Juan C. Irizarry

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

@Vhgkasparov Qué gran mentira. Ser de izquierda no es una lucha por la igualdad, sino una batalla por el poder. Quien lo consigue termina convirtiéndose en el más rico, mientras los demás solo sirven como esclavos del sistema.

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

Hard working, family oriented, brave as can be while being surrounded by so many haters. I want to state I love the Palestinian people too, but I hate Hamas, Hezbollah, IRGC, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, various Iraqi and Syrian Militias. They only want to see Israel end and not exist.

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

I've read reports of rape allegations involving Israeli personnel. Some cases have been investigated, while others remain disputed or lack sufficient publicly available evidence for me to reach a confident conclusion. The absence of conclusive evidence in a particular case does not prove an event did not occur, but neither do allegations alone establish that it did.

The same standard applies across the board. There are also well documented allegations and investigations involving sexual violence committed by Hamas and other armed groups during attacks on Israel, as well as allegations involving Israeli forces. Each claim should be evaluated on its own evidence rather than accepted or rejected because it supports a preferred narrative.

I can't, in good conscience, choose a side based on competing claims alone. Sexual violence is reprehensible regardless of who commits it. My position is to follow the evidence, acknowledge what is well established, remain cautious where the evidence is inconclusive, and be willing to change my view if stronger evidence emerges. That's the only ground I'm willing to stand on.

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

@CodyPalmer7 @Parodyjeffx Ate you certain this video involved children that got hurt (blinded)? Is it possible you've been lied to about that incident?

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

@jerrydumdragon @CodyPalmer7 @Parodyjeffx Would you prefer the soldier shooting instead of using non-leathal methods for compliance?

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

The responses have only highlighted the lack of evidence. Assertions are not proof, and emotional language is not a substitute for facts. If the accusations are accurate, they should be backed by credible, verifiable evidence and consistent standards, not selective narratives or assumptions.

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

Those are serious allegations, and if they are true, they deserve to be investigated and those responsible held accountable.

However, it's important to distinguish between evidence of widespread civilian suffering and the legal crime of genocide. They are not synonymous.

No one disputes that tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed, that Gaza has suffered catastrophic destruction, or that there is a severe humanitarian crisis involving food, medical care, and displacement. Those facts are well documented.

The legal question of genocide, however, is more specific. Under the Genocide Convention, it requires not only prohibited acts but also proof of specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such. That is why international courts examine evidence such as official statements, military orders, patterns of conduct, and intent—not casualty figures alone.

Likewise, allegations of rape, torture, starvation, or other abuses should be investigated regardless of who committed them. If IDF personnel committed war crimes, they should be prosecuted. If Hamas committed war crimes, they should be prosecuted. Accountability cannot be selective.

The better question isn't, "What does it take for you to call it genocide?" The better question is, "What does the evidence demonstrate under international law?" That answer should come from a careful examination of all the evidence, not from emotion, politics, or social media narratives.

If we abandon the legal standard and replace it with whichever conclusion aligns with our preferred narrative, we undermine the very system of international law that is supposed to protect civilians everywhere.

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

@Parodyjeffx @xIsraelExposedx Are Hamas and other Jihadists fighting the IDF evil or justified?

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

The Commission's findings deserve to be read and evaluated carefully. At the same time, it is also fair to acknowledge that its impartiality has been challenged by Israel, the United States, and other observers because of prior public statements made by several commissioners. That doesn't automatically invalidate the report, but neither does the UN label automatically make its conclusions beyond criticism. The proper question is whether the evidence, legal reasoning, and methodology withstand independent scrutiny.

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

Absolutely. Respect for human rights applies to everyone, including an occupying power if one exists under international law.

But it doesn't stop there. It also applies to governments, armed groups, and individuals. No party is exempt. The laws of armed conflict prohibit intentionally targeting civilians, taking hostages, torture, rape, and indiscriminate attacks regardless of who commits them or why.

That's why I think it's important to apply the same standard consistently. If we demand accountability from Israel for alleged violations, we should also demand accountability from Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, or any other armed group for their violations.

Human rights are universal by definition. They are not contingent on nationality, religion, or political cause. They cannot be selectively applied to one side while excusing the other.

The goal should not be to determine whose suffering matters more, but to insist that everyone be held to the same legal and moral standard.

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

@hackellank @metawolf_eth @Parodyjeffx @xIsraelExposedx Can you provide something of substance instead of comedy, or is that the extent of your ability?

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

Your response contains several strong assertions, but it doesn't provide evidence for any of them.

If you believe my argument is "hasbara," point to the specific factual claim I made that is incorrect and provide evidence to support your position.

History is far more complex than slogans. Hamas did not emerge from a single cause, and neither did the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Likewise, the legal characterization of occupation, apartheid, and other issues remains the subject of ongoing international debate.

You also refer to "real Jews," but Jewish communities have never been politically monolithic. There are Zionist Jews, anti-Zionist Jews, religious Jews, secular Jews, and many views in between. Disagreeing with another Jew does not make either one more or less authentically Jewish.

If the goal is to understand the conflict, let's discuss specific facts, historical evidence, and legal arguments. If the goal is simply to trade labels like "terrorist," "apartheid," or "hasbara," then we're no longer having a discussion;we're repeating slogans.

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

Your comment presents several disputed legal and moral conclusions as if they were established facts.

International law recognizes the right of peoples to self determination, but it does not permit attacks on civilians. Even if one argues that Palestinians have a right to resist occupation, that does not legalize the murder of civilians, hostage taking, or other violations of international humanitarian law.

Likewise, whether Israel has committed genocide is currently the subject of ongoing legal proceedings. No international court has issued a final judgment concluding that Israel has committed genocide. Making that claim as though it has already been legally established is inaccurate.

Finally, calling Hamas "honorable" is a moral opinion, not a factual conclusion. Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by numerous countries, and its October 7 attacks deliberately targeted civilians, actions that have been widely condemned as violations of the laws of war.

If we're going to discuss a conflict this serious, we should distinguish between what has been established by evidence, what remains legally disputed, and what is simply a matter of personal opinion. That approach is far more likely to lead to an honest discussion than replacing evidence with slogans.

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

Let me ask a related question.

Can Jews or Israeli secular citizens freely choose to live in Gaza? No. Under Hamas rule, doing so would almost certainly place their lives in immediate danger.

Could an Israeli Jew safely choose to live in many Palestinian controlled cities in the West Bank? In practice, no. Israeli authorities themselves warn citizens not to enter these areas because of the serious risk of attack.

By contrast, roughly two million Arab citizens, most of whom are Muslim, live in Israel. They vote, own businesses, attend universities, serve in the medical and legal professions, hold seats in parliament, and some even volunteer to serve in Israel's security forces.

None of this proves that Israel is beyond criticism or that Palestinians have no legitimate grievances. It does, however, illustrate why sweeping claims that one side is inherently "demonic" deserve to be questioned.

If someone wants to make such a serious moral accusation, they should support it with evidence that accounts for the full picture, not just emotionally charged videos or isolated incidents. Truth requires context, consistency, and the willingness to apply the same standard to everyone.

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

That's a strong conclusion, but I'm interested in understanding how you reached it rather than simply accepting it. When you say "they are demonic," who specifically are you referring to? The Israeli government, the IDF, individual soldiers, or Israelis as a whole?

Can you provide the evidence, sources, and reporting that led you to that conclusion? I'd genuinely like to understand the factual basis for your position.

At the same time, there are facts that also deserve consideration. Palestinian citizens of Israel have the right to vote, own businesses, attend universities, serve as doctors, lawyers, judges, members of parliament, and, if they choose, serve in the IDF or other Israeli security services. Many have built successful lives alongside Jewish and other Israeli citizens, while some have fought against organizations such as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, and Lions' Den.

Knowing these facts has made me question why so much content circulating on social media focuses almost exclusively on emotionally charged videos that lack the events leading up to them, while rarely presenting the broader context or the complexity of the conflict.

If we're interested in discovering the truth rather than reinforcing a narrative, then we should hold every claim to the same standard. That means asking for evidence, examining context, and being willing to question information regardless of whether it supports our existing beliefs.

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

Engagement baiting is a thing? As for me, I want to get as close to the bottom of why many people believe Israel is a bad guy. Call me what you want for that, but my common sense of what I have seen and observe tells me otherwise. Am I convinced Israel is innocent? Not at all, but neither is Hamas and the Jihadists in the West Bank. Which of the two is worse? I say the Jihadist, they do not care for their own. Israel has a thriving population of Palestinians that work, live, shop, thrive, and join the IDF within Israel's borders, the same can't be said about the West Bank or the Gaza Strip. Iraelies can't thrive in the West Bank and Gaza Strip due to real life ending threats. Nothing has convinced me more than those facts.

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

@RepDonTBeakunt @Parodyjeffx It happens multiple times in the West Bank? Ehat exactly happens there? It's a checkpoint, correct?

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

You only respond in a manner that tells me your party line. I don't care for that, I care for what actually happened. You still have not convinced me about what happened in the video presented. This video is from 2024 and continues to be used in this way. I for one don't know what really happened, and I do know that agents of Hamas and other Jihadists continue to attack IDF soldiers at checkpoint stations like the one shown here. Can anyone explain the context?

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

@JWorld055 @Parodyjeffx So, you can't be convinced?

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

The clip shows an IDF soldier throwing what appears to be a stun grenade into a vehicle during an active military operation. It does not show what happened before the stop, what intelligence the soldiers had, whether the vehicle matched a suspect description, whether the occupants had ignored commands, or whether they posed a known security threat. Those are facts the video simply cannot establish.

What is striking is how quickly social media filled in those missing facts with certainty. The original post claimed it was a Palestinian family and suggested permanent injuries. As the discussion unfolded, even those claims could not be independently verified. Instead, it became clear that much of the narrative surrounding the video was based on assumptions rather than evidence.

The critical lesson is not that one side must be right and the other wrong. It is that we should resist allowing emotionally charged posts to substitute for evidence. A fifteen second clip is not an investigation. A caption is not proof. A viral post is not a verified account of events.

This is how misinformation spreads. It begins by presenting conclusions before the facts are known, encouraging people to react emotionally instead of asking questions. The goal is often not to increase understanding, but to reinforce an existing narrative that divides people into opposing camps.

Critical thinking requires a different approach. Ask what happened before the recording began. Ask whether there is independent evidence supporting the claims. Ask what information is missing. Be willing to say, "I don't know yet," until credible evidence is available.

Whether misinformation comes from governments, militant organizations, activists, media personalities, parody accounts, or ordinary social media users, the result is the same: it fuels outrage, deepens polarization, and makes meaningful dialogue more difficult.

If our objective is truth rather than confirmation of our own beliefs, then we should hold every claim to the same standard of evidence. That standard should never change based on whose narrative we prefer.

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

@Sydney_Mc @Parodyjeffx @xIsraelExposedx The PIJ is in the West Bank, what do you think of them, the other Jihadists I speak of?

[Juan C. Irizarry @DukeOsuper]

@theknowledgebit @xIsraelExposedx @Parodyjeffx Do you agree that Hamas and other Jihadists attacking the IDF need to be accounted for also?