‘No Other Land’ consultant Awdah Hathaleen killed by Israeli settler

Um, yes? Like you think the children being starved are all Hamas? You think the doctors and filmmakers and what have you are all terrorists?

Don't become worse than the thing you claim to fight.

Of course not, for starters there is significantly more than 2 sides of this multifaceted conflict.

You should not reserve judgemdnt. You should still listen and try and understand everyone's perspective before coming to your judgement, otherwise what is the point?

> There's no two sides to this. Israel over-corrected after Oct 7, the same way America did after 9/11

While 9/11 might be a good comparison for how a society can become radicalized after an attack, i dont think its a good comparison in general. The geopolitical situation is totally different. The scale of the attack is different. There was no hostages taken, no sexual violence, etc. They are very different situations. First and foremost because there was basically no possible way for al-qaeda to do a second attack, you can only really fly a plane into a tower once; after that pilots got reenforced cockpit doors. In comparison Hamas is right next door, and does potentially have the capability to do a second attack. That doesn't necessarily mean i think everything Israel does is justified, but self-defense claims should be evaluated in that context.

I think Israel has a reasonable argument for self defense here. That is not a blank cheque, there are limits to what self-defense allows, but it does seem pretty clear that some military action would be justified self defense here given the circumstances.

Vs say usa in iraq which was pretty preposterous as they didnt have anything to do with 9/11.

> I just provided you the definition of ethnic cleansing.

To nitpick here, ethnic cleansing isn't a war crime/crime against humanity. The crime is called "forced displacement". Ethnic cleansing started as a euphamism by war criminals who thought it sounded less bad, but it kind of stuck because it actually sounds worse. That said, i think its better to talk about forced displacement because that has an actual definition, is mentioned in the Geneva convention, etc

> Also, labeling a human as manipulative is not de-humanizing

It depends why you label then that. If you label based on people's words or actions, then of course it is not. If you label them as manipulative based on their membership in a group instead of the person's own actions, i would say it is dehumanizing.

> There is the genocide on one side, and then the normalization of "well, what is a self-respecting nation that wants to defend itself supposed to do otherwise?"

The people who say Israel is defending itself generally dispute the characterization of Israel's actions as a genocide. The vast majority believe (or at least claim to) that genocide is not acceptable in self-defense (im sure you can find some crazies who say otherwise of course).

Quite frankly, this isn't a totally crazy position, things are still a bit up in the air on this. The ICC when it charged israeli leaders with various crimes did not charge them with genocide. The ICJ hasn't ruled yet. Its not like there is a consensus among experts on this topic.

The appropriate question is does this meet the intent requirements for collective punishment?

All these international crimes do have various requirements. Collective punishment in particular has more intent requirements than many other war crimes. Death and destruction in and of itself is not sufficient.

Oops, I killed 17,000 kids, totally an accident, my bad, so I'm just gonna keep doing the same thing, but I said it was an accident so that's totally cool right?

You realize that's more than a order of magnitude more than the total number of people killed on October 7th? If October 7th was justification for this war, what Isreal has done in response justifies so much more. (To be clear, I don't believe in collective punishment so neither is justified.)

> How are you so sure that the article I linked is a blatant lie and the one you linked isn't?

I start by looking at the sources reputations, then look at the amount of context that they include that contradicts their implicit or explicit view point. From there the process gets more complicated if necessary.

In this case you have blog source that clearly elides relevant context against a news article that presents the position of both sides coming from one of the more trustworthy news organizations. I don't necessarily trust the AP to be unbiased or not spread propaganda but in comparison to that blog, it is pretty easy to guess which is more reliable.