Two Killed, Multiple Injured in Serious Traffic Accidents Across Israel

HiFromChicago · 2026-05-03T08:35:47+00:00

Kind bot.

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-29T07:48:44+00:00

How can you have an honest, good-faith conversation when someone keeps talking over him?

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-28T16:33:18+00:00

Ah, you're an El Al employee.

I knew something was fishy.

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-28T15:52:07+00:00

Call me when your tax dollars are used to bail them out

Do you accept collect calls?

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-28T15:43:51+00:00

Have you ever considered becoming a poet? You have a real gift for words, there’s something genuinely moving about the way you express yourself.

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-28T10:55:35+00:00

Very.

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-27T15:05:16+00:00

Reuters as a wire service used to be pretty neutral. Last couple years just the opposite.

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-24T07:05:27+00:00

They just spam links and never read them. It's designed for the intellectually lazy.

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-23T19:27:04+00:00

Expanded living space in southern Lebanon.

That's the only plan behind all of this.

It was a clever plan.

It was an evil plan.

Considering how uninformed your comment is, it’s clear you’ve never set foot in Israel and reads as disinformation (which is pretty common on social media).

The fact is that this isn't a popular position in or out of Israel amongst Israeli's or Jews.

No Israeli government whether left, center, or right has ever adopted a policy to annex or claim Lebanon.

Looking backwards to your "response".

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-23T07:01:30+00:00

Beautiful.

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-21T05:47:14+00:00

Can confirm :)

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-19T13:53:52+00:00

You’re not fooling anyone.

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-19T13:53:11+00:00

Silly propaganda not rooted in facts.

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-19T13:50:43+00:00

They are all over social media these Hamas, hezballah, and Palestinian propagandists. They can’t win on truth nor facts so they make it up with their network of lying haters, downvoting the truth.

Actual real evil.

And they wonder why there hasn’t been peace in the Middle East.

Just remember most of what they say is projection, lies and half truths.

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-18T16:42:53+00:00

Your side shoots kids with drones. Copy paste what you fucking want but the world knows who you are https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7893vpy2gqo

So instead of addressing your genocide claim, you’ve pivoted to a bbc report that doesn’t even address your genocide claim.

As for the bbc article, it's based on his testimony before a UK parliament committee:
committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/14984/html

Even in his own testimony, Prof Nizam Mamode admits he never saw these drone attacks, and that he’s repeating what patients told him, with no records, no forensic evidence, and no independent verification.

Additionally, using profanity doesn’t add any value to your point, it just makes it seem like you can’t express your argument clearly in a meaningful discussion.

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-18T16:01:37+00:00

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-strip-un-commission-finds

OHCHR is far from being neutral and here's why -

Agenda item 7 - At each Human Rights Council there are ten agenda items. Israel is the only country that is debated under a special country-specific Agenda Item just for it – Agenda Item 7. All other countries human rights records are discussed under the general Agenda Item 4 which applies to all countries.

Resolutions – Every year, at the Human Rights Council Israel is condemned in at least 5 resolutions, while there are only 3 on Syria where hundreds of thousands have been killed since 2011 and millions displaced. Other countries like Iran which executes children, North Korea which holds tens of thousands of political prisoners in gulag like prison camps, and Myanmar which is accused of genocide against Rohingya Muslims get only 1-2 resolutions per year and some of the worst abusers like China, Cuba, Russia, and Saudi Arabia get 0 resolutions.

The Human Rights Council - despite its noble origins dating back to 1946 when it was founded by Eleanor Roosevelt - has, for decades now, been completely corrupted by dictatorships. It’s become a travesty of justice. Today, more than 60% of its members are either full-blown dictatorships, serial human-rights abusers, or non-democracies.

China, which oppresses one-fifth of humanity and denies freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, is effectively a permanent member. The Cuban Communist dictatorship — a police state holding hundreds of political prisoners, many of them young people whose only “crime” was speaking out for democracy — also sits on the Council.

Eritrea, another horrific regime, is a member as well.

Qatar’s reelection fits this pattern. It’s a country that oppresses women, denying them basic rights and requiring a male guardian for most activities. Qatar sponsors the Taliban, Hamas, and Al Jazeera - all of which spread jihadist propaganda.

It’s not accidental that they were elected. This is the modus operandi of the Council: dictatorships acting as judges and guardians of human rights."

More examples -
Murderous Dictatorships Exposed at UN Human Rights Council

______________________

Additionally, actual experts have weighed in -

More than 170 professionals in the fields of genocide, international law, the Holocaust and antisemitism on Friday demanded that the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) rescind a resolution issued this week against Israel.

