I understand why you see the grammatical parallelism as offensive, but I don't take Tof to have intended that to suggest moral parallelism. Indeed, the phrase "tragically indirect" communicates what I take to have been the intended parallel: that, on this occasion, the conflict involved an escalation from the house-by-house operations undertaken by Israel in the past in an admirable attempt to limit civilian casualties among the Palestinians, despite the additional danger this posed to Israeli soldiers. I take necessitating that, and the use of human shields, to be on the heads of Hamas. If we cannot acknowledge the human costs of the Israeli response, it seems to me that we ignore suffering for which Hamas is culpable.Tof, the part where you compare Israel to Hamas is revolting and offensive to any person who sees beyond the propaganda. You write "consisting largely of Hamas launching rockets out of Gaza and Israel sending missiles in from planes and drones" as if it's tit for tat.
I asked a friend once "what's a terrorist? How do you define one?" and he answered by saying that "it's subjective, for one he is a terrorist, for another a freedom fighter." Well - "wrong" I told him. "It's not subjective at all, and it's actually quite simple: If you target civilians you're a terrorist. If you target soldiers, you're not." Simple.
Well Hamas targets almost always civilians making them terrorists while Israel never ever aimed for civilians, and actually takes more care than the US, UK, France, etc do in Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria to minimize civilians casualties. The proof - that Hamas uses human shields as it knows it deters Israel from taking action. But since Hamas is fighting and shooting rockets from inside cities, ensures that civilians will get hurt. By the way, international law dictates that he who uses human shields is the one responsible for their fate, not the attacker. And rightly so.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests