Yes, it's specific. It's also a fact that is in direct contradistinction to the OP's claim.

Israel has also not fired any missiles at hospitals, with one exception (a small diameter bomb aimed specifically at Hamas that caused minimal damage).

Again:

> I'm not sure why destroying hospitals with tanks, missiles, and sappers is better than "aerial bombs". Could you elaborate?

Yes, I can elaborate. I'm not quibbling with you about whether Israel has been firing missiles at hospital buildings versus dropping glide bombs on them. I'm disputing the very foundation of your argument. You claim that Israel has "destroyed hospitals." It has not. This is a fact, little-known but true, and easily verifiable by simply trying to find a destroyed hospital (you won't be able to). What Israel has done, in rare and isolated instances, is fired tank shells at areas of hospitals with Hamas militants.

I don't blame you for making these mistakes, as the information space is poisoned, but if you're interested in being correct rather than ideological you owe it to yourself to (at bare minimum) show me (and yourself) which Gaza hospital has been reduced to rubble.

In terms of "sappers" it is true that Israel has sent special forces into hospitals with confirmed Hamas presence, but that is very different from "bombing and leveling hospitals," an alluring but ultimately false claim.

This is all occurring against a backdrop in which Hamas has weaponized hospitals. For example, they brought Israeli hostages to Gaza hospitals. They have killed an Israeli hostage in a Gaza hospital (and sent video to the family of the slain hostage). They have built tunnels under hospitals. They shoot from hospitals. They meet in hospitals. etc.

...What an odd and dishonest framing of the problem. Do you define "hospital not destroyed" as "some walls are still standing"? Because an easy counterpoint to your claim is the Al-Shifa Hospital, which you will certainly agree cannot be operational in this state and thus can be defined as "destroyed":

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/%D9%85%D...

And this is one example out of the many: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_health_facilities_d...

People keep repeating that Al-Shifa is not operational. That claim does not match current primary sources.

1) UNICEF (Feb 5, 2026) reports restoration of pediatric intensive care services at Al-Shifa, including 7 PICU beds equipped with ventilators, monitors, and oxygen. https://www.unicef.org/sop/media/6131/file/Humanitarian%20Si...

2) OCHA (Dec 1, 2025) explicitly lists current service lines at Al-Shifa: 7-bed PICU, pediatric post-op inpatient care, hemodialysis, and emergency care. https://www.ochaopt.org/content/gaza-humanitarian-response-s...

3) WHO (UN Geneva briefing, Dec 12, 2025) states Al-Shifa was working again as a partially functional tertiary care hospital with many services functional. https://www.unognewsroom.org/story/en/2946/un-geneva-press-b...

4) ACAPS (Feb 5, 2026) says that by Jan 19 Al-Shifa was receiving around 500 patients daily. https://www.acaps.org/fileadmin/Data_Product/Main_media/2026...

Operational does not mean intact or well-supplied. It means treating patients and running services. The above sources show it is.

Okay, you go get treatment at that facility if it's working as well as you insist.

Besides, whether the facility is (partially!) operational today is besides the point. Your original post insisted that "Israel has destroyed no hospitals", while it clearly has. The picture I linked is from 2024. The fact that Al-Shifa was brought back to a partially operating state in late 2025, after months of partial ceasefire, doesn't disprove that it was destroyed in 2024. Sources like https://en.yenisafak.com/world/al-shifa-hospital-begins-reco... show that the situation is far from positive.

And, again, this is just one example of the many.

You said al Shifa isn't operational. I proved it is. Now you're trying to redefine "operational" to mean "yes, you can get treatment at the hospital but it's not working well." That's a major switcheroo.

I stand by my claim that Israel has not bombed any hospital buildings. If you think this is false, find me a hospital building that Israel has bombed, tell me when it's been bombed, the munition used, etc.

It's pointless to read further. This post is by a bot.

Israel is an oppressive, genocidal, apartheid illegally occupying force. You can't compare the two sides.

Palestinians have been under this assault by Israel and Zionists in general for nearly a century. Defending anything Israel does at this point is indefensible. Their context has ALWAYS been wrong and they've been caught lying so many times it's more accurate to believe exactly the opposite of anything the IDF says.

A word salad of false claims.

This is wildly one-sided and basically incorrect. The Palestinians initiated multiple conflicts against the Jews, even before the foundation of Israel. The Jewish people beat them back every time, and this same pattern continued after the Israel's founding. What happened throughout history when someone beat back a hostile enemy that attacked them? The loser lost territory, resources, and freedoms.

Which isn't to say that Israel hasn't done some seriously unethical things, but this notion that the Palestinians are poor innocent victims that have never hurt a soul and carry no blame for their situation going back a century is absurd and ahistorical.

This conflict has nothing to do with "the Jews," and framing it in that way seriously distorts it.

It's a conflict between the native population of Palestine and people who came in from the outside with the goal of making Palestine their own. The outsiders won for a number of reasons (British backing, superior political organization, etc.). They now rule over the native population, most of whom they deny any rights to. They justify this by saying the native population deserves it because it hates them and resists them.

It is about the Jews, because the Arab population started violent conflicts against Jews who were legally purchasing land up through Israel's founding. Palestinians lost territory because of the violence they repeatedly started, despite legitimate military losses over territory and new borders drawn by armistices.

Please read some history:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47159524

The Israelis could be Shinto or Sikh, and it would make no difference at all to the Palestinians.

The Palestinians just care that foreigners came in and took over their land.

By casting this as the Palestinians hating "the Jews," you're trying to frame the conflict as just another example of antisemitism. The Palestinians get cast in the role of the Nazis, and the Israelis get to pretend they're the victims of antisemitism.

The actual situation is completely flipped. The Israelis exercise military rule over the Palestinians and subject them to an apartheid system, not the other way around.

It’s not though. Before the British gifted land to the Israelis they owned 7% of the land through land purchases and just ended up with 51% of the land after pressuring the British to leave with a series hotel and car bombs. So, yeah the Palestinians were victims and then about 750,000 of those people were forced from their homes into crowded ghettos Nazi style. All of that occurred irrespective of any armed conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians.