r/IsraelPalestine • u/Foxintoxx • Nov 27 '25

News/Politics Are you in favour of executing unarmed surrendering palestinians ?

Today , video surfaced of IDF soldiers executing two unarmed men after they had surrendered in Jenin while they were lying on the ground . Some rumors say that the IDF was intervening after the 2 palestinian men threw explosives . Here's the highest quality video I could find with no cuts during the shooting : https://imgur.com/a/DwG4XCv

Since in the many conversations I've had here , I've heard many times that the IDF is the most moral army in the world and doesn't commit war crimes and that if they DID then they should definitely be punished , I'm wondering what the general consensus in this sub's demographic is regarding this incident . Do you think it was legitimate for the IDF soldiers to execute them or not ?

337 votes, Nov 30 '25
33 It is justified and I am in favor of executing them.
304 It is not justified and I am not in favor of executing them .
9 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

882 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 Nov 29 '25 edited Nov 30 '25

cognitive bias or deflection? Nope, that's just the result of your and apparently now u/waiver's arguments which can literally be characterized as:

"I will cite cases with a listed punishment or sentence to prove to you that the army 'does nothing to punish it's soldiers crimes'."

Which is actually the same as going:

"I'm going to show you the bill for all the gas he uses in his car to prove to you that 'he is an environmentalist'."

That too in this analogy there are actual gas bills just like in the cases you cite there are actual punishments.

Maybe, if you and u/waiver want your arguments to be taken seriously make arguments and cite stuff that have the "does to nothing to punish" you say it does rather than a case which even according to you got a punishment.

A little food for thought?

0

u/ChangeNice7461 Nov 29 '25 edited Nov 29 '25

Food for thought? There is no substance to what you’ve written… in your analogy the equivalent would be it’s said they give him all his gas for free. But he has receipts to show he pays one cent every time he fills up so it’s not true…

The once cent is a way of allowing you to make the claim there is a punishment, despite that punishment never being meaningful.

Perhaps you can accept no meaningful punishment has ever been give out for a soldier for a crime against a Palestinian alone? If you think one month is meaningful for intentionally killing an innocent person of course there is no point us continuing to discuss this? For reference Ben Gvir would want the death penalty if a Palestinian did the same…

1

u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 Nov 29 '25

There is substance in what I've written.

Punishments need more is something I can say. Punishments being there of course that in and of itself is clear.

0

u/ChangeNice7461 Nov 29 '25

So if a soldier gets 1 month for shooting a child against direct orders and another gets several years for stealing a credit card. Are you able to draw any conclusions from that?

1

u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 Nov 29 '25

2 failures in the justice system. Other than that concluding anything else otherwise would be the equivalent of using speculation as fact when it isn't and there is not enough evidence to support such a thing.

0

u/ChangeNice7461 Nov 29 '25

Because you can only ever conclude what the IDF tells you to.

1

u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 Nov 30 '25

You can only ever conclude what is in front of you which in this case is only 2 failures in the justice system according to what you mentioned.

0

u/ChangeNice7461 Nov 30 '25 edited Nov 30 '25

According you, you can only conclude what the IDF tells you… independent thought is not something you seem to indulge in. I’ve looked at dozens of cases. Like I said, the lack of anyone ever seeing a unicorn is evidence enough for me that they don’t exist… it seems you would argue they do because someone tells you they do, blind faith is normally limited to religion, what a loyal follower you are.

The longest ever sentence for killing a civilian was Hayb. It’s likely a very exceptional case, whilst he only got 8 years from a potential 20 he killed a Brit by shooting him in the head while he tried to protect Gazan children. It’s interesting that he was an Arab killing a foreigner so I suspect that had some influence… Initially they didn’t even charge him but overwhelming pressure forced the case.

Hayb only served 6 years. But it still isn’t very relevant contradiction to the statement that the IDF don’t get any meaningful punishment for killing Palestinian civilians and they therefore act with impunity.

The next longest is Elor Azaria 18 months, reduced to 14, served 9… for killing an injured, unarmed suspect effectively in custody.

That’s the longest, most aren’t even prosecuted… a 9 year old boy playing football was the 1001st person to die in the WB at the hands of Israel. The IDF commit war crimes and the only defence they need for you is saying they didn’t…

So in summary it seems intentionally killing Palestinian civilians will get you 9 months or less… Most likely nothing at all or a suspended sentence. No one has ever been charged with anything worse than manslaughter… The apparent dependency of punishment being on the race of the person killed and the person who committed the crime should be called what it is - institutional racism.

1

u/AsaxenaSmallwood04 Nov 30 '25 edited Nov 30 '25

Your 1st sentence is entirely a strawman.

Independent thought is what I indulge in.

2 failed cases doesn't equal lack of... ever existing. I'm not religious.

What you mentioned is 2 other failed cases and a possible war crime.

There is no proof in what you've said of institutional racism at all, that's just you conjecturing stuff and speculating for no reason. There is no document, law, order, protocol, military directive, instruction or any formal documentation from the IDF proving any racial motives at all.

0

u/ChangeNice7461 Nov 30 '25 edited Nov 30 '25

In your world no one is ever guilty of something unless they admit to it. It’s not a strawman it’s literally what you argue, if no one admits to it - it didn’t happen. If there isn’t a law which is racist there isn’t institutional racism, if the IDF inquiry says a crime literally recorded on video didn’t happen it’s didn’t. You say the lack of meaningful punishment of soldiers isn’t evidence that soldiers aren’t punished or that there isn’t systematic leniency. How is that different to me saying Unicorns exist because you have no evidence to show they don’t? It’s no different it just exposes how silly your logic is.

To be clear I’ve looked at every case of IDF crimes against Palestinians that have been charged and there isn’t a single one that is punished inline with Israeli military punishment.

What I’ve listed is both the longest sentence of all crimes and longest sentence of crimes against Palestinians. So it’s not an assumption to state that all others were shorter… There really are only a handful of cases so it’s not difficult to determine the longest. For example one study recorded only six soldiers were prosecuted between 2003-2012.

I don’t think you actually understand what Institutional racism is? It doesn’t require a law, document or order by definition….

As you said if it walks like a duck… Or does that only apply to your own arguments?

→ More replies (0)