Anti Israel Rhetoric is rife. Why?

[cindyhove]

As of April 5, 2025, numerous armed conflicts are ongoing worldwide, varying in scale and intensity. According to the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, over 110 armed conflicts are currently being monitored, encompassing both international and non-international engagements.
why is israel the only one to be demonised out of the current 110 conflicts?
The answer is blindingly obvious

Saying the IDF is trigger happy would be fairer than saying Israel is trigger happy.

But what I would prefer people to say as it would be more accurate is some members of the IDF are trigger happy.

And it’s hardly surprising if I take a different stance to other pro Israel people on here because we are individuals so do have different takes on things.

In that vein, I don't think 'trigger happy' is the right phrase here. They're soldiers conducting an urban war where civilians have been told to flee and opposing soldiers are often not in uniform. Of course they are going to shoot.
I'd associate 'trigger happy' with police shooting first and assessing the situation critically later.
I'd fully expect any soldier to shoot first and think later, that's why friendly fire incidents are sadly so common in war.

I feel a bit conflicted about it … maybe trigger happy isn’t the right phrase but I don’t agree with soldiers shooting people who appeared to be surrendering.

It seems likely that the stress of war conditions is getting to some of the IDF mentally and they are not behaving as they should. And I think that’s understandable to an extent but they still have to be held to account.

I think that most of us cannot understand the stresses that war puts the human psyche under, and I'm hugely grateful for that.

For what war brings out in humans I believe it should be avoided at almost all costs.

I don't believe the IDF is any more or less inhuman than any other army in the world. But I do think there's a lot of naivety about the awfulness of war on here.

Yes, everybody does have a different opinion. I was initially replying to the posters who don't agree that it is a war crime to shoot unarmed civillians. Daisy has since come back and clarified that she expects it which is insane to me but each to their own. My objection is being told I'm anti Israel and 'we all know why' because I don't expect that International law will be broken and that unarmed civillians will shot first then they check if they deserved to die.

If God forbid war ever came to my shores I don't want that to be the standard. That my family and I will be shot for existing and then they will check that we were just civillians trying to survive. That is the standard Israel and people like Daisy are setting.

I agree totally.

Are you meaning me when you say Daisy?

OK then.

You show me the urban war where soldiers think carefully before every shot and thereby no civilians are killed, and no friendly fire incidents take place then.

You show me that war and which army achieved that and then I will change my mind.

For my part, I'd point you towards Korea, Darfur, Vietnam, Iraq etc....

I don’t agree that is the standard that Israel or @dairydebris are setting. I think mistakes happen in war and also there are Israeli soldiers that have been too quick to open fire but that doesn’t mean all soldiers are the same. The individual soldiers need to be investigated rather than generalisations made.

I do agree with @dairydebris that war brings out the worst in people and should be avoided at all costs.

Your standards are on the floor, that's fine. Mine aren't and I don't expect to be called names because my standards align with international standards. That's all.

There's that word 'mistake' again. If they can't be trusted not to make 'mistakes' that take innocent peoples lives then they shouldn't be there. These people are being paid to job to a standard. If you likely to make a mistake that means you murder 3 unarmed men waving white flags, you shouldn't be there. If you are so prone to making mistakes that you kill 15 aid workers one by one, you shouldn't be there. That's a problem with the IDF that they are not vetting their soldiers enough and their soldiers are murdering people. That is a problem with the standard that they are setting. Especially when they lie to cover up for murder and don't appropriately punish their murderers.

My standards are beside the point. I'm not in charge of defence policy am I?

I'm just pointing out to you, with examples, urban warfare results in civilian casualties and friendly fire casualties. It's not standards, it's just what has happened before, is happening now, and will happen again-anytime you give men killing weapons and send them out to kill in an urban setting.

But you expect the IDF to be able to conduct this war in a way that has never, ever happened before.

Why?

