Which part? The ratio implied or Israel killing its own soldiers and civilians?

Unfortunately, Israel did not allow investigation by third parties on October 7th.

Israel has admitted to the Hannibal Directive being issued on that day. That day will remain unclear for the rest of time. But the party that made that so was also the party that issued a policy that allowed for specifically targeting Israelis if they were at risk of capture.

The same party that went onto use the attack as justification for two years of genocide.

The same party that was offered full hostage transfer in October 2023 for the transfer of preexisting Palestinian hostages and not attacking Gaza. Instead of getting their people back. They killed hundreds of thousands in response.

Seems like they might not care about their own people either.

Hyperbolic statements like the OOPs are spoken in frustration because they know these facts. They make counter extremes to make a point about the narrative that everyone is told to believe. Do I do that? No, but I understand that human emotion of some random poster and don't hold them to the same requirement of evidence that I would an apartheid state. I give their statement charity and make a conclusion on it based on the frustration and emotions they feel.

We have no idea the ratio of deaths caused by Israel that day. But the narrative and media place all trust and charity towards the country that has proven time and time again to lie about everything in order to justify their apartheid and genocide.

The criticism and "good faith" should not be given to the apartheid state. That's the reason for these types of understandably frustrated statements.

The idea is that all that critize Israel use perfect evidence and perfect morality and charity when doing so. But Israel and the media that has supported its genocide can talk about "babies in ovens" two years later and still have that lie believed.

Your criticism is not without context. And everyone here (I hope) understands the above that I have explained.

But we need a long multiple paragraph comment to explain that. When you hear "October 7th" you already have chapters worth of Israeli propaganda giving you context to justify their genocide.

So, no, it's not bullshit. It may not be a precise statement but it's definitely accurate.

What part of it is bullshit?

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/yoav-gallant-admits-to-authorising-hannibal-directive-during-october-7-attack-7663931

Lol k

I mean she's not completely wrong. Israel seems to have, at the very least, ignored some pretty clear indications that the attack was about to happen, and then once it happened they killed more than a few hostages by shooting at them on purpose, and then once they were taken back to Gaza Israel has been consistently sabotaging any attempt at a ceasefire that would enable them to get the hostages back, because their main goal is to kill Palestinians and Hamas killing Israelis and still having them hostage is a good way for them to enable that goal and hurry it along, so they don't want to screw up that "good" thing.

I do think the way this particular tweet is framed is kind of inflammatory and nonsensical yes, even if it is vaguely in the neighborhood of factual. The author is a known crazy person. She happens to be coincidentally doing pro-Palestinian messaging right now which makes her temporarily on the right side of history but the "cuckoo bird" energy you're getting off this tweet is pretty firmly in keeping with her usual MO.