I’m more than happy to explain my actual views to anyone genuinely interested in hearing what I actually think about the subject - rather than what OP wants you to think I believe. I know my reply was intentionally provocative, but I stand by everything I said. You only need to compare the length of OP’s moderation history to mine to see who’s really acting in bad faith here.

Here's my responses to that thread for further context.

I’m not sure “human shield” is the correct term here. That implies using the civilian population to deter your enemy from shooting at you - which has been Hamas’ strategy from the beginning. It would make zero sense for the IDF to do that, since it wouldn’t deter anyone.

EDIT: It may be more accurate to categorize this as using a protected person to perform military duties, which is also prohibited under international humanitarian law - but it’s a different category of war crime.

Human shield is defined under Geneva Conventions as “utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations”

I’m not here to deny the atrocities committed by the IDF - I’m simply questioning the legitimacy of the term in this specific context, while somewhat provocatively trying to highlight the fact that accusing Israel of using human shields is a bit like accusing Ukraine of killing civilians. While both may be technically true, it still paints a somewhat dishonest picture of the actual reality - which, in this case, is that using human shields is Hamas’ number one tactic, and no intellectually honest person can seriously claim otherwise.

when they tie Palestinians to the front of their vehicles, I think we can say they’re using literal human shields.

That would absolutely count as using them as human shields. However, the example used in the article, in my opinion, doesn’t. What they’re doing is still just as immoral and still a war crime, but I don’t think it qualifies as an example of using someone as a human shield.

This has nothing to do with defending the IDF - don’t be ridiculous.

Am I being pedantic? Yeah. But that still doesn’t change the fact that what I’m saying has nothing to do with defending the IDF. I have no dog in that fight. I’m not rooting for either side in this conflict - I’m only rooting for the civilian population suffering on both sides.

Feddit and lemmy.world can't be trusted.

Hell if being condescending got you banned most of Lemmy would be banned.

Lemmy unfortunatly is slowly transforming to reddit again regarding israel. I just interacted with someone blaming all israeli actions on palestinians

BPR.

You did the right thing by calling out OpinionHaver's hypocrisy. And you did it the right way - exposing why they were called a fascist, in a thread they do Reddit style "I dun unrrurstand" sealioning and "ackshyually" red herrings over and over to defend ethnic cleansing. If you only posted that and walked away, I'd be saying "PTB".

However that is not just what you did. You were consistently aggressive in that thread, and your mod history shows entries like "uncivil", "Derailing", "civility", "Rude/toxic", "history of netiquette violations", "consistent history of toxic behavior" across multiple instances. So even if the target was justified, you're still a problem user, and if a mod lets this sort of hostile user (like you) go rogue in a comm, the comm becomes a shitfest.

Plus you're a single "I can only guess" away from witch hunting = calling the mod "genocide apologist" on weak grounds (removals from a single thread). If you want to accuse someone, do it like you did towards OpinionHaver.

You, sunzu2 and OpinionHaver were derailing the thread. The mod should've either nuked the whole comment chain or left it alone; by selectively deleting you+sunzu2's comments but not OpinionHaver's, the mod is arbitrarily giving them a political voice in an allegedly "no politics" comm, but not you or sunzu2.

Yikes.

So this person blatantly apologizes warcrimes, then edits to make clear they were just being "specific", which is technically possible but really fucking convenient and shows VERY poor awareness at best.

Then another person complains about lemmy fostering extremist views which exposes themselves as lobotomized because they are falling prey to the "centrism" fallacy.

Then they ban you for trying to expose their bigotted views on that thread? Did i catch that correctly?

PTB

Janitors gonna trip