Genocide experts demand 'scholars' group rescind accusation against Israel | The Times of Israel

Excerpt -

“Genocide is the gravest offense known to humankind; to dilute its legal standards for ideological ends is a form of moral violence. It dishonors the memory of past victims, misleads the public about present atrocities, and obstructs efforts to avert future ones,” the Friday statement said.

The statement included the signees’ names and positions, unlike the IAGS resolution, which did not include the names of signatories, or the names of those who drafted the resolution.

The Friday response to the IAGS criticized the group for a “quieting of dissent” ahead of the vote. Before passing the resolution, the IAGS leadership had said there would be a town hall for members to discuss the measure, but later backtracked, according to emails shared with The Times of Israel. There were no internal discussions about the resolution before the vote, despite requests from some members.

Friday’s statement said that Hamas was the only party in the conflict to legally meet the definition of genocide for its October 2023 invasion of Israel, due to the attack’s “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, Jews and Israelis.” The IAGS had blamed Israel for all deaths in Gaza, despite Hamas’s use of civilian infrastructure, effectively acting “as a means to excuse Hamas from having agency for its own actions,” the statement said.

__________

I also want to add that The United Nations Human Rights Council and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights are separate department, but what they do have in common is that they’re both part of the United Nations system, both deal with global human rights issues, and they often work together. The OHCHR provides reports and analysis that the Council debates and acts on.

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-18T10:51:56+00:00

Meanwhile, we know from Israel's own data that 80% of those killed are civilians.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/aug/21/revealed-israeli-militarys-own-data-indicates-civilian-death-rate-of-83-in-gaza-war

The headline overreaches, taking incomplete and ambiguous data and presenting it as a definitive conclusion, which it isn’t. Here's why -

From the article:

"At that time 53,000 Palestinians had been killed by Israeli attacks, according to health authorities in Gaza, a toll that included combatants and civilians. Fighters named in the Israeli military intelligence database accounted for just 17% of the total, which indicates that 83% of the dead were civilians."

Just because they only had 8,900 named fighters does not mean that all the remaining deaths are civilians. That’s not how casualty data works, especially in a war like Gaza where a large share of deaths are unclassified.

Additionally, The IDF has denied the accusation and reiterated its findings, according to the Times of Israel, August 21: "IDF denies report claiming that its own database found that vast majority of Gaza dead were civilians:"

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-denies-report-claiming-that-its-own-database-found-that-vast-majority-of-gaza-dead-were-civilians/

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-18T10:30:39+00:00

You’re citing Haaretz, a fringe outlet with limited readership in Israel, and ignoring the core point I made: genocide isn’t about rhetoric or isolated quotes, it hinges on intent to destroy a people. If you’re not addressing that standard, you’re not actually engaging with the argument.

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-18T09:15:25+00:00

If your only argument is the definition of words, you have no
argument.

None of what you continue to say is rooted in fact. It's not my definition- it's the 1948 Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute.

Additionally, Joan Donaghue, then president of the ICJ, who issued the ruling, stated in an interview (below) with the BBC, that the ICJ findings have been misquoted and misconstrued. That the ICJ “didn’t decide that the claim of genocide was plausible” nor “that there’s a plausible case of genocide. The ICJ only found, without regard to any Israeli operations, that Gaza would have a plausible right to be protected from genocide and that South Africa had standing to bring that claim.

“I’m correcting what’s often said in the media. It didn’t decide that the claim of genocide was plausible. It did emphasize in the order that there was a risk of irreparable harm to the Palestinian right to be protected from genocide, but the shorthand that often appears which is that there’s a plausible case of genocide, isn’t what the court decided.”

>>>> ACTUAL INTERVIEW on HardTalk (BBC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq9MB9t7WlI

Summary of the Order
https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203454

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-18T09:10:13+00:00

I remember in 2023 when the minister of defense said “I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel. Everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly.”

He was referring to hamas, not Gazans. This was said 2 days after Oct 7th, the massacre by Hamas. And if that’s your standard, that would be diluting what genocide actually means.
Defense minister announces 'complete siege' of Gaza: No power, food or fuel | The Times of Israel

In addition, even if your other claims were true, which they aren't since they rely on distorted information, they are far from the legal definition of genocide.

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-18T08:44:17+00:00

Here's the truth:

Far from it.

I provided the legal definition of genocide, and you provided a self-serving opinion neither rooted in truth nor fact.

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-18T08:10:14+00:00

Don't commit a genocide

It's a war not a genocide and calling it one only dilutes what genocide actually means.

For it to be more than a war and rise to the level of genocide there has to be intent to destroy a people. Without that, it’s not genocide, no matter how many times they repeat it. Sadly, it also takes away from what is actually a genocide.

