The D said:

---

Keyno said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Not the same. The Palestinians attacked and targeted civilians. This has gone on long enough. Israel is responding. The response should be house to house extermination of Palestinian males.

That will end it.

---

So kill all Palestinian males? That's your solution you want to ride or die with? Door to door executions?

Do you do the old men too?

Those with mental disabilities?

How about those men who have silently resisted Hamas their whole lives? Kill them too for not suicidally challenging the rule of Hamas openly?

What are you going to do with the women and children now that you've killed all the men? What's the next step in your crazy plan?

---

They kill everyone and it's genocide, but if they go in with a scalpel it's mass murder. Heads they lost, tails the Palestinians and Hamas win.

---

They have not gone in with a scalpel. We saw Israel can be "surgical" with attacks with the numerous assassinations they have committed over the last few years, as well as the strikes on Iranian military leadership during the Iran 12 Day War. What Israel has done to Gaza is not surgical, it is complete destruction of civilian infrastructure.

---

Question for the Hamas sympathizer, why doesn't Hamas give up the hostages ?

---

Why are you asking me? I have no clue what Hamas internal goals or motivations are. I just asked chatGPT this question and it gave me 6 plausible reasons. Give it a shot

Tom Fox said:

---

This BS is why we have not won a war in 3 generations. An enemy's will can be broken if you have the resolve to do it. You think the Palestinians have more intestinal fortitude than the Japanese?

They break or you put them to the sword. All of them if necessary.

But you are correct, if the Israelis limit their savagery, then they cannot end it. They need to go Roman and end this once and for all. It is past time.

---

Just say the words you are itching to say. "A Final Solution."

Quote:

---

Since 10/7, Israel has killed orders of magnitude more civilians than Hamas did.

---

Missing a whole lot of context here. It is either lazy thinking or deliberately misleading.

More criticism with no better alternatives for what Israel should have done.

No condemnation for Hamas deliberately putting their brethren in harm's way and not just for self-protection but as sacrifices to their propaganda war.

No acknowledgement that wars often have higher civilian death counts than combatant deaths.

No acknowledgement that Hamas could not only have prevented the vast majority of these deaths, but they also delight in them.

No acknowledgement of all of the steps Israel takes to avoid civilian deaths.

No acknowledgment of Israel's medical and food aid to their enemy despite never holding that standard to any other nation at war.

Just naive fairyland thinking or bias against Israel.

Quote:

---

Just say the words you are itching to say. "A Final Solution."

---

The solution I am itching for is for the Israeli critics to state their viable plan for they would/should do if they were Israel.

Short of that, your criticisms are hollow blather.

Keyno said:

---

The D said:

---

Keyno said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Not the same. The Palestinians attacked and targeted civilians. This has gone on long enough. Israel is responding. The response should be house to house extermination of Palestinian males.

That will end it.

---

So kill all Palestinian males? That's your solution you want to ride or die with? Door to door executions?

Do you do the old men too?

Those with mental disabilities?

How about those men who have silently resisted Hamas their whole lives? Kill them too for not suicidally challenging the rule of Hamas openly?

What are you going to do with the women and children now that you've killed all the men? What's the next step in your crazy plan?

---

They kill everyone and it's genocide, but if they go in with a scalpel it's mass murder. Heads they lost, tails the Palestinians and Hamas win.

---

They have not gone in with a scalpel. We saw Israel can be "surgical" with attacks with the numerous assassinations they have committed over the last few years, as well as the strikes on Iranian military leadership during the Iran 12 Day War. What Israel has done to Gaza is not surgical, it is complete destruction of civilian infrastructure.

---

Question for the Hamas sympathizer, why doesn't Hamas give up the hostages ?

---

Why are you asking me? I have no clue what Hamas internal goals or motivations are. I just asked chatGPT this question and it gave me 6 plausible reasons. Give it a shot

---

You can't think for yourself. Got it. Thanks

Keyno said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

most Islamic countries don't give a **** about the Palestinians anymore.

---

They tried in the past, and got burned. Palestinians brought this all on themselves. From Israel defending itself to other countries not giving a single, solitary **** about them.

