Quote:
Originally Posted by RobotTalk
I didn't say Israel was justified in bombing targets hidden under civilian sites (refugee camps/hospitals/schools) because it put fear in the population and that's how they'll defeat hamas. They're justified in doing it because taking out Hamas' leadership (as was the case here, where they hit a senior commander) and ability to wage war (by bombing arms stocks, fuel depots, other combat supporting infrastructure) will shorten the war, ergo hitting those targets is justified.
None of the attacks against civilians Hamas engaged in on Oct. 7 were in anyway designed to degrade Israel's combat power. They were purely designed to provoke an Israeli reaction in the hopes of derailing Saudi-Israeli normalization, religious extremism (the whole Islamists killing infidel thing we've been dealing with for the last 20 odd years, and (likely, but this claim is a bit more speculative) out of a desire for retribution for perceived Israeli crimes.
It's like the Israeli's not letting in fuel supplies. Without fuel, eventually Hamas won't be able to maintain life support systems in their tunnels. Until those tunnels are uninhabitable, they remain a major obstacle to ending the war so making those tunnels uninhabitable has to be a priority even if it creates civilian suffering. It's tragic, but it's a war, and after Hamas' Oct. 7 crimes there can be no justifying Hamas' continued existence.
|
What I am saying is if Hamas says that in their calculations they did the attacks to put pressure and end the occupation/settlements, would that be acceptable to you? Or is it only Israel which is allowed to kill civilians?