Using one's own children to suicide bomb is no less barbaric than firing a missile? That's not even true in a mathematical sense, let alone a moral one.
Stop using your thought-terminating clichés about terrorism and look at actual stats:
> As of 19 November 2025, over 72,500 people (70,525 Palestinians and 2,109 Israelis) have been reported killed in the Gaza war according to the Gaza Health Ministry (GHM) and Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, including 248 journalists and media workers, 120 academics, and over 224 humanitarian aid workers, a number that includes 179 employees of UNRWA.
How is killing tens of thousands of people less barbaric than killing thousands of people? What kind of twisted morality do you use to excuse mass murder by missiles but not through suicide bombing?
1) It's the total death toll from all causes, including natural causes.
2) The majority of those "journalists and media workers" were Hamas propaganda people.
3) UNRWA had a higher proportion of it's people identified as terrorists than the population at large.
4) It's what Hamas claimed, without any means of verification. Israel showed about 4k were unquestionably false. Hamas also claimed 10,000 buried in the rubble--which never changed. Then when they started digging after the war only some hundreds were found--and Israel caught them planting bodies to be found.
And, fundamentally, the death toll proves nothing. Blame war on the side that chooses to fight, not on the side that is successful at fighting. Typically they are one in the same as most countries will not launch a war they don't expect to win. But when a little guy goes and tries to beat up a big guy and gets pounded it's still the guy who started it that's in the wrong.
1) It's not. In fact, most scholars agree these numbers are way lower than the real one, as those are only the confirmed deaths.
2) Source? The only places where I can read about it are in far right Israeli or American communications.
3) Source? It seems like Israel was interested in labelling UNRWA as a terrorist organization at some point, but there is no evidence to back up their claim. After all, the IDF is known to shoot at journalists and humanitarian aid workers in their strategy to starve Gaza, so it makes sense they would try to discredit the org.
4) I can't find what you're talking about.
I think it would be more honest if you simply stated that you are fine with the ethnic cleansing in Gaza, rather that argue about who started what while ignoring the century that Israel's settler-colonial project has existed. This isn't country vs country, this is well-funded colonizer vs colonyzee. More akin to the American expansion over natives territory. Did native American attacks back then justify the US in killing them all? Of course not. Same thing here.
Hamas's existence is at least explainable (if not excusable) in the light of a Palestinian population that feared for its lives, and was vindicated in the last few years in thinking that Israel was out to kill them all. Because it is.
1) What scholars? Because everything I see is garbage. Prime example--they compared two different lists of the dead in Gaza. A capture/recapture model to estimate what percent was actually captured. But capture/recapture inherently requires your captures to be independent and the second list was specifically an attempt to catch those missed by the first. Thus the two lists were not remotely independent.
2) Unfortunately, most sources are not willing to report things Hamas does not want reported--reporting things Hamas doesn't like would interfere with their ability to report anything. Thus you're stuck with mostly Israeli sources. But Israel has published lists. And, notably, nobody comes along and shows any problems with the Israeli reporting. It's always dismissed without evidence--and that is pretty strong indication that it's true. In discerning the truth between competing sides look at how each side responds to the claims of the other.
3) Once again, Israel has published lists. And note that you are presuming your conclusion in your argument. You can't claim Israel shoots innocents because Israel shoots innocents. And you also are presenting without evidence the claim that Israel was trying to starve Gaza.
I will not deny that Israel shoots "journalists"--because the propaganda people pretend they are journalists. And, likewise, "humanitarian" aid workers--the aid system was basically controlled by Hamas and used to maintain control over the population. It's the unfortunate reality of almost all "aid" operations--the aid is controlled by the very people who cause the situation and is used to maintain control. Gaza is normal, not an outlier.
4) Israel put out some stuff showing "dead" that weren't. Things like a group of "dead" where the identity numbers were sequential, the names were different, the rest of the details were the same. Really, now, a bunch of people with sequential ID numbers die together???? Especially when sequential ID numbers aren't possible with their system. (The ID numbers have a check digit.)
I am decidedly not fine with ethnic cleansing in Gaza, I just do not think it's going on. Hamas engineered an atrocity to make you think Israel is evil.
