• nonailsleft@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well if you agree that it’s a question of how far you’re willing to move the slider, it’s a question of empathy. But when you say “aimed at the populace” that implies you believe they’re using Hamas as an excuse to kill innocent civilians.

    Do you honestly believe Israel would not prefer Hamas to assemble somewhere in the desert away from any civilians so they can take all of them out with a single bomb? Do you believe the Israelis would be sad if Hamas surrendered?

    • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Again, the displayed indifference towards civilian suffering is the core issue. Declaring the south as a ‘safe zone’ pre-ceasefire was a moral move (with disasterous humanitarian results), but now the safe areas are capricious defined and aren’t static,

      Regarding the “one bomb in the desert” question? Any other year, yes I’m sure they’d prefer that. But Bibi was already in serious legal trouble before Oct.7 and is openly deferring that issue until after the Hamas war. Keeping the conflict open, progressing slowly, or unresolved buys him time to find a way to stay out of jail.

      Is this an excuse for wanton murder of Gazans? You tell me? Certain elements of the coalition have openly made statements that at best call for displacement of Palestinians. Cutting off fuel, food, and water to a region under blockade, while those people are displaced and simultaneously refusing to allow aid in is ghoulish.