Me, personally, I don't care about any country except America. I support Israel doing for Israel, on their own, without my tax dollars NOR my country holding them back. I also support other countries doing for themselves. We have our own problems to solve.

---

It's easy to say "I only care about America, we should just let Israel do what needs to be done!" Unfortunately this position cannot exist with the current situation. The United States is underwriting this Israeli war, both with funds and weapons, as well as international defense. If the United States quit funding the war, as well as withdrew its support for Israel, the entire world would rise up to stop Israel. As it stands now, we are their only powerful international supporter. So, if we are underwriting this war, we SHOULD be able to tell Israel how to conduct it. Unfortunately it does not seem like we are able to do that.

---

Works fine for me.

I have more important things to worry about than what some morons brought on, and continue to bring on, themselves.

shiftyandquick said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

This BS is why we have not won a war in 3 generations. An enemy's will can be broken if you have the resolve to do it. You think the Palestinians have more intestinal fortitude than the Japanese?

They break or you put them to the sword. All of them if necessary.

But you are correct, if the Israelis limit their savagery, then they cannot end it. They need to go Roman and end this once and for all. It is past time.

---

Just say the words you are itching to say. "A Final Solution."

---

We don't have to use that terminology. We could use "terminal option" or "ultimate answer" to the Hamas question.

The D said:

---

Keyno said:

---

The D said:

---

Keyno said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

AggieEP said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Not the same. The Palestinians attacked and targeted civilians. This has gone on long enough. Israel is responding. The response should be house to house extermination of Palestinian males.

That will end it.

---

So kill all Palestinian males? That's your solution you want to ride or die with? Door to door executions?

Do you do the old men too?

Those with mental disabilities?

How about those men who have silently resisted Hamas their whole lives? Kill them too for not suicidally challenging the rule of Hamas openly?

What are you going to do with the women and children now that you've killed all the men? What's the next step in your crazy plan?

---

They kill everyone and it's genocide, but if they go in with a scalpel it's mass murder. Heads they lost, tails the Palestinians and Hamas win.

---

They have not gone in with a scalpel. We saw Israel can be "surgical" with attacks with the numerous assassinations they have committed over the last few years, as well as the strikes on Iranian military leadership during the Iran 12 Day War. What Israel has done to Gaza is not surgical, it is complete destruction of civilian infrastructure.

---

Question for the Hamas sympathizer, why doesn't Hamas give up the hostages ?

---

Why are you asking me? I have no clue what Hamas internal goals or motivations are. I just asked chatGPT this question and it gave me 6 plausible reasons. Give it a shot

---

You can't think for yourself. Got it. Thanks

---

It's more like I am not a Hamas sympathizer, so I am not going to explain why they do what they do. It will inevitable cause posters on this board to incorrectly consider me a Hamas sympathizer, which you yourself just did.

Quote:

---

I have no clue what Hamas internal goals or motivations are.

---

You're giving the game away with this statement, because it's so obviously not true. You know, I know, everyone knows what their goals and motivations are. We know this because they've told us for years what they are. You just can't acknowledge it because it completely destroys the position you've taken on this topic.

I stated it earlier today. I'm a one state solution supporter with that one state being Israel. No right of return for Palestinian refugees located outside of Israel and limited voting rights for Palestinians until they assimilate.

There is no path to a 2 state solution and that fairy tale is what is extending this war. France and England should be ashamed for planting that seed again.

AggieEP said:

---

I stated it earlier today. I'm a one state solution supporter with that one state being Israel. No right of return for Palestinian refugees located outside of Israel and limited voting rights for Palestinians until they assimilate.

There is no path to a 2 state solution and that fairy tale is what is extending this war. France and England should be ashamed for planting that seed again.

---

They have rejected the 2 state solution muliple times anyway, better to wipe them out or make them move. Thats the only way forward.

Quote:

---

I stated it earlier today. I'm a one state solution supporter with that one state being Israel. No right of return for Palestinian refugees located outside of Israel and limited voting rights for Palestinians until they assimilate.

There is no path to a 2 state solution and that fairy tale is what is extending this war. France and England should be ashamed for planting that seed again.

---

I'm down with that. But that is a goal. How do you get there?

