I'm sure I have biases, but your example isn't convincing. Of course, I'm aware of such reports, and was so careful to write: "... MOST of the deaths in Gaza caused by Israel were at a distance." Which is correct, right?
I'm sure I have biases, but your example isn't convincing. Of course, I'm aware of such reports, and was so careful to write: "... MOST of the deaths in Gaza caused by Israel were at a distance." Which is correct, right?
Yes, that is correct. But I wonder if the absolute number of hand-to-hand deaths in Gaza exceeds 1200. In which case, there is moral equivalency there, at least in terms of that subset of Palestinian deaths. Deaths-from-a-distance near 50,000. So I don't think it would be surprising if the number of hand-to-hand deaths were around 1000 or so.
Why would the number of hand-to-hand deaths lead to a moral equivalency with a horrifc terrorist attack on innocent people. Israel is at war with a death cult who would prefer it if innocent Palestinian civilians died. How are you supposed to defeat a genuinely harmful enemy that wants to exterminate you, who also wants their own people to die, so uses them as literal human shields and prevents them from leaving areas that you've told civilians to leave. I have no idea, and yet, using the most liberal estimates of deaths in Palestine (those from the Gaza health ministry) still shows that Israel have had the (or one of) fewest civilian casualties for each combatant killed in any guerilla warfare of the last 40 odd years
Hard to address this because many тАЬfactsтАЭ you stated in here are provably false. Israel is actually the one using human shields. They often made Palestinians enter into buildings that were armed with high probability just to test them out. And also Israel does not care about its civilians. Its civilians are mostly safe and yet they left 100s to die as hostages. Hamas may have issues but it actually doesnтАЩt use human shields. That has been debunked.
I'm sure I have biases, but your example isn't convincing. Of course, I'm aware of such reports, and was so careful to write: "... MOST of the deaths in Gaza caused by Israel were at a distance." Which is correct, right?
Yes, that is correct. But I wonder if the absolute number of hand-to-hand deaths in Gaza exceeds 1200. In which case, there is moral equivalency there, at least in terms of that subset of Palestinian deaths. Deaths-from-a-distance near 50,000. So I don't think it would be surprising if the number of hand-to-hand deaths were around 1000 or so.
Why would the number of hand-to-hand deaths lead to a moral equivalency with a horrifc terrorist attack on innocent people. Israel is at war with a death cult who would prefer it if innocent Palestinian civilians died. How are you supposed to defeat a genuinely harmful enemy that wants to exterminate you, who also wants their own people to die, so uses them as literal human shields and prevents them from leaving areas that you've told civilians to leave. I have no idea, and yet, using the most liberal estimates of deaths in Palestine (those from the Gaza health ministry) still shows that Israel have had the (or one of) fewest civilian casualties for each combatant killed in any guerilla warfare of the last 40 odd years
Hard to address this because many тАЬfactsтАЭ you stated in here are provably false. Israel is actually the one using human shields. They often made Palestinians enter into buildings that were armed with high probability just to test them out. And also Israel does not care about its civilians. Its civilians are mostly safe and yet they left 100s to die as hostages. Hamas may have issues but it actually doesnтАЩt use human shields. That has been debunked.