Nobody has said they expect specifically the IDF to act to that standard though @dairydebris

Saying they expect military personnel not to shoot people half naked and holding up white flags with their arms in the air isn’t holding the IDF to a higher standard. It’s holding them to the same standard as all other armies should be held to.

Do you really think that the poster you just replied to doesn’t expect other armies to also not shoot people holding white flags half naked?

We’re going to have to agree to disagree because I think making mistakes is inevitable in a war zone. They are being paid to be soldiers but they’re also humans and no doubt highly stressed.

I know you say you have higher standards of conduct but I also note you cannot provide the examples that @dairydebris requested of urban wars where there have been no friendly fire accidents or civilians killed.

Hamas unleashed a war not a gentleman’s quarrel.

Above to @Mylegishangingoff

Witnesses to 7/10 said the attackers used the ruse of pretending to be Israeli coming to the rescue, even got a young Israeli lad to lure people from their safe rooms...before killing him. They also booby trapped bodies left behind. It's not surprising a certain degree of paranoia is created.
Bottom line - none of the hostages should be in Gaza in the first place.

Can you name another urban conflict where there has been anything like the disproportionate level of civilian casualties in Gaza? Any where so many journalists have been killed? Maybe any that ended a ceasefire with airstrikes killing 400 mostly women & children and then blocking aid and supplies? As Einav Tsangouker (the mother of one of the hostages) wrote at the time, "Netanyahu has decided to murder our hostages!"

Maybe name another "war" in the 21st century with a higher daily death rate?

Perhaps you could name one where a rogue state has repeatedly broken international law on the scale of Israel and yet continued to be armed by the West?

Maybe you can explain how that's happened with possibly the best trained, equipped and supported military on the planet?

This is not a war, it's a genocide, fought by a religious Zealot trying to cling to power. They won't wipe out Hamas, unlike Al-Queda, it's leadership were already hiding throughout the middle-east.

Bottom line? What does even mean in this context? You could just as easily say the bottom line is Israel shouldn't have illegally annexed terrority over the last 50 years. In either case , the response doesn't justify the killing of civilians.

Why don’t you just let @Mylegishangingoff answer the question asked of them by two people now before rushing in with another tirade?

Those 3 Israelis (and all the other abductees - alive and dead) should never have been taken into Gaza, your post seems to suggest their abduction was some sort of legitimate reaction to Israel's existence. Perhaps you could clarify.

Agree none of the hostages should be in Gaza in the first place.

And Hamas shouldn’t have started a war they couldn’t win and put Palestinian civilians at huge risk of death.

No because the strategy Hamas and their backers used to start and continue this war is unprecedented.

Name me one other war where hundreds of civilians including babies and the elderly were taken hostage and held in civilian homes, where civilians took part in an invasion and barbaric atrocities and kidnappings that they then live-streamed around the world, where the terrorist ‘army’ deliberately used medical, education and residential facilities and areas as bases and used their own civilians as cover?

Name me a war where the invader publicly stated they wanted as much of their civilians blood spilled as possible and deliberately did not provide any shelters or terrorist free area for their safety. In fact they relied on their opponent to be responsible for the safety of their civilians!

Name me a war where neighbouring countries deliberately refused to allow refugees in who wanted to flee for their safety?

Name me a war which was planned 9 years in advance with a propaganda war of marches, protests, fake videos depicting war crimes and testimonies of lies all against the VICTIM all in advance.

Name me a war where approaches to the ICC were made to prosecute for war crimes by the aggressors before they’d even started the war or any retaliation had taken place.

Name me a war where a designated terrorist organisation who themselves provided evidence of barbaric atrocities they carried out, and while holding the bodies of dead babies hostage, are believed in the media and given a platform on the world stage!

I'll start with "human shields", those claims were made about the Taliban in Afghanistan, the government in Syria, the SAF in Sudan, Russia in Ukraine, the Ukranians in Ukraine, the government in Iraq. Some with clear evidence, some less clear.

Nobody is claiming there's ever been a war without civilian casualties, but the simple fact is the the slaughter of innocents in Gaza is without equal in the 21st century.