[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

This has, time and again, been answered comprehensively. The only times a suggestion that Israel do not retaliate against a terror organisation arises in the thread is when you, or a very small number of others, put it up as a straw man.

Nobody, anywhere else, in over a thousand posts has said it.

The real question is why some think that Palestinian civilians should be denied the rights and protections in international law that the post-WW2 rules of war set out.

If the Palestinian people rose up right now, and had the capability (they don’t, but it’s hypothetical) to fight back into Israeli civilian areas and decimate those to the ground nobody, anywhere would be saying “nobody is qualified to tell the Palestinian people how to respond to tens of thousands of their people massacred”.

It’d, rightly, be universally condemned. You’d have no shortage of comment from western political leaders.

The question hasn't been answered at all. It's been swerved by people who complain about civilian deaths. The only way of avoiding civilian deaths after the Hamas atrocities would have been no retaliation.

You people can't bring yourselves to acknowledge that because it is as impossible to have happened as your unanswerable question as to how many civilian deaths justify Israel's retaliation.



---------- Post added at 12:10 ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Are you drunk, seriously are you, if not it takes a special kind of stupid to draw that conclusion but in case your having a moment of clarity to clarify, if Netanyahu hadn't propped up hamas at the expense of the PA because he and his ilk can't stand the idea of Palestinian statehood hamas might not have been strong enough to carry out the attack

Another swerve from you.

Had Hamas carried out a different type of attack, with no barbarity, might not Israel's retaliation have been different and of lower consequences for the Gazan population.

My 'enough is enough' observation is spot on.