Firstly, I haven’t mentioned terrorism, nor Palestine or Israel in particular (though that was obviously mentioned by others). What I have given is a way - I maintain - that will separate any groups based on how far or deeply they have been propagandised. Using suicide attacks is clearly one way to do that.
It can be used with and without numbers, so referring to the volume of death or the means is not entirely relevant. Firstly, because if we accept that the suicide attacker has been deeply propagandised and radicalised, then there is an argument that they are innocent (at least in the sense that they are also a victim) which only increases they younger they are.
Secondly, it is possible to fire a missile at a group containing only people it would be straightforward to justify using force against (e.g. military targets). That is difficult with suicide attackers given the point about innocence made above, and also given the targets for attacks that suicide bombers often choose or have chosen for them (which is why they are associated with terrorism, to the point that you actually misread my comment to such an extent that you replied with a clumsy straw man).
So, take your time when responding in such situations, it will benefit your response and everyone involved.
Are you fine with the mass killings of civilian populations in Gaza, yes or no?
War is ugly, I'm not trying to make the Palestinians into saints, but the other guy is advocating the insane position that Israel can do no wrong, and that them using excessive force is completely justified.
I feel like I'm losing my mind, why is it so hard to say "killing tens of thousands of civilians is barbaric"??
> why is it so hard to say "killing tens of thousands of civilians is barbaric"??
Because it’s not true unless we’re just saying war is barbaric. Which I agree with. But it’s not useful when trying to delineate justified versus excessive force.
I agree Israel is using excessive force in Gaza. I also think Hamas is a terrorist organisation that seems committed to continuing to do terrorism. I genuinely haven’t figured out how to balance thsr equation, though I think discussing it without calling someone engaging in good faith a monster/genocider/anti-Semite is a good start.
At some point, you have to call out a genocide for what it is. Many are still quick to rationalize it away, or relay Israeli propaganda about the many killed journalists being Hamas terrorists, or humanitarian aid workers also being Hamas terrorists, or the UN orgs also being Hamas terrorists, etc. You get the gist.
This doesn't excuse any crime that Hamas has committed, but anyone still not calling for Israel to move out of Gaza, in light of the many exactions committed by the IDF, is not engaging in good faith, in my book.
The continued killings of civilian populations in Gaza is vindicating the Palestinians in their belief that Israel is legitimately out to kill them all. Because they are. This in turn will create a new generation of "terrorists" who see violence as the only escape. This is also how Hamas was created.
Israel is interested in cleansing the Gaza strip. Whatever the solution to this cycle of violence is (two states, one state...) it first involves stopping Israel immediately and getting the IDF out of Gaza. There is no equation to balance here.
> At some point, you have to call out a genocide for what it is
Maybe. I’ll admit, on this first day of 2026 I am thoroughly confused as to the boundary between hybrid/guerilla warfare and genocide.
More pointedly, the debate becomes alienating when we’re calling each other genociders and anti-Semites.
> This in turn will create a new generation of "terrorists" who see violence as the only escape. This is also how Hamas was created
This is not a great argument for peace in Palestine. One, lots of oppressed populations don’t resort to terrorism. Two, it suggests an independent Palestine would continue to be a security threat to Israel.
> Israel is interested in cleansing the Gaza strip
Let’s be blunter since “cleansing” has similarly been semantically obliterated. Members of Israel’s leadership have expressed views that sound like they want to exterminate Palestinians. Others want to move them to away places, which is bad, but categorically different from the first. Plenty of others, however, just don’t want their kids kidnapped at raves or are angry and polarised in the face of violence.
We can do the same for Hamas. Exterminating Israelis and Jews is an explicit aim of Hamas. I don’t think that means everyone in Gaza who supports Hamas is bent on genocide. I do think that makes them—like Israelis pushing to keep bombing Gaza—relatively unsympathetic. (Them and them specifically. Not their whole group.)
> it first involves stopping Israel immediately and getting the IDF out of Gaza. There is no equation to balance here
Israel has a security imperative. If getting out of Gaza means Hamas reärms over a population that supports another October 7th attack, withdrawal is not in their interest. (If you aren’t using violence, which to be clear, means people continent away deciding—again—how borders in the Middle East should be drawn because they know better than the folks on the ground, you need a solution that’s in both parties’ interests. I don’t think Likud and Hamas are interested in negotiating. I do think Gazans and Israelis are.)
