Blood Libel #10 | “The IDF commits war crimes. Targeting Hospitals. Treating Palestinians Like Lab Rats”
Anti-Zionist:
The IDF violates international law and commits war crimes.
Pro-Zionist:
War crimes require intentional targeting of civilians or disproportionate force. So let me ask:
If Israel is committing war crimes, why do IDF soldiers use precision-guided weapons, leaflets, and phone calls to avoid civilian casualties?
Why does Hamas fire rockets indiscriminately at civilians and film it proudly?
The laws of war also say that when a military hides behind civilians, they are responsible for the consequences. That’s what Hamas does — intentionally.
Israel’s military:
Has a legal affairs department embedded in its operations to review every strike.
Aborts missions regularly to minimize civilian harm.
Investigates alleged misconduct and holds soldiers accountable.
If you’re calling that a war crime — while defending Hamas’s mass murder, rape, and kidnapping of civilians — maybe it’s not about justice. Maybe it’s about vilifying the one democracy in the Middle East.
Anti-Zionist:
But Israel is bombing hospitals and killing civilians on purpose.
Pro-Zionist:
Then help me understand: why would Israel send evacuation warnings in Arabic, make phone calls, drop leaflets, and delay attacks to allow civilians to flee if the goal is to kill them?
(Let them attempt to deflect with civilian casualties.)
Pro-Zionist:
Civilian deaths in war are tragic — but they are not evidence of genocidal intent.
The real question is: Who is using civilians as shields?
Fact check:
Hamas embeds rocket launchers, weapons, and command centers inside schools, hospitals, and mosques.
The IDF publishes aerial intelligence before strikes and often calls off missions to avoid civilian casualties.
Israel’s civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio is 1:1 or lower in most major conflicts.
Now compare that to Western militaries:
So the real question isn’t whether civilians are dying — that happens in every war, sadly. These comparisons don’t justify civilian deaths—but they do frame Gaza’s casualty ratios as consistent with other urban battles, undermining the simplistic claim that high civilian numbers alone constitute genocide or war crimes.
The question is: Who is trying to protect them, and who is exploiting them?
Why is Hamas turning hospitals into military bases… and why are you blaming the country trying to stop it?
Anti-Zionist:
Israel treats Palestinians like lab rats — testing weapons and medical experiments on them.
Pro-Zionist:
Do you have a single credible source for that claim — or are you repeating Hamas propaganda?
(Let them try to cite a fringe report or rumor.)
Pro-Zionist:
This is a modern blood libel. The truth:
Israel develops defense systems, like the Iron Dome, to save lives — not to test them on civilians.
Israeli hospitals have treated thousands of Palestinians, including Hamas leaders’ family members.
During COVID, Israel offered vaccines to the PA and cooperated on treatment — despite ongoing rocket attacks.
There’s no “testing” on Palestinians. There’s a terrorist group endangering its people, and a democratic state trying to defend its own.
Calling Israeli self-defense “experimentation” isn’t just false — it’s disgusting.
🏛️APPENDIX: The Law of Armed Conflict
International Lawyer Joshua Rozenberg published an article about the "Law of Armed Conflict" in which he speaks about Israel and Gaza.
It's a great article, but I want to highlight one concept about proportionality in war wherein Rozenberg states.
There has been a lot of talk about proportionality in the law on self-defense. I refer to the words that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, used a few days ago on the test of proportionality. It does not mean that the defensive force has to be equal to the force used in the armed attack. Proportionality means that you can use force that is proportionate to the defensive objective, which is to stop, to repel and to prevent further attacks.
He continues:
Asking a state that is acting in self-defense to agree to a ceasefire before its lawful defensive objectives have been met is, in effect, asking that state to stop defending itself.
Definitely some great content worth a read.
Exploring this concept of proportionality further there is something called "the Dresden Defense"
Applying this concept that the Nazi's attempted to use as a defense, the UN officials say:
Yes, 1200 people were massacred by Hamas, but now tens of thousands of Palestinians are killed.
That argument was made in the Nuremberg trials, by the head of the Einsatzgruppen, the Nazi death squads that moved around Eastern Europe and killed a million Jews and a million others.
When they were brought to justice at Nuremberg, they said:
Yes, we may have done these killings but you, the allies, you killed civilians when you bombed Dresden and other cities.
And that was wholly rejected by the Nuremberg court.
The notion that this Nazi defendant was trying to make—that the deliberate and purposeful killing of civilians was equal to the taking of civilian lives that is undesired, unintended and unavoidable—was absolutely rejected.
Those are completely two different things. And that is the essence of civilization: to distinguish between those two. And sadly, at the United Nations, we are seeing this scandalous Dresden defense being brought up again and again, to equate the purposeful, deliberate killing of civilians, which is a crime, with the taking of civilian lives that is undesired, unintended, but unavoidable. That should be rejected completely.