Right, because you have no answers, you just want to criticize Israel.
They did have an investigation, but it was ruled as insufficient evidence that those Soldier committed a rape.
Subsequently, nine Israeli reservists, including a major, were arrested on suspicion they had sodomized him and suspicion of mistreating the detainee
On 10 March 2026, the Israeli military court announced that the charges against the five soldiers accused of the incident has dropped, with Itay Offir, a military advocate general, stated that the prosecutors “lacked key evidence” after the victim returned to Gaza that the likelihood of a fair trial had been impacted by the actions of senior officials.
The key witness was not available to testify, and altho the video was clear enough to show some very bad things occurred, it did not show the suspects clearly enough to convict. Also the video being improperly released was an issue. So, no doubt some very bad thing happened, but there were arrests and indictments , but not enough evidence to identify and this convict the perpetrators.
But
Indicates this sort of thing was a common occurrence, rather than one isolated incident. So the answer is Israel has stopped raping prisoners. It occurred once, afaik.
Right. I have asked for solutions but other than my ideas (Getting rid of Netanyahu and Hamas stopping terrorist acts ) none have been forthcoming.
I’m sure the IDF has all kinds of explanations as to why they are unwilling to prosecute their own rapists. I don’t accept them any more than I accept Hamas justifications for their atrocities.
Your knee-jerk defense of Israel and the IDF is really no different from a Hamas defender always leaping to explain that what they do is somehow acceptable.
You also appear to have no answers, and are even apparently unwilling to criticize rapists and settler terrorists.
Speaking only as a poster and trying to take our various personalities out of the equation, let’s try a hypothetical.
An international leader with some credibility, let’s say Mark Carney (or insert your own preferred candidate), steps forward to provide a ceasefire with teeth, and Trump for whatever reasons doesn’t get involved.
His conditions, Israel and Hamas will cease hostilities, Israel will use it’s own forces to halt new settlements, and prevent expansion of existing ones, with status of current settlements to be worked out in a future complete peace deal. Israel will not make any pro-active or reactive strikes outside it’s own direct borders (not including the Palestinian territories), during the ceasefire. Hamas will use all forces at it’s disposal to prevent attacks from it’s own, or splinter factions in their territory upon Israel.
Canadian troops will be on the ground to ensure safe transportation of emergency building supplies, food, and humanitarian aid. Such will be monitored to ensure they’re not being resold or re-used for military use, but distributed by a reasonably neutral third party such as Red Cross.
So, arguably, the bare minimum for an effective, short term cease fire.
[FTR - I personally would endorse all of these measures as quickly as possible, but I’m not in charge]
Given the above scenario, and adapting @DrDeth’s question in a less confrontational way, what should the Canadian forces do if:
- Rockets/missiles/attacks are launched from territories controlled by Hamas into Israel, even if not effectively targeted?
- (Fairness POV) Israeli forces, in response to (1) but still breaking the ceasefire, retaliate, or worse, break their cease-fire agreement in response to what they consider credible intelligence.
I’m making a point of bringing up either side breaking their agreements, not just one. I’m also not (in this hypo) letting Hamas off from attacks launched inside their territory - if they wish to be treated as a power at the bargaining table, they need to control it, the same way my requirements for the ceasefire requires Israel to stop any and all settler expansion.
My point is that IF (a huge, extremely unlikely if, I fully grant) a credible third party steps in to guarantee any sort of peace, how do those peacekeepers enforce it? Equally clear (I hope) is that this is not the comprehensive peace as I suggested earlier, just what a real ceasefire for good faith negotiations might look like. Because if the peace can’t be enforced on both sides usefully, then we’re back to where we are right now.
Even in an American court, even if the evidence is clear that a crime was committed, if there is no solid evidence that the arrested and indited suspects were actually the ones that committed the crime, then the suspects would be released. The issue is- the key witness would not testify, and the video- which clearly shows a crime being committed- did not show enough of WHO committed the crime. The fact that a crime was committed does not prove that any specific suspects committed said crime.
Good points.
Says who? The IDF?
Did the key witness, the victim testify? Have you seen the video and is there clear evidence of who the suspects are?
And again, from what I know- this is ONE isolated case. So this-
Has been answered. Yes, they should stop and they apparently have stopped.
Not remotely:
- Respond to Palestinian militants with proportionate force.
- Respond to Israeli militants with proportionate force.
What is the proportionate amount of force appropriate to deal with a 16-year-old Hamas soldier firing on your position with an AK-47?
Trying to avoid the “gotcha” cliche, so let’s deal with specific, but less loaded examples.
For 1) A Hamas lower-ranked officer launches a rocket from a former industrial site (leaving out residences and hospitals in this example). It’s unguided/poorly guided, strikes a commercial area causing a few dozen injuries, but no fatalities.
For 2) Israel gets credible intelligence (not internally generated) that Hezbollah is transferring weapons to Hamas near the border, and launches a targeted strike on a convoy. A dozen injuries, one or two fatalities (all adult), too much damage to be 100% confirmed it was a weapon shipment.
What would you suggest as an appropriate force/response to the breaking of the ceasefire in either of these scenarios?
[ I did try to pick ones that seemed plausible and less loaded, hope I succeeded ]
I’m a veteran but not remotely a combat expert. I don’t know what would be exactly proportionate.
And that is perfectly fine @iiandyiiii. I don’t have good answer either. A part of this exercise is that IMHO (again, only that, and only as a poster) we’re all approaching this situation with too much certainty. It’s so many shades of gray that a certain novel would be left in the dust. Pre-emptive, reactive, degrees of responsibility/authority, each and every situation while infuriating (to us outsiders, much less those suffering) having so many levels of justification on either side as to be maddening.
I’ll just repeat what I said earlier - We all need the violence and provocations from both sides to be formally stopped. If we could get a working ceasefire that both sides supported, then it’s remotely possible that a good faith compromise (making no one happy probably) could be found for a long term peace.
But (yes, feel free to accuse me of further “bothsiderism”) neither side’s leaders seem to have an honest desire for the good of their respective people before their own interests.
And no outside leaders currently have the charisma, funds, and political support to arbitrate the situation - which is extremely unlikely to win them success at home, or even gratitude from the parties in the Middle East.
Enough from me, just my $0.02 and going back to the bigger picture rather than each specific example of bad-faith abuse by either side.
Palestinians don’t even really have a chance to choose their leaders, for the most part. Israeli leaders spent years purposefully propping up Hamas and kneecapping more moderate alternatives because they thought Hamas was a better “partner” against the threat of a two state solution.
Blowing up the kid’s house with their entire family in it certainly wouldn’t be.
I said leaders, I didn’t say anything about how they were selected and how they stayed in power. Personally, I think both are 100% unworthy of their position and have it by less-than legitimate means to say the least.
But I generally prefer to argue/deal with how things are, rather than how it could or even should be.
The whole “pragmatic idealist” thing I generally follow.
Probably because they are lying propagandists who were forced to launch a full review of their supposed list after it was proven that over 60% of the supposed “jOuRnAlIsTs” were Hamas or PIJ terrorists. A review that has led some of their board members to resign in protest, which shows you the motivation of the people running these organizations.
Just a reminder for everyone that this is an uncited, unsupported claim with no evidence aside from Israeli intelligence assertions.
Curious - Notwithstanding intimidation/obstruction at Aid outposts, what atrocities has Hamas committed lately? Haven’t they also dissolved their governmental body?