OK everyone ... I'm back. But hopefully a different version of me. :-) I admittedly went on a bit of a posting bender the last couple of days, fueled by some misuse of AI . I was motivated initially by a desire to be efficient with what I knew would be more responses than I could realistically handle. So I decided to do a little experiment by using AI in a way that I hadn't really done in the past. I fed it my views and reasoning, refined it a bit with each post, but admittedly got a bit lax in fact-checking some of the generated evidence. The experiment's results were embarrassing, and I learned some important things about the limits of this new technology. Apologies to the board.

I am still interested in having this discussion (albeit in a different way), but I know for a fact that I won't be able to engage everyone who replies to me. I haven't caught up on the discussion over the last couple of days, so I think I'll just try to start over fresh here on page 13.

I know this is an incredibly complex, painful, and contentious topic for many of us, and I hope we can engage respectfully. So I'll start over by hearkening back to one of my favorite college classes logic. I'll state my basic position as a logical syllogism:

• Premise 1 It is morally and legally wrong to deliberately harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.
• Premise 2 Israel is deliberately harming and starving civilians. Israel is also using excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.
• Conclusion Therefore, Israel's current actions in Gaza are morally and legally wrong.

I don't think any of you would disagree with Premise 1 (although I'm not certain). Rather, Premise 2 is where I suspect our views will diverge - you don't think Premise 1 describes what is currently happening in Gaza. Specifically, I think most of the objections would stem from 3-4 words:

• "deliberately" (the civilian deaths are unintentional collateral damage),
• "civilians" (they all support Hamas, so they're all terrorists and are therefore fair game)
• "excessive" (Israel is being surgical and minimizing civilian casualties to a point that it is proportional)
• "unnecessary" (this kind of follows from the others. If they're not civilians, or it is accidental, or it is proportional, one could argue that it is necessary)

Is that a fair representation of the "pro-Israel" view? If Premise 1 is where we differ, I'm very interested in understanding that perspective better. If not, I'll focus on the specific evidence that I think supports each element of Premise 2.

Of course you wanted a fresh start and to ignore the posts since your last post. Your argument had lost by any measure.

Your framing attempts on your last post won't hold up either.

What historical war was fought to the standards you want to hold Israel?

jaborch99 said:

---

• Premise 1 It is morally and legally wrong to deliberately harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.
• Premise 2 Israel is deliberately harming and starving civilians. Israel is also using excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.
• Conclusion Therefore, Israel's current actions in Gaza are morally and legally wrong.

---

Premise 2 and Conclusion are laughable.

Premise 1 is what Hamas started this all with on 10/7....this time. We call that the **** Around. They are currently in the Find Out stage.

Don't start no **** , won't be no **** is another way to put it.

Premise 1 It is morally and legally wrong to deliberately harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.

The bolded part is where I disagree. The Israelis are obviously not using sufficient force yet because Hamas has not capitulated. Until they do, keep increasing the level of force to get at Hamas irrespective of civilians deaths. Hamas is making that choice. They can end it anytime they want by complete surrender.

jaborch99 said:

---

OK everyone ... I'm back. But hopefully a different version of me. :-) I admittedly went on a bit of a posting bender the last couple of days, fueled by some misuse of AI . I was motivated initially by a desire to be efficient with what I knew would be more responses than I could realistically handle. So I decided to do a little experiment by using AI in a way that I hadn't really done in the past. I fed it my views and reasoning, refined it a bit with each post, but admittedly got a bit lax in fact-checking some of the generated evidence. The experiment's results were embarrassing, and I learned some important things about the limits of this new technology. Apologies to the board.

I am still interested in having this discussion (albeit in a different way), but I know for a fact that I won't be able to engage everyone who replies to me. I haven't caught up on the discussion over the last couple of days, so I think I'll just try to start over fresh here on page 13.

I know this is an incredibly complex, painful, and contentious topic for many of us, and I hope we can engage respectfully. So I'll start over by hearkening back to one of my favorite college classes logic. I'll state my basic position as a logical syllogism:

• Premise 1 It is morally and legally wrong to deliberately harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.
• Premise 2 Israel is deliberately harming and starving civilians. Israel is also using excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.
• Conclusion Therefore, Israel's current actions in Gaza are morally and legally wrong.

