[jfman]

Originally Posted by Paul

As does your unwillingness to answer his question, it works both ways.

Which one?

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'll put a confected question to you: How many Israelis should be murdered by Hamas before Israel should pursue the eradication of Hamas?

Although not in direct response to this post, to a similar one I replied:

Originally Posted by jfman

Nobody disputes the overarching ambition, just questioning whether the slaughter of thousands of civilians and destruction of the homes/property of millions makes it more achievable.

If it’s this one:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

So, is terrorism the answer? Is it a justifiable 'last resort'? It's a vicious circle.

I don’t think it’s the answer. I do think it’s a justifiable last resort in some circumstances (no, not 7th October) against military targets or other state apparatus. I agree it’s a vicious circle.

The risk in not protecting civilians is some nefarious actors (Iran, Saudi, take your pick) will very easily bankroll future terrorist attacks with victims out for revenge and it’ll be easy for them to argue it’s both justifiable and necessary to move beyond my caveat above.

There may even be an Iranian niche tech forum where people blame Israelis for voting for Netanyahu, and rationalise targeting their civilian population that way.