

When 3 hostages get shot or a subordinate charged with a war crime, absolutely.

I did no such thing. I simply quoted what sources said with links. Nevertheless I believe they are facts. You believe they are lies so we are even.

No, just the top guy. Are you unaware of this or being obtuse?

What relevance has religion to this? Is that your basis for rejecting science?

Yes, it's both a military and parliamentary tradition to take responsibility for the actions of their subordinates.

I told you, it's not my opinion, I'm quoting sources who I believe know more than myself about this.

Here's another credible source who believes the abuses are crimes against humanity. Throughout Israel and the occupied territory, the Israeli government has imposed a two-tiered legal and political system of systematic discrimination and oppression to maintain the domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians. Experts and human rights groups have recognized that this system satisfies the prevailing evidentiary standard for apartheid, a crime against humanity. Israeli authorities and security forces consistently employ violence and inhumane acts targeting Palestinians, including arbitrary and extrajudicial killings, torture, the denial of fundamental rights and collective punishment. https://www.globalr2p.org/publications/atrocities-present-past-and-future-escalating-crimes-and-consequences-in-israel-and-occupied-palestine/

A lot of people don't have much time for science deniers. They're the modern book burners.

The point is it's their opinion, not mine. I use authoritative opinions like theirs to formulate my own opinions. There are others who would also characterize the Israeli abuses over the years as human right violations.

I provided the link.

I watched it live on TV from Australia. I thought it was huge.

It wasn't my opinion. And, yes, feeling frightened is the excuse for opening fire. The hostages were obviously dirty and disheveled and the IDF soldier profiled them as Hamas terrorists. https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/06/04/israel-50-years-occupation-abuses

That's because employers were worried about other employees becoming lifeless and their families suing for negligence.

It was the precise counterpoint to your naive claim that Hamas attacked out of a vacuum. What do you believe caused their attack? You can't possibly imagine that prior events didn't provoke it surely? That would be risible.

Without decades of crimes against humanity before October 7th the attacks would never have happened.

This too? IDF tanks also targeted the convent of the Sisters of Mother Teresa, part of the church’s compound that also houses 54 disabled people, the patriarchate said. The building’s generator, fuel resources, solar panels and water tanks were also destroyed, it added.

Mail in voting is very commonly used by people in Australia and have done all my life. I doubt the veracity of your claim. Your link provides no evidence, only allegations.

Yes, he provides the pull factor. There would be no immigration overnight and at no cost if employers were charged more often with employing illegals.

The same could be said for Israel.

They don't want to apply for citizenship. They have it by birthright.

Are you sure they're not recruiting Palestinians refugees? Local Sunni people? Obviously there will be some. Perhaps many but I think you might be mischaracterizing what's going on here. Where do you think most of those recruits were born?

They want to return. Millions of them I believe. You would force some other outcome on them for political convenience. I simply pointed out the logical fallacy of your argument with my analogy about European Jews. It was not reflective of my opinion and most people would get the point unless they were being deliberately obtuse.