So now that you have finally concluded that Israel actually did kill it's own citizens, the next step is to accept the high probability that they killed those people for political reasons. They wanted the death toll to be as high as possible, for the pictures of the dead to look horrendous and for the attack they knew was coming to be the most useful to them in their quest to wipe out Palestinians.
I don't think so, I think they just completely lost control and didn't want to have to deal with a huge number of hostages, which or course they then did anyway.
They lost control and blew up hundreds of their own citizens, 9 hours after a large terror attack was occurring, and one that the Israeli government had been warned about from multiple other parties? ( hours to respond? In any US city or town there would have been a response in 10 minutes. In heavily militarized Israel it would usually take 3 minutes at most.
This terror attack also originated across the most heavily surveilled border in the world and from a piece of land that has the most spies/eyes/ears looking at it 24 hours a day, 365 days a year?
I don't think so. And I don't think so because if you look at what Israel is doing right now - genocide - they needed those deaths and pictures to carry out the plan or the backlash from the public and the rest of the World would be 100% against them, rather than only 80% against them.
So as Bibi says, all the land west of the Jordan will be controlled by Israel and he intends to kill or displace every Palestinian to do it. That's genocide.
They moved their troops to the WB to deal with settler violence instead of just arresting violent settlers and also stupid relied on high tech border surveillance that failed, and then once in that situation remained blinded by hubris.
That combination of circumstances is enough go lead to spectacular failure
This claim you make -- "they [Israel] indiscriminately killed civilians but have little evidence that Hamas did the same on any large scale. " is unsupported by the Ynet article or other evidence you give. The Ynet article supports the claim that Israel may have fired on any vehicle returning to Gaza even if it contained Israeli civilians being taken hostage (this is the context of the "Hannibal directive" cited). There is nothing in it that supports the claim that Israel indiscriminately killed its own civilians outside of the case of those individual civilians in a Hamas-controlled vehicle returning to Gaza as hostages. That would not be indiscriminate or on a mass scale. There is also nothing in the article that supports the claim that Hamas did *not* kill civilians on a large scale. The other more anecdotal cases you give also do not support such a sweeping claim. For all its colossal length your article gives the impression of being biased and unwilling to consider the totality of the evidence, or even to fairly present the evidence you do highlight.
yes they rely on people lacking the competence to synthesize information and analyze their behavior and then draw conclusions about the things which they leave unsaid, as you have demonstrated here.
Excellent article, a great overview of the situation (and a shocking read), I will be sharing it a lot.
I still don't get why they had to invent such absurd atrocities.
Its certainly not how I personally would have handled the situation.
So now that you have finally concluded that Israel actually did kill it's own citizens, the next step is to accept the high probability that they killed those people for political reasons. They wanted the death toll to be as high as possible, for the pictures of the dead to look horrendous and for the attack they knew was coming to be the most useful to them in their quest to wipe out Palestinians.
All a cover for the genocide that is occurring.
I don't think so, I think they just completely lost control and didn't want to have to deal with a huge number of hostages, which or course they then did anyway.
They lost control and blew up hundreds of their own citizens, 9 hours after a large terror attack was occurring, and one that the Israeli government had been warned about from multiple other parties? ( hours to respond? In any US city or town there would have been a response in 10 minutes. In heavily militarized Israel it would usually take 3 minutes at most.
This terror attack also originated across the most heavily surveilled border in the world and from a piece of land that has the most spies/eyes/ears looking at it 24 hours a day, 365 days a year?
I don't think so. And I don't think so because if you look at what Israel is doing right now - genocide - they needed those deaths and pictures to carry out the plan or the backlash from the public and the rest of the World would be 100% against them, rather than only 80% against them.
So as Bibi says, all the land west of the Jordan will be controlled by Israel and he intends to kill or displace every Palestinian to do it. That's genocide.
They moved their troops to the WB to deal with settler violence instead of just arresting violent settlers and also stupid relied on high tech border surveillance that failed, and then once in that situation remained blinded by hubris.
That combination of circumstances is enough go lead to spectacular failure
Not a failure but a feature of the plan.
This claim you make -- "they [Israel] indiscriminately killed civilians but have little evidence that Hamas did the same on any large scale. " is unsupported by the Ynet article or other evidence you give. The Ynet article supports the claim that Israel may have fired on any vehicle returning to Gaza even if it contained Israeli civilians being taken hostage (this is the context of the "Hannibal directive" cited). There is nothing in it that supports the claim that Israel indiscriminately killed its own civilians outside of the case of those individual civilians in a Hamas-controlled vehicle returning to Gaza as hostages. That would not be indiscriminate or on a mass scale. There is also nothing in the article that supports the claim that Hamas did *not* kill civilians on a large scale. The other more anecdotal cases you give also do not support such a sweeping claim. For all its colossal length your article gives the impression of being biased and unwilling to consider the totality of the evidence, or even to fairly present the evidence you do highlight.
yes they rely on people lacking the competence to synthesize information and analyze their behavior and then draw conclusions about the things which they leave unsaid, as you have demonstrated here.