I don't think any of you would disagree with Premise 1 (although I'm not certain). Rather, Premise 2 is where I suspect our views will diverge - you don't think Premise 1 describes what is currently happening in Gaza. Specifically, I think most of the objections would stem from 3-4 words:

• "deliberately" (the civilian deaths are unintentional collateral damage),
• "civilians" (they all support Hamas, so they're all terrorists and are therefore fair game)
• "excessive" (Israel is being surgical and minimizing civilian casualties to a point that it is proportional)
• "unnecessary" (this kind of follows from the others. If they're not civilians, or it is accidental, or it is proportional, one could argue that it is necessary)

Is that a fair representation of the "pro-Israel" view? If Premise 1 is where we differ, I'm very interested in understanding that perspective better. If not, I'll focus on the specific evidence that I think supports each element of Premise 2.

---

Israel is not using excessive force. Israel is not deliberately starving civilians.

There's nothing to debate. You're just plain wrong, and in doing so you're carrying water for one of the worst terrorist organizations in the world. You know, the ones that caused this mess, are stealing the food aid and starving their own people, and are operating out of civilian locations to maximize civilian deaths to tug at the heartstrings of those that have no true understanding of the history of the region.

Just war theory does not posit that you must not engage your enemy if they operate in a manner that is cruel to their own civilians in an attempt turn public opinion against you.

If you're actually interested in dialogue on the issue, spend time learning the history and realize that what you're saying is ridiculous.

Tom Fox said:

---

Premise 1 It is morally and legally wrong to deliberately harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.

The bolded part is where I disagree. The Israelis are obviously not using sufficient force yet because Hamas has not capitulated. Until they do, keep increasing the level of force to get at Hamas irrespective of civilians deaths. Hamas is making that choice. They can end it anytime they want by complete surrender.

---

I'm sorry ... I don't see a bolded part in your reply (except for the word "bolded").

Fixed

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

Here are photos of UN trucks & enough food to feed all of Gaza but it sits rotting! UN is a tool of Hamas! US based GHF is actually delivering food FOR FREE and SAFELY. UN food is either looted by Hamas or rots in the sun! Photos from yesterday. pic.twitter.com/syvtbhxYHJ

— Ambassador Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) July 24, 2025

---

Thank you for the information. The people that run the U.N. are either idiots, tools of terrorists or completely evil.

BigRobSA said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

• Premise 1 It is morally and legally wrong to deliberately harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.
• Premise 2 Israel is deliberately harming and starving civilians. Israel is also using excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.
• Conclusion Therefore, Israel's current actions in Gaza are morally and legally wrong.

---

Premise 2 and Conclusion are laughable.

Premise 1 is what Hamas started this all with on 10/7....this time. We call that the **** Around. They are currently in the Find Out stage.

Don't start no **** , won't be no **** is another way to put it.

---

So you agree with Premise 1, but you disagree with Premise 2. That's what I thought.

Nobody disagrees that Hamas violated Premise 1, so that's not the debate.

Tom Fox said:

---

Premise 1 It is morally and legally wrong to deliberately harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.

The bolded part is where I disagree. The Israelis are obviously not using sufficient force yet because Hamas has not capitulated. Until they do, keep increasing the level of force to get at Hamas irrespective of civilians deaths. Hamas is making that choice. They can end it anytime they want by complete surrender.

---

Sounds like your disagreement is with Premise 2, which connects Premise 1 to Israel. Do you believe it is wrong to use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths? Based on your comment, you clearly don't think Israel's force is excessive, but if it were, would it be morally and legally wrong? I'm just trying to see if our disagreement is on principle (Premise 1), or on application (Premise 2).

I don't think so. I think premise 1 can be valid when necessary.


And history shows many many examples of it happening through the millennia

Per your standard, the allied campaign in ww2 was definitely a no go. Sherman's march through the south was a no go.

The standard by which your attempting to hold Israel to is unrealistic and will allow hamas to win this conflict.

