Your arrogant, condescending, and highly emotional tone does you no favors, quite the opposite! Lecturing others about “willful blindness,” “theoretical AI-generated nonsense,” and demanding that people “justify the murder” of a child while packing the post with capital letters and moral outrage is not the same as presenting a rigorous factual argument. It signals that you are more interested in performing certainty than in carefully weighing contested evidence. You’re treating every serious allegation as settled proof of an official, top-down policy of intentional civilian murder. That leap doesn’t hold any water. Individual videos and soldier testimonies (including the Haaretz report you linked) are important and deserve investigation. They do not automatically equal a formal state doctrine. Professional armies can and do have breakdowns in discipline, local excesses, or poorly worded rules of engagement without those being the written strategic policy. International Humanitarian Law still distinguishes between the two for a reason. Pointing to viral clips and media reports does not erase that distinction. The June 2025 Haaretz piece quoted anonymous soldiers describing fire being used near aid distribution points. The IDF publicly rejected the claim of orders to deliberately target unarmed civilians and stated the Military Advocate General had directed a review. That is the opposite of a cover-up. An Israeli newspaper published the allegations and the military said it was examining them. Whether the review produces real accountability is a fair question, but it is not evidence that no process exists. You asked for examples of internal investigations. The IDF has opened dozens of Military Police probes during this war into detainee deaths, alleged abuse, looting, and civilian harm cases. Some have led to disciplinary action or charges (the Sde Teiman cases being the most public). The broader criticism — that the rate of indictments for combat-related civilian deaths remains very low — is legitimate and longstanding, but low conviction rates do not prove zero investigations occur. The death of Hind Rajab and the two paramedics is a horrific case. Independent investigations (Washington Post, Forensic Architecture) contradicted the IDF’s initial claim that its forces were not in the area and documented extensive gunfire on the car. The IDF’s preliminary review maintained it was not responsible; no public final criminal charges against specific personnel have been released. That lack of transparent accountability is a serious problem. It still does not convert one (or even many) contested incidents into proof of a formal policy of executing children. Netanyahu’s Amalek reference and certain MKs’ extreme rhetoric were reckless and rightly criticized, including inside Israel. Inflammatory political language is not the same as an operational order issued to troops. Courts and serious legal analysis look at both rhetoric and actual commands, targeting directives, and patterns of conduct. No one and certainly not me, is claiming Israel is innocent. The high civilian death toll, questions about proportionality, and failures of accountability are real and serious. But neither is Hamas innocent. Hamas launched the 7 October attack that killed approximately 1,200 people, including around 40 Israeli children. Multiple investigations (UN, Human Rights Watch, New York Times and others) have found clear evidence that Hamas and allied fighters also committed sexual violence, including rape and gang rape, against Israeli females and some males, during the attack, also against hostages. Hamas has long embedded its fighters, tunnels and rocket launchers among Gaza’s civilian population as previously mentioned, a tactic that is itself a war crime and a primary reason civilian casualties are so high. One side’s crimes do not cancel out the other’s. There would still be the longer-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its many grievances, but the particular debate you are engaged in right now exists only because Hamas chose to start this round with a mass-casualty assault on Israeli civilians and soldiers. Without that attack, this war and this specific argument would not be happening. You list alleged Israeli violations at length but never once acknowledge that Hamas’s 7 October attack, the deliberate killing of civilians and children, the sexual violence, or the taking of hostages were themselves serious war crimes. A consistent application of International Humanitarian Law would condemn those acts too. The complete absence of any such condemnation in your posts is very conspicuous! Your previous post....."Having an 'agenda' that places the survival of innocent children above all else isn't a partisan political position, it is the baseline of civilized human ethics, which Israel has lost long time ago. Being fair and balanced does not mean finding a 'middle ground' between those who kill children and the children who die. True impartiality means holding every actor, whether it is a state military or a terror group, to the exact same moral standard. My agenda is human rights."...............??? Again you don't mention Hamas?? You keep demanding that I “justify” specific deaths. No one is justifying the killing of a five-year-old or unarmed civilians. The point under discussion is whether the available evidence proves a deliberate, top-down Israeli policy of intentional civilian murder as distinct from the tragic, often unlawful, results of a high-intensity urban war against an enemy that embeds among civilians. Those are not the same claim.If you have primary-source operational orders, court-admissible documentation of a formal targeting policy against non-combatants, or final judicial findings that establish systemic intent, present them. Media reports, anonymous testimony, and forensic reconstructions of individual incidents are serious and should be investigated, but they are not yet the conclusive structural proof you are asserting.
