> if you look at 1:1000 civilian or 1:500 child kill ratio and you respond with "wars are not supposed to be even", well... what to even say

You're not making an argument here. Again, do you think the Coalition was extremely evil in the Gulf War, considering the 1:100 or so ratio there? How about when NATO bombed Yugoslavia, with an "infinitely bad" casualty ratio of 1:0? Does that make NATO infinitely evil?

> Actually there's a proportionality and distinction rule to follow, which is supposed to prevent this.

The principle of proportionality has nothing to do with how many of their own civilians the military in question has lost.

What's unfair about it? In both cases, one side suffered less civilian harm because there wasn't much fighting in its own territory.

I think the point stands that "Israel must be bad because it only lost 2 civilians" makes as little sense as "the Nazis must be good because they lost a lot more civilians than Western allies".

If a framework for trying to judge morality penalizes states for effectively protecting their own civilian population, then it's a very bad framework.

If we're interested in an actual end to the violence, the focus should be on enforcing UNSC 1701. It's not like Israel can just ignore attacks against it.

If they build datacenters anyway, there should be plenty of extra funding for power infrastructure.

Like any other state, Israel has the ability to enter into its own agreements; no one can consent on its behalf and then inform it that it's part of a deal.

That's not really what the source says. There is no ceasefire agreement in force at all (only a basis for negotiations with Iran), let alone one that covers Hezbollah.

Only if we ignore all of Iran's proxy warfare.

If we correct your argument so it's actually based on international law, it seems to boil down to "we have to ignore proxy warfare, otherwise Nicaragua might have historically (several decades ago) had a right to attack US military assets." That hardly seems like a reason to deny reality and ignore proxy warfare.

I'm still not sure what this has to do with Iranian aggression?

The original claim was that terrorists might stop attacking Israel if it stopped "assaulting and raping Arabs without consequences". So which way are we to read it?

- Israel is being held to an impossible standard of zero crime, or a 100% conviction rate for suspected crimes.

- Or Israel is being accused of having a prolific, systematic problem, with no data to support the accusation.

Should we start our own extortion program? There's no need to limit it to waters near us; we can credibly threaten ships anywhere on the planet. Of course other states could do the same, even landlocked ones...

If someone wants to make a serious argument about a systematic problem in Israel, that requires data, not a few accusations. For example, at least 10 of 110 released hostages were reportedly sexually assaulted in Hamas captivity [1], and there were zero arrests for it.

If Gazan detainees in Israeli custody experienced SA at the same rate, that would be over a thousand cases of SA. The parent also broadened their search to include SA allegations against Israelis in the West Bank, so they would need to show ~300k cases just to argue equivalence.

If we were to accept all the parent's sources as reliable, that's 12 reported cases of SA. They're 0.004% of the way there.

[1] https://apnews.com/article/sexual-assault-hamas-oct-7-attack...

Is the idea that it's okay to post misinformation about Israelis because Israelis are bad? If I can identify several Canadian criminals, then since we've established that Canadians are bad people, is it fine to post misinformation about other Canadians?

As long as it's temporary (even if the end date isn't clear yet), it's an occupation, not an annexation. Occupations can certainly be legal if necessary for self-defense.

The actual solution would be to enforce UNSC 1701 and disarm Hezbollah. Until that finally happens, Israel has no choice but to respond to cross-border terrorist attacks.

That's not true, he's alive and was released to Gaza in a hostage-for-prisoner exchange.

> Their punishment? Literally nothing.

It's probably hard to win a case without the victim to testify. The video is something, but far too low-quality to prove who did what beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutors can't ignore evidentiary standards and don't like to lose cases.

At least they were detained and investigated. Can you say the same of the individuals who paraded their rape victims around the streets of Gaza?

Do you think Israel should block aid funds for basic infrastructure and civil servants' salaries? If you think blocking such aid is bad, but allowing such aid is also somehow nefarious, then what do you expect Israel to do exactly?