Context matters. The context here is that the Gazan govt (hamas) doesn't care one bit to protect the people of gaza and actively uses them as shields and steals aid from them. Your line of reasoning ultimately affirms their strategy. That is hamas' strategy- to lean on the liberal western states and appeal to their consciousness.

You should direct your ire towards hamas and iran before Israel.

The only option is the complete desolation of hamas and it's supporters. That's it.

AggieEP said:

---

Out of their way to prevent collateral damage?



When an entire city is leveled it's hard to make the argument that they've limited collateral damage. Those kids have no homes to live in, no schools to attend and reminders all around them about how death could come at any moment. Does that sound like a childhood to you?

---

Hamas is so proud of you for attacking Israel for destroying the tunnels and compounds Hamas built under schools, mosques, hospitals, and residential high rises. In most cases, Israel announced ahead of time before they flattened such sites and encouraged the civilians to leave. You ignoring the role Hamas played in causing those kinds of buildings to be targeted is exactly what Hamas would hope for.

Oh and by the way, those schools were where Hamas and the UN education folks taught kids to hate jews and want to be a martyr while killing them from the time they were old enough to hold a weapon. Where is your moral compass on that?

Who?mikejones! said:

---

I don't think so. I think premise 1 can be valid when necessary.


And history shows many many examples of it happening through the millennia

Per your standard, the allied campaign in ww2 was definitely a no go. Sherman's march through the south was a no go.

The standard by which your attempting to hold Israel to is unrealistic and will allow hamas to win this conflict.

Context matters. The context here is that the Gazan govt (hamas) doesn't care one bit to protect the people of gaza and actively uses them as shields and steals aid from them. Your line of reasoning ultimately affirms their strategy. That is hamas' strategy- to lean on the liberal western states and appeal to their consciousness.

You should direct your ire towards hamams and iran before Israel.

The only option console this is the complete desolation of hamas and it's supporters. That's it.

---

Just to make sure I understand you. Are you agreeing with Premise 1 but saying its application to Israel in Premise 2 is wrong? Or are you disagreeing with Premise 1?

jaborch99 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Premise 1 It is morally and legally wrong to deliberately harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.

The bolded part is where I disagree. The Israelis are obviously not using sufficient force yet because Hamas has not capitulated. Until they do, keep increasing the level of force to get at Hamas irrespective of civilians deaths. Hamas is making that choice. They can end it anytime they want by complete surrender.

---

Sounds like your disagreement is with Premise 2, which connects Premise 1 to Israel. Do you believe it is wrong to use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths? Based on your comment, you clearly don't think Israel's force is excessive, but if it were, would it be morally and legally wrong? I'm just trying to see if our disagreement is on principle (Premise 1), or on application (Premise 2).

---

Israel would have to continue using force after Hamas's complete capitulation for me to consider their force excessive and in violation of premise 1.

For example, I do not consider carpet bombing German cities or dropping nukes on Japan in WWll to have been excessive and in violation of premise 1.

Obviously Israel is not currently using sufficient force.

Tom Fox said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Premise 1 It is morally and legally wrong to deliberately harm or starve civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths.

The bolded part is where I disagree. The Israelis are obviously not using sufficient force yet because Hamas has not capitulated. Until they do, keep increasing the level of force to get at Hamas irrespective of civilians deaths. Hamas is making that choice. They can end it anytime they want by complete surrender.

---

Sounds like your disagreement is with Premise 2, which connects Premise 1 to Israel. Do you believe it is wrong to use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths? Based on your comment, you clearly don't think Israel's force is excessive, but if it were, would it be morally and legally wrong? I'm just trying to see if our disagreement is on principle (Premise 1), or on application (Premise 2).

---

Israel would have to continue using force after Hamas's complete capitulation for me to consider their force excessive and in violation of premise 1.

For example, I do not consider carpet bombing German cities or dropping nukes on Japan in WWll to have been excessive and in violation of premise 1.

Obviously Israel is not currently using sufficient force.

---

Got it. We broadly agree on Premise 1, but we may differ on the definition of "excessive".

I didn't get to premise 2

Quote:

---

Got it. We broadly agree on Premise 1, but we may differ on the definition of "excessive".

---

Which brings us to the question you refuse to answer.

