Such arguments are popular with people who want human shields to be effective, to grant Hamas the ability to launch attacks against civilians from hospitals and schools and mosques with impunity, which I consider immoral.
“Avoid publishing pictures of rockets fired into Israel from city centers. This [would] provide a pretext for attacking residential areas in the Gaza Strip. Do not publish or share photos or video clips showing rocket launching sites or the movement of resistance [forces] in Gaza.”
Guess we should just let them keep killing people while hiding behind hostages? Because that's the alternative, and it guarantees more hostage taking in the future. Foolish.
More like, shoots to kill terrorist no matter what, even if it means a hostage might be hit. Eliminates the threat and disincentivizes hostage taking in the future because it's not effective.
It's not a genocide, there's nothing to apologize for. Keep misusing the term and it will become meaningless.
That hospital was a legal target. Hamas used it for military purposes. There's a mountain of evidence supporting this at this point, including this article.
It's interesting how often I hear this cited, the implication being that women and children under 18 couldn't possibly be militants, which is not true. Also, that doesn't fundamentally change the situation, but it does play for sympathy in the media. Evidently having a penis and being fully grown makes one less worthy of sympathy.
They might try to take out the hostage taker even if it meant a risk to the hostages, especially so if they were shooting civilians from behind said hostages.
This is Hamas hiding behind Palestinian children and civilians while shooting at Israelis. Some of them are going to get hurt until the threat is neutralized.
These people are out of touch with reality, now, let me tell you about my imaginary invisible friend who will torture us forever if we don't do what the men in robes and hats say he wants and tithe 10% of our income to them.
You can tell the terrible ones because they have an R next to their name. Clinton, Obama, and Biden have all been at the very least inoffensive and reasonable.
I don't know where you get your information, but I guarantee it's a terrible source. You think the fascists are opposing fascism, and that the people who tried to do a coup to steal democracy did nothing wrong.
If you consider Biden too evil to vote for, I don't know what to tell you, He's been one of the best presidents we've had recently and the resurgence of unions we're experiencing is thanks to him.
What women? This is a biased website with low credibility supposedly sharing an anonymous account from another website as though it were factual. There isn't even a name associated with these claims. More like, "believe Hamas." I'll believe it when there's evidence presented from a credible source. There's a lot of anti-Israeli disinformation floating around and this is a known source of it.
I'm not seeing anything about gazan medics being sniped by IDF in this current conflict, Google isn't returning any results that match what you are describing, can you provide a credible source?
Given that the average urban combat that involves explosives has 90% civilian casualties the 61% civilian casualties that Israel reportedly caused is actually evidence that they are very selective with their targets, not indiscriminate. Going in to a well-prepared urban terrorist den without air support would have led to many IDF casualties and is therefore a non-starter.
Such arguments are popular with people who want human shields to be effective, to grant Hamas the ability to launch attacks against civilians from hospitals and schools and mosques with impunity, which I consider immoral.