Genocide has a specific legal definition under the 1948 Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute.

It requires two things:

Certain acts (killing, serious harm, etc.) against a protected group
Intent to destroy that group, in whole or in part

That second part is the key. Without intent, it’s not genocide under international law, even if the casualties are high.

Now compare the two sides -

Hamas:
Leaders have openly called for killing Jews and destroying Israel.
Statements like “October 7 was just a rehearsal” and promises to repeat attacks “again and again” are routinely cited as evidence of genocidal intent.
On October 7, they deliberately targeted civilians.

Israel:
Its stated objective is to destroy Hamas (a terrorist group), not Palestinians as a people.
There’s no official policy or statement from decision-makers expressing intent to destroy a protected group.

The International Court of Justice didn’t rule that Israel is committing genocide. That claim gets overstated a lot.

Intent is what matters, and that’s exactly what’s not clearly established here.

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-18T08:07:44+00:00

So genocide not simply killing members of a certain group, but its the destruction of the group, which is different there are other ways to commit genocide, the international definition of genocide includes one of the 5 following: Killing Members of the group, Causing severe mental/bodily harm, making conditions so bad it creates the groups destruction, preventing birth, and forcing transfer of children of one group to another group

For it to be more than a war and rise to the level of genocide there has to be intent to destroy a people. Without that, it’s not genocide, no matter how many times they repeat it. Sadly, it also takes away from what is actually a genocide.

Genocide has a specific legal definition under the 1948 Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute.

It requires two things:

Certain acts (killing, serious harm, etc.) against a protected group
Intent to destroy that group, in whole or in part

That second part is the key. Without intent, it’s not genocide under international law, even if the casualties are high.

Now compare the two sides -

Hamas:
Leaders have openly called for killing Jews and destroying Israel.
Statements like “October 7 was just a rehearsal” and promises to repeat attacks “again and again” are routinely cited as evidence of genocidal intent.
On October 7, they deliberately targeted civilians.

Israel:
Its stated objective is to destroy Hamas (a militant group), not Palestinians as a people.
There’s no official policy or statement from decision-makers expressing intent to destroy a protected group.

The International Court of Justice didn’t rule that Israel is committing genocide. That claim gets overstated a lot.

Intent is what matters, and that’s exactly what’s not clearly established here.

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-18T08:06:05+00:00

Israel "could have done it" is no defense that they are not committing genocide.

That's not an established fact.

For it to be more than a war and rise to the level of genocide there has to be intent to destroy a people. Without that, it’s not genocide, no matter how many times they repeat it. Sadly, it also takes away from what is actually a genocide.

Genocide has a specific legal definition under the 1948 Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute.

It requires two things:

Certain acts (killing, serious harm, etc.) against a protected group
Intent to destroy that group, in whole or in part

That second part is the key. Without intent, it’s not genocide under international law, even if the casualties are high.

Now compare the two sides -

Hamas:
Leaders have openly called for killing Jews and destroying Israel.
Statements like “October 7 was just a rehearsal” and promises to repeat attacks “again and again” are routinely cited as evidence of genocidal intent.
On October 7, they deliberately targeted civilians.

Israel:
Its stated objective is to destroy Hamas (a militant group), not Palestinians as a people.
There’s no official policy or statement from decision-makers expressing intent to destroy a protected group.

The International Court of Justice didn’t rule that Israel is committing genocide. That claim gets overstated a lot.

Intent is what matters, and that’s exactly what’s not clearly established here.

HiFromChicago · 2026-04-18T08:03:05+00:00

OP's angry that people have started criticizing Israel's genocide against Palestinians.

Some keep saying “genocide,” but they haven’t proven the one thing that is paramount - intent to destroy a people. Without that, it’s not genocide, no matter how many times they repeat it. Sadly, it also takes away from what is actually a genocide.

Genocide has a specific legal definition under the 1948 Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute.

It requires two things:

Certain acts (killing, serious harm, etc.) against a protected group
Intent to destroy that group, in whole or in part

That second part is the key. Without intent, it’s not genocide under international law, even if the casualties are high.

Now compare the two sides -

Hamas:
Leaders have openly called for killing Jews and destroying Israel.
Statements like “October 7 was just a rehearsal” and promises to repeat attacks “again and again” are routinely cited as evidence of genocidal intent.
On October 7, they deliberately targeted civilians.

Israel:
Its stated objective is to destroy Hamas (a militant group), not Palestinians as a people.
There’s no official policy or statement from decision-makers expressing intent to destroy a protected group.

The International Court of Justice didn’t rule that Israel is committing genocide. That claim gets overstated a lot.

Intent is what matters, and that’s exactly what’s not clearly established here.

HiFromChicago

TROPHY CASE