Which historical war meets your standard of not being "excessive"?

The standard, I presume, should be relative to the conflict.

If the enemy actively builds their infrastructure in and under the "innocent" civilians, uses propaganda to shape greater powers influence, constantly attacks an opponent during periods of "peace," and the civilians mostly support their leaders actions....and then a surprise attack the equivalent of 9/11 is made....

Then the complete destruction of the perpetrators should be expected. And ideas can definitely be "bombed" out of any meaningful existence. Its happened numerous times

It sounds like your more of a McChrystal hearts and minds kind of person when it's probably more akin to the Texas indian wars.

Quote:

---

The standard, I presume, should be relative to the conflict.

---

Certainly relative to the tactics of the enemy. An enemy which uses children as cannon fodder, shields, propoganda, and relies on the other side to feed them should expect higher casualities. Hamas, of course, does expect it. They want it. Because they know they know they exploit it with folks who reason with their hearts and not their minds. They hate our Western sensibilities, but are happy it gives them a mode of manipulation.

Its the same foundation Ghandi used. He stood on the train tracks of the British Empire because the knew the British would stop the train.

Hamas uses the same logic.

Is what is happening in the Gaza Strip horrifying? Yes.

Is it the natural consequence of the rot in the Strip finally meeting the consequences of its own actions? Also yes.

Will Hamas ever surrender? Probably not.

Exterminate Hamas. Subjugate and rehabilitate the rest. There's no other way.

OK ... We broadly agree with my Premise 1: "It is morally and legally wrong to deliberately harm or start civilians and use excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths." I'm glad to know this, as I don't think I've ever met someone in person that would deny that premise at face value.

So as I suspected, our disagreement is on Premise 2: "Israel is deliberately harming and starving civilians. Israel is also using excessive force, causing unnecessary civilian deaths." There are several pieces to that, so I'll break it down into parts.

First, are Israel's actions deliberate? How about another logical argument?

Premise 2a: "Deliberate" means intentionally causing harm to civilians or civilian infrastructure with full awareness of the likely consequences, rather than incidental or accidental harm.

Premise 2b: Multiple credible investigations (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Harvard researchers) provide evidence that:

• Israel conducted airstrikes on densely populated civilian areas (homes, hospitals, schools) with no verified military targets nearby, many at night to maximize casualties.(Example)
• Israel used large explosive weapons known to cause widespread damage, such as US-manufactured JDAM bombs. (Example)
• Israel issued evacuation orders forcing civilians into "safe zones" that were then struck repeatedly, showing knowledge and disregard for civilian safety. (Example)
• Israeli officials publicly admitted cutting off fuel, water, electricity, and aid was done to inflict hardship on the civilian population to bring pressure politically (e.g., hostage release). (Example)
• Official rhetoric from top leaders, including Prime Minister Netanyahu, invoked genocidal biblical commands, denied innocent civilians exist, and celebrated destruction. (Example)
• Systematic obstruction and denial of humanitarian aid persisted, worsening malnutrition, healthcare collapse, and deaths. (Source)

Conclusion:
Therefore, Israel's actions in Gaza are deliberate, constituting intentional harm to civilians, violating international humanitarian law, and amounting to war crimes and potentially genocidal acts.

I don't think anyone will disagree with 2a, as it is a pretty standard definition. The disagreement will come on 2b, which it why I provided citations as supporting evidence.

A couple of notes:

• I suspect that some of you will be tempted to simply attack the source ("Harvard is corrupt and full of libs!!) As someone who is pretty instinctively anti-establishmentarian, I would probably agree with many of those attacks. Feel free to make them if you want, but rejecting the argument on that basis alone is a logical fallacy. To argue against that point, you actually have to engage with the content of the report, not just the person/group who is presenting the content.
• I have only provided 6 points of support for 2b. Even one of them at least strongly hints at intent. Taken together, they present a pretty compelling case (IMHO). Furthermore, these are not the only pieces of supporting evidence that could be raised.
• Don't jump ahead! I'm only trying to establish that what Israel has done to the civilians is deliberate. I am not yet dealing with whether all civilians should be viewed as terrorists, whether Israel's response is excessive, etc.