• abracaDavid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    121
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    The article says that the only repercussions will be “talks” with the soldiers.

    Just a few bad apples, right?

    • febra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      127
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Remember when they shot a journalist in the head and provided a fake investigation into it that they then took back but still concluded in the end that the journalist was at fault for getting shot?

      Remember when they crushed a 23 years old woman from the US to death with a bulldozer because she was protesting the demolition of palestinian homes, then they started an “investigation” where they found out they hadn’t done anything wrong because they didn’t see her even though the woman has been protesting there for hours and the soldiers that were there testified that she was being a nuisance for hours?

      Remember the laws they passed that let the IDF destroy palestinian homes if they deem by internal investigation that they’re somehow connected to “terrorism”?

      Remember the laws that let IDF soldiers shoot kids if they throw rocks at soldiers in occupied territories?

      Yeah… just a few bad apples.

    • breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      In response to the evidence, the IDF said that “the [soldiers’] conduct that emerges from these scenes is grave and inconsistent with the values of the IDF. The incidents are under investigation. The IDF commanders will hold talks with all the soldiers on the front. One soldier has been dismissed from reserve service.

        • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Did you read the article?

          Edit: oh wait lower down you said below that you literally didn’t.

          • Sparlock@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            shot a journalist in the head

            crushed a 23 years old woman from the US to death with a bulldozer

            You suck.

            • breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              Hey look it’s some asshole who didn’t read the fucking article and they’re quoting some other asshole who didn’t read the fucking article and who’s somehow oblivious to the comment from the person I replied to that says “oh I didn’t read the article.” (emphasis added)

              Although I’m awed by your commitment to being the dumbest motherfucker on the planet, you could’ve spared yourself getting so upset about this water-is-wet statement of fact by just reading for a minute before opening your dumb mouth.

              • rambaroo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Your previous comment was pretty vague about what you were responding to. You should have made it clear you were responding to the article and not the comment you actually replied to because that’s what it sounds like. You really don’t have a right to respond this aggressively.

                • breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I disagree about the clarity. It’s a thread of replies that begins with a direct quote from the article. Any vagueness could be cleared up by either asking a question or reading the article.

                  When someone replies directly to me quoting something completely irrelevant and unrelated saying “you suck,” I reserve the right to mock them. Especially when my original comment should be as controversial as saying the article was published in the Times of Israel on November 1st.

                  • Sparlock@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    On top of making a shit ton of incorrect assumptions that were unjustified you doubled down on proving you suck.

                    Keep up the good work champ.

                    I’ll stand by my assessment that you suck.

          • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Oh I hadn’t read the article; so this time it’s not murder. My point still stands but I guess that’s a relief.

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      40
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Just imagine if Hamas were investigating humiliation of Israeli civilians by its fighters and having any punishment for that.

      • theinspectorst@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        65
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Just imagine trying to use a terrorist mob as a yardstick to excuse the misdeeds of the advanced 21st century military of a modern democracy.

        • febra@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I wouldn’t go as far as to claim Israel is a modern democracy… but I agree with the advanced 21st century military part.

        • MxM111@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No excuses, but it helps to remember context. People are people, and there are always shitty people in any state. It is what considered acceptable is important. What more do you want from IDF? Execution without investigation?

          Also this is honestly goes as nitpicking. Yes, there are always bad apples. But as far as I can see IDF reacts correctly. It is disturbing in my opinion that there is so much anti-Israel propaganda (not even criticism) is ongoing and supported by clearly more than half of the fediverse (judging by upvoting), where even correct behavior is criticized, and completely ignores the realities that Israel has to deal with. Not even criticizing the use of Himan shields by Hamas, for example.

          • Skates@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            What more do you want from IDF? Execution without investigation?

            Oh, heavens no. That’s not what I want from the idf. At this point, that’s what I want for the idf.

            It’s worrying for me that you’re confusing anti-israel propaganda with anti-terrorism discussion. At this point, Israel is a terrorist state. It shouldn’t ‘disturb’ you that people discuss about it and find that they don’t agree with their actions. People are rarely alright with mindless murder for any reason, let alone for land-grabbing masked as religion. Bombing civilians and hospitals, humiliating people because you’re holding a gun and get off on being “powerful”, raping people and committing war crimes, ethnically cleansing a region for the past 70 years, holy shit, this is what you see from a terrorist organization masquerading as a legitimate state and you draw the conclusion that it’s disturbing to be against that? Maybe you should be disturbed by your misshapen world view where